9728 GUTENBEEG: was Ke tlie Inventor of Printing H ^An historical 
 Investigation embodying a Criticism on Dr. Van deb Linde'S 
 " Gutenberg," by J. H. HESSELS, 1 vol. Svo.xxviii and 202pp. 
 hf. morocco, 21s 1882 
 
 The best and most critical account of the History of Printing with movable 
 type. Every document connected with the History of the Invention of Printing 
 has been verified by the energetic and intelligent author. The mystery still 
 remains— who was the vnventor of Printing? That Gutenberg was an ewly 
 printer Mr. Hessels fully admits. 
 
 Only 200 copies were printed for sale. 
 
 Mr. J. H. Hessels, the translator of Van der Linde's " Coster Legend," 
 commenced a series of articles about two years ago in the London Prmlmg 
 Times, under the title of " Gutenberg : was he the Inventor of Printing ?" 
 being a review of a more recent work by the same author entitled " Gutenberg." 
 The articles came to a sudden termination, the writer finding it necessaiy to 
 consult various documents abroadjn order to arrive at certain facts. The long 
 silence which intervenad has at, laat be en broken by the_SPPearance,of_a±andr„ 
 some volume, now before us, in which Mr. Hessels has endeavoured to clear up 
 the mysteiy so long surrounding the identity of the first printer — and in order 
 to this ho paid two visits to Paris and spent seven weeks in Germany exploring 
 the libraries and archives of Strassburg, Mentz, and other prominent cities. 
 While it is impossible to resuscitate the corpse of the mythical Holland 
 prototypographer Coster, the result of Mr. Hessels' researches do not justify him 
 in giving Gutenberg the credit of mventing the art, but only establishing the 
 fact of his being a printer — and he I'egrets that after all his labours be must 
 leave the quest on which he started yet unsolved, summarizing the result of his 
 investigation in the following statement : — 
 
 "As early as (Nov. 16) 1454 two printers were at Wort at Mentz ; the name^ 
 of one of them may have been Johann Gutenberg; (perhaps subsidized by 
 Johann Fust), but it is not stated anywhere; the name of the other is, in all 
 probability, Peter (SchocfFer) de Gernssheym. That the latter did not consider 
 himself to have been the first, or even the chief, printer (of Mentz), seems 
 sufiiciently clear from what we may call his own statement, in the imprint of 
 the Justinianus of 24 May, 1468, in which he speaks of two Johannes. One of 
 these Johannes must have been Johann Fust ; who was the other? Everybody 
 says Gutenberg, and I am in no position to contradict it. 
 
 " A very complete account is given of several books from the press of the 
 Brothers of Common Life, not heretofore described ; and a photograph of a 
 page of "an Eltvillo book, the type of which has never been before noticed. 
 
 " Mr. Hessels' volume is one of great value to whoever may hereafter 
 follow in his wake, and a real acquisition to the history of printing. The work 
 is elegantly produced by Bernard Quaritch, consisting of xxvii, 201 pages, 
 octavo, printed on hand-made paper, Koxburghe binding — only 200 copies 
 printed for sale."— T?ie Quadrat, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.,- June, 1882. 
 
 "Every one interested in the early history of printing must read Mr. 
 Hessels' book itself. It is both destructive and constructive : much of the 
 ground upon which the claim for Gutenberg was raised, • is cleared away, but 
 still nothing is discovered that actually destroys that claim. In his work of 
 destruction Mr. Hessels has constructed a solid foundation of bibliographical 
 fact for others to follow np by further researches,"— STieBibWosrapTiw, August, 
 1S82. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 Z126.H58 G9 
 
 Gutenberg: was !ie,,«he "ffinlffL.'S/iiK^ 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 494 303 
 
 All books are subject to recall after two weeks 
 Olin/Kroch Library 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f\U[j 
 
 --fr-^/O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 

GUTENBERG: 
 
 Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 
 
{Only zoo Copies printed for Sale.) 
 
 I All Rights Reset ved.] 
 
GUTENBERG: 
 
 J4^as he the Inventor of Printing ? 
 
 AN 
 
 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION 
 
 EMBODYING 
 
 A CRITICISM ON DR. VAN DER LINDE'S "GUTENBERG." 
 
 •;^ BY 
 
 ]i H.-^ HESS ELS. 
 
 LONDON : 
 BERNARD QUARITCH, 
 
 15 PICCADILLY. 
 1882. 
 
 :: < 
 

 ^.^^gr- 
 
 WVMAN AND SONS, PRINTERS, 
 
 GREAT QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS, 
 
 LONDON, W.C. 
 
TO 
 
 HENRY BRADSHAW, 
 
 IN TESTIMONY OF 
 
 MY HIGH ADMIRATION OF 
 
 HIS SINGULARLY PROFOUND, EXACT, AND ORIGINAL 
 
 l^notDleUge of 33t6ItograpI)^ 
 f 
 
 AND KINDRED SUBJECTS, 
 
 AND 
 
 AS A MARK OF MY GRATITUDE 
 
 FOR THE GENEROUS INSTRUCTION 
 
 TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN SO LARGELY INDEBTED 
 
 FOR MANY YEARS. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029494303 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE present work was originally intended 
 to be merely a "review" of Dr. Van 
 der Linde's "Gutenberg." When, in 1879, 
 the editor of the Printing Times and Litho- 
 grapher asked me to write such a review for 
 that periodical, I readily undertook to do so, 
 in the idea that Dr. Van der Linde had as 
 ably handled the Gutenberg, as he had the 
 Haarlem Coster question, and that, conse- 
 quently, my task would be easy. 
 
 The Gutenberg question was comparatively 
 new to me ; it had scarcely any attractions for 
 me, and my time was very much occupied by 
 other work. But I hoped, that when I had 
 read Dr. Van der Linde's 800 pages, pro- 
 fessing to be based on documents, I should 
 have obtained all the information I wanted, 
 and should, at the same time, be able to lay 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 before the English public such particulars with 
 regard to this subject as might reasonably 
 be desired. 
 
 I regret to say that Dr. Van der Linde's 
 work proved to be quite insufficient to satisfy 
 such a modest demand. We owe him, indeed, 
 great thanks for having brought many things 
 together which are worth reading. But it is 
 clear that Dr. Van der Linde intended, in the 
 first place, to write a book on Dr. Van der 
 Linde himself, and that Gutenberg occupies a 
 secondary place in his work. 
 
 In his "Haarlem Legend" Dr. Van der Linde 
 complains that people often write books on the 
 principle of " taking three books and making a 
 fourth of it." It is singular that his own 
 " Gutenberg " is compiled entirely on this 
 principle, the only difference being that he 
 has taken a greater number of books. I 
 cannot believe that Dr. Van der Linde left 
 his study, at any time, for even half a minute, 
 for the purpose of research {see also p. 99). 
 
 I feel scarcely inclined to blame him for 
 this shortcoming. Had I myself been able to 
 realise beforehand the time, the trouble, and 
 the expense that this Gutenberg-study would 
 cost me, I should have abandoned the subject 
 
Preface. ix 
 
 at the outset. The question is surrounded 
 on every side by endless difficulties : little 
 points, which by themselves seem to have no 
 importance whatever, proved, on examination, 
 to be real and substantial links in the chain of 
 inquiry, which had to be mastered before 
 anything further could be attempted, and they 
 very often could only be mastered in far, out- 
 of-the-way places, or from books which very 
 few would think of consulting nowadays. I 
 soon found that to quote from any author 
 without verification was out of the question, 
 least of all from Dr. Van der Linde. Apart 
 from the reading of books and documents at 
 home, I was compelled to go twice to Paris 
 to consult books which are only to be found 
 there in the National Library. I spent seven 
 weeks in Germany, exploring the Libraries and 
 Archives of Strassburg, Heidelberg, Darm- 
 stadt, Mentz, Frankfurt, Hochst on the Nidder 
 (a private library, see p. 86), WUrzburg, Bruns- 
 wick, Wolfenbuttel, Hannover, and Hamburg. 
 That Dr. Van der Linde did not feel disposed 
 for such labour is not surprising. But it is 
 matter for amazement that his book, which I 
 have found wanting in every particular 
 regarding the main question, should have been 
 
X Preface. 
 
 written in such a tone of authority and 
 decision, and with such remarkable intolerance 
 of everything that Dr. Van der Linde does not 
 approve. His vehemence in speaking of his 
 opponents' mistakes, or errors of judgment, is 
 never agreeable ; but when we consider that he , 
 has fallen into as many mistakes as any of his 
 predecessors and imagined a great deal more 
 than any one of them, and yet had far better 
 opportunities for obtaining trustworthy in- 
 formation, his vehemence becomes a pheno- 
 menon which I leave to others to explain. 
 
 Pages I to 33 of the present book have 
 already appeared in the Printing Times and 
 Lithographer, in the numbers for February, 
 March, April, and May, 1880, and it was in- 
 tended to insert the whole essay in this 
 periodical. But my work began to be so 
 frequently interrupted on account of the in- 
 quiries I had to make, and it increased so 
 much, that it was not considered advisable 
 to continue the articles in that periodical. 
 The portions already published were at once 
 printed off at the time in book-form, and 
 re-appear, therefore, unaltered. 
 
 The tide of my work asks : Was Gutenberg 
 the inventor of printing ? I regret that, after 
 
Preface. xi 
 
 all my labour, I have not found anything 
 which enables me to answer this question 
 either with yes or no. Of the three principal 
 documents one is lost entirely (see pp. 185, 
 186) ; the other two are only preserved in 
 transcripts {see pp. loi, 121). In ordinary 
 cases, transcripts may be safely relied upon, but 
 — considering all the extraordinary forgeries 
 and frauds perpetrated on this subject — cau- 
 tion is more than ever necessary. But, even if 
 we accept the transcripts, and base ourselves 
 on what we have, I can only see that these 
 documents point to Gutenberg as a printer, 
 but not as an inventor of printing, and — that is 
 the main question. The Incunabula, which 
 are usually ascribed to Gutenberg, tell us 
 nothing about him, and, what is still more 
 remarkable, they may with the utmost facility 
 be ascribed to other printers, and have actually 
 been ascribed to others. 
 
 On p. 189 I have stated the result of my 
 inquiry as faV as I feel at liberty to formulate 
 it myself This formulation is not based. on 
 speculations, but is legitimately deduced from 
 facts explained in my work. If any one can 
 point out errors in my inquiry, my formulation 
 of its result must, of course, be erroneous also. 
 
xii Preface. 
 
 No one will be more ready than myself to 
 accept new discoveries which may lead to a 
 different result. I have, no doubt, fallen into 
 mistakes (some I have already been able to 
 discover myself, see the list of corrigenda) ; but 
 I can honesdy say that I have not been influ- 
 enced by enthusiasm for one side or prejudice 
 against another, — my only aim has been to 
 arrive at the truth. Had I been able to 
 pronounce in favour of Gutenberg's claim, or 
 to bestow unqualified praise on Dr. Van der 
 Linde's work, nothing would have been more 
 agreeable to me. 
 
 But, though I must leave the main question 
 of my book unanswered, I may yet claim, 
 by the removal of old errors on the one hand, 
 and the discovery of new facts on the other, to 
 have narrowed considerably the issue with 
 which we shall have to deal in the future. In 
 the first place, the theory of a continuance of 
 Gutenberg's printing-office till far into the i6th 
 century through the Fratres communis vit(z of 
 Marienthal and Friedrich Heumann of Mentz, 
 can no longer be maintained {see pp. 130, 140, 
 141), unless all my researches prove to be 
 wrong. Secondly, the discovery of the fraud 
 
Preface. xiii 
 
 in the " Prognostication," preserved at Darm- 
 stadt {see p. Ill sq.), has enabled me to 
 remove at once seven books from the List of 
 works usually ascribed to Gutenberg. Thirdly, 
 the discovery of one of the initials of the 
 30-line Indulgence of 1454, in an Indulgence 
 of 1489 printed by Peter Schoeffer, coupled 
 with other circumstances {see pp. 1 66, 171) has 
 enabled me to remove from this List also the 
 42-line Bible, and the other works in the same 
 type, and to ascribe them to Schoeffer. Lastly, 
 I have devoted a considerable portion of my 
 work to the productions of the Bechtermunczes 
 of Eltville, in order to see what truth there 
 could be in the statement of certain authors 
 regarding a continuance of Gutenberg's print- 
 ing-office through them. Here again I had to 
 leave the point at issue just as it stood for 
 want of material necessary for a decision ; but 
 I have been able to describe with great care 
 the four editions of the Vocabularius Ex quo 
 issued from the Eltville press, and to describe 
 a fifth work {see p. 179 sq.) produced at the 
 same press, of which hitherto the printer had 
 remained unknown. Of this latter work a 
 photograph accompanies my book. 
 
 In short, I believe I may claim to have 
 
xiv Preface. 
 
 shown, as far as possible, what are facts and 
 what is fiction with regard to Gutenberg, and 
 thereby to have made an historical and biblio- 
 graphical treatment of the subject possible. 
 
 All that I have found could have been found, 
 and ought to have been found, by Germans ; 
 and I have no doubt that more will be found, 
 whenever the private and public libraries 
 of Germany come to be properly explored. 
 The Germans themselves have hitherto done 
 very little more than talk about Gutenberg 
 {see also p. 1 14). If every library could have 
 its 15th-century books catalogued by com- 
 petent persons on the system inaugurated by 
 the late Mr. Holtrop in his " Catalogus 
 librorum saec. xv° impressorum in Bibl. regia 
 Hagana," published in 1856, and by Mr. Brad- 
 shaw in his publications {see p. 3), whom 
 Mr. Sinker followed in his " Catalogue of the 
 15th-century printed books in the Library of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge," published in 
 1876, our knowledge of these books would 
 soon be on another footing.* 
 
 * When we mention books which have advanced our 
 knowledge of xv^i^-century printing, we must not forget two 
 very important works, which have not been matched any- 
 
Preface. xv 
 
 It will, perhaps, be thought that I have been 
 too diffuse in treating of some of the docu- 
 ments ; e.g. that of 1455, which occupies the 
 pages 63-102. But it should not be forgotten 
 that when I prepared myself for reviewing Dr. 
 Van der Linde's work, I found him, to my 
 astonishment, refer, in regard to this document, 
 to a mere title {see his p. li. No. 376, at the end 
 of his work), prefixed in 171 2 to a transcript 
 made in that year by Von Glauburg, from a 
 transcript, which was asserted to have been 
 made, in 1600, by J oh. Friedr. Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg, from an original of which I 
 could find no trace. When I further saw Dr. 
 Van der Linde state that this Von Glauburg 
 
 where ; namely, Mr. Holtrop's Monuments typographiques 
 des Pays-Bos, and Mr. William ' Blades' Life of Caxton. 
 The latter's work is unrivalled for its minute and thorough 
 analysis and examination of Caxton's several types. 
 
 The "Annales de la Typographie Neerlandaise au xv° 
 sikle" (1874, 1878) by Mr. Campbell, the Librarian of the 
 Hague, embody the Incunabula of the Low-Countries 
 arranged in an Alphabetical order, which had been formerly 
 described by Mr. Holtrop, arranged under towns and 
 printers. 
 
 In 1880 the Authorities of the St. Gallen Chapter-Library 
 published a Catalogue of their Incunabula, arranged like 
 the "Annales" of Mr. Campbell. 
 
xvi Preface. 
 
 (who himself said that he copied from a tran- 
 script) had also supplied Kohler with an 
 authentic (!) copy, I felt bound to make in- 
 quiries [see p. 63, note). The process was a 
 long one, and the result could, perhaps, have 
 been given in a single page, but seeing the 
 state of confusion in which Wetter and Dr. 
 Van der Linde were with regard to this docu- 
 ment {see p. 93), I thought it better to publish 
 my article just as I had written it down 
 while making the researches. Future authors 
 on Gutenberg will be able to condense all I 
 have said into a few lines. But we shall now 
 know at least that they cannot speak again of 
 an original, unless they have actually found 
 one themselves. 
 
 I have avoided all direct reference to the 
 tradition of a Haarlem Invention of Printing, 
 because, having no opportunities at present to 
 make researches in this direction, I feel bound 
 to abide by the results which Dr. Van der 
 Linde made known in 1870. I have never 
 made any thorough examination of the Haarlem 
 question, but such inquiries as I have made 
 have led me to believe that the Haarlem claim 
 cannot be maintained. At the appearance of 
 Dr. Van der Linde's Haarlem Legend m. 1870, 
 
Preface. xvii 
 
 I was so struck by its excellency that I trans- 
 lated the work into English. Now, that I 
 have made a thorough examination of his work 
 on Gutenberg, and have found this book so 
 singularly unreliable, I should wish to go over 
 the ground by which he reached his results 
 with respect to the Haarlem question. Dr. 
 Van der Linde appears to be most easily led 
 away by what he reads, if only it coincides with 
 his views.* He believes, for instance, in 
 
 * I am, moreover, afraid that Dr. Van der Linde has not 
 sufficiently realised the importance, in studies of this kind, 
 of being able to read the contractions so common in 
 mediaeval writing and even in early printing. In the verses 
 "Scema tabernaculi &c.," which appeared for the first time 
 in the Institutiones Justiniani of 1468, and are said to have 
 originated with Joh. Pons, the chi6f corrector in Schoeffer's 
 office. Dr. Van der Linde (p. 287) prints, in line 13, repetire, 
 a word which never existed. The edition itself has repire, 
 which is, of course, rep^rire. Dr. Van der Linde's quota- 
 tion has, in this instance, all the appearance of having been 
 copied from the original, and as his book contains other 
 misreadings of contractions (I remember at least two more 
 examples: see his p. 290, line 6 from foot, ita for iam ; 
 line 4 from foot, quoqice modo for quoquomodo), it seems 
 not unreasonable to assume that his rep^^ire is not a 
 misprint. This deficiency on his part, and the fact that 
 he is unacquainted with the dating of mediaeval documents 
 {see my pp. 12, 13), suggest the two questions ; whether 
 Dr. Van der Linde gives his documents correctly, and 
 
 c 
 
xviii Preface. 
 
 everything that Madden (in his Lettres d'un 
 Bibliographe, Paris, 1868-75) has written; e.g. 
 on p. 260 he informs us that Madden has 
 "strikingly shown" that in the first printing- 
 offices an anagnostes (reader, lector) dictated 
 to several compositors at the same time, and 
 that consequently often three editions of the 
 same work appeared at one and the same 
 time. 
 
 It would lead me too far out of my way to 
 discuss this point here. Suffice it to say that 
 I have examined M. Madden's arguments, with 
 the incunabula before me, and found them 
 breaking down at the first touch. Guided by 
 such "showings," however, Dr. Van der Linde 
 seems quite ready to write anything ; see his 
 p. 454, where he suggests that the editions of 
 the Donatus, which are, on good grounds, pre- 
 sumed to be Dutch productions, were perhaps 
 printed in the convent at Weidenbach where 
 Madden professes to have discovered a 15th- 
 century printing -establishment. It is sur- 
 prising that Dr. Van der Linde makes these 
 
 whether in his researches he does not miss certain points 
 which would present that which he gives us in a different 
 light? 
 
Preface. xix 
 
 suggestions without verifying any of Maddens 
 points, and notwithstanding that he had ex- 
 pressed (on p. 99) his gratification at M. 
 Campbell's proceedings in placing these incu- 
 nabula at "Utrecht"? 
 
 In the Bibliographical descriptions of docu- 
 ments and incunabula, care has been taken to 
 represent as exactly as possible the signs of 
 contraction or peculiar types of the originals. 
 Some of these types, however, were manufac- 
 tured for the occasion, and it is possible that 
 some of them may have become deranged in 
 the process of printing. In some cases the 
 contractions of the originals have been ex- 
 panded by italics. 
 
 I have given no photographs of any book or 
 document (except a page of an Eltville book, 
 the type of which has hitherto remained 
 entirely unnoticed), because Mr. Bradshaw has 
 already several photographs made of works 
 published by the primitive German Presses for 
 the purpose of bringing out at some future 
 time an atlas of such plates. 
 
 In the course of my researches in the British 
 Museum, in the Paris National Library, and in 
 Germany, I met everywhere great readiness to 
 assist me. Especially I have to thank M. 
 
XX Preface. 
 
 Thierry, of the Paris National Library; the 
 Darmstadt Archivists, Dr. Freiherr Schenk zu 
 Schweinsberg and Dr. Wyss ; Dr. Bockel, the* 
 Secretary of the Mentz Library ; Dr. Grotefend, 
 the Archivist of Frankfurt, and Dr. Ernst 
 Kelchner, of the Frankfurt Town Library ; 
 Professor Dr. Otto von Heinemann, the Wol- 
 fenbiittel Librarian ; Dr. Isler, the Librarian, 
 and Herr Haack, the Custos, of the Hamburg 
 Town Library ; the Burgomasters of Hamburg 
 (Dr. Kirchenpauer) and Frankfurt (Dr. 
 Heusenstamm) granted me special facilities 
 for research, which the ordinary rules of their 
 Libraries did not allow to strangers ; Herr 
 Senator Culemann, at Hannover, gave me for 
 two days unrestricted access to his treasures, 
 among which a collection of Letters of In- 
 ^dulgence is certainly most remarkable. The 
 only place where I met with strange incivility 
 and an absolute refusal, was the Roman 
 Catholic Seminary at Mentz, though I had 
 an introduction to the authorities from the 
 well-known Professor Schneider, Prebendary 
 of the Dom-Kirche of Mentz. I cannot help 
 thinking that this treatment was owing to 
 some misunderstanding. 
 
 Professor Paul Meyer has kindly verified for 
 
Preface. xxi 
 
 me, on three or four occasions, certain points 
 in the Paris Library, and assisted me in other 
 ways. Professor Dr. Karl von Halm, the 
 Librarian of the Munich Library, has greatly 
 facilitated my work by kindly forwarding to 
 me the Vocabularius Ex quo of 1477 {see p. 
 149), and the Thomas de Aquino, Summa, of 
 35 lines {see p. 180). Of the latter work he 
 allowed me to give a photograph of one of 
 its pages. 
 
 Though my task has been difficult and 
 wearisome, it was considerably lightened by 
 the kind and generous interest which Mr. 
 Henry Bradshaw, the Cambridge University 
 Librarian, has taken in the progress of the 
 work. His patience, his intimate knowledge 
 of the subject, and his keen judgment, often 
 helped me out of difficulties when I was 
 perplexed by the intricacies of the subject. 
 He has spent many hours in considering, 
 weighing, and correcting certain portions of 
 my work. I have often had occasion to men- 
 tion him, but I am indebted to him for more 
 than I have pointed out. In fact, Mr. Brad- 
 shaw has so freely communicated to me his 
 views on many important matters, and I have 
 so freely made use of all his suggestions, that 
 
xxii Preface. 
 
 my only fear is lest the publication of this 
 work should lead him to think that he may 
 dispense with the publication of a work of 
 his own, for which he has been preparing a 
 long time. This circumstance I should regret, 
 for I must have left unsaid a great many 
 things, and I feel sure that what I have said 
 could have been brought out by him in a far 
 better way. 
 
 J. H. HESSELS. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 April 12, 1882. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Preface, table of contents, corrigenda, &c. > vii-xxviii 
 
 Introductory l-il 
 
 Document I. Letter of 24 March, 1424 (a forgery) ... 11, 182 
 
 ,, 2. Contract of 16 Jan., 1430 12, 182 
 
 ,, 3. Decision of the Archbp. of Mentz, of 28 
 
 March, 1430 I3> 183 
 
 Gutenberg at Strassburg : 
 
 Act of 14 March, 1434 
 
 Contractor 30 May, 1434 
 
 Breach of promise case of 1437 (a fiction) 
 
 Law-suit of 1439 
 
 Act of Jan. 12 to March 25, 1441 
 
 A relic of Gutenberg's (?) press, 1441 
 
 Act of 17 Nov., 1442 
 
 Items in a Strassburg Register from July, 
 1439 to 12 March, 1444 
 
 18, 
 
 182 
 
 IP. 
 
 182 
 
 19, 
 
 I«1 
 
 2,S. 
 
 I8S 
 
 s«. 
 
 182 
 
 s«, 
 
 184 
 
 60, 
 
 182 
 
 61, 182 
 
 Gutenberg at Mentz: 
 
 12. Letter dated 17 Oct., 1448 62, 182 
 
 13. Notarial Act, 3 July, I4S3 (a forgery) ... 63, 182 
 
 14. Law-suit of 1 45 S 63, 189 
 
 15. Instrument dated 21 June, 1457 103, 182 
 
 16. i^or^Ci/ imprint of 1458 103, 184 
 
 17. Letter of 20 July, I4S9 (a forgery) ... 105, 182 
 
 18. ,, 10 April, 1461 106, 182 
 
 19. Items in an Account-book of 1 46 1 ... 106, 182 
 
 20. Rubric of 19 June, 1463 (a forgery) ... 107, 184 
 
 21. Decree of 17 Jan., 1465 Ii4> 182 
 
 22. Entry of 2 Feb. (1468, but really before 1423), in an Anni- 
 versarium (not connected with Gutenberg) 116, 185 
 
 „ 23. Dr. Homery'sbondof 26Feb., 1468 ... 119. 189 
 
 Publications of Friedr. Heumann 126 
 
 Publications of the Fratres communis vitse of Marienthal ... 13' 
 
 Publications of the Eltville Press Hi 
 
XXIV 
 
 Contents. 
 
 Descriptive List of the types and works attributed 
 
 to Gutenberg i49 
 
 Types I and 2 
 
 Indulgence of 1454 and i4S5,3ilines 
 (with Folding- Plate facing p. 1 50) 
 
 Type I continued 
 Manung for 1455 
 Kalendar for 1457 
 Cisianus 
 
 Donatus, 27 lines 
 Donatus, 27 lines 
 Donatus, 30 lines 
 Bible of 36 lines 
 Pfister's works 
 
 Types 3 and 4 ... 
 Indulgence of 1454 and 1455,30 lines 
 (with Folding-Plate facing p. 150) 
 
 Type 3 continued 
 
 Donatus of 24 or 25 or 26 lines 
 Donatus of 32 lines 
 Donatus of 33 lines 
 Donatus of 33 lines 
 Bible of 42 lines 
 Cantica of 42 lines ... 
 Donatus of 35 lines 
 
 Type 5 
 
 Catholicon of 1460 
 
 Matt, de Cracovia, 30 lines 
 Thom. de Aquino, 34 lines 
 Thom. de Aquino, 36 lines 
 
 Types* 
 
 Indulgence of 1461, 15 lines 
 Bull of 1461, 32 lines (Qy. ? 
 isting?) 
 
 150 
 
 157 
 
 'Sf 
 158 
 
 159 
 159 
 160 
 i6r 
 
 164 
 
 168 
 
 169 
 
 170 
 
 xxvii 
 
 170 
 
 170 
 
 171 
 
 171 
 172 
 173 
 174 
 
 174 
 174 
 
 150 
 
 157 
 
 164 
 
 168 
 
 
 171 
 
 174 
 
 176 
 
 Type 6 
 
 Donatus of 27 lines (of 1451 
 rather later ?) 176 
 
 Types 7 and 8 (not Gutenberg's types) ... 107,178 
 Kalendar, or Prognostication for 
 
 1482, with yir/fyfei/ date 1460 ... loS 
 Tract, de celebr. missarum, with a 
 
 yo;-^«if date 1463 107 
 
 &> other works in these types ... 108 
 
 Eltville Press (with Photographic plate) 
 
 Summary review of documents 
 
 Formulation of result 
 
 Index ... 
 
 179 
 182 
 189 
 193 
 
CORRIGENDA, ADDENDA, &c. 
 
 Page 41, right hand column, line 30, read dangerous, instead of nice. 
 
 >, 43i 1. II II II 6| read quantity of pears instead of 
 
 deal of beer, 
 
 ,, 4^1 II 11 II II 381 at the reunion of the furriers is 
 
 wrong, as the German under 
 den Kiirsenem is the name of 
 some locality (like Unter den 
 Linden in Berlin). 
 
 I, 49, I, II I, I, 13, read baskets of pears instead of 
 
 flasks of beer. 
 [The above four corrections were pointed out by Dr. 
 WysSi one of the Archivists of Dannstadti in a review of 
 Dr. Van der Linde's work, published by him, in 1880, in 
 Quartalbldtter des hist. Vereins fUr Hessen, p. 1 6, when 
 my translation of the Law-suit of 1439 (in which I had 
 followed other authors, where I could not decide for 
 myself) had already been printed.] 
 
 ,, 9, line 19: "Mayence about 1400-I410 &c." These dates are, 
 of course, quoted from Dr. Van der Linde. Dr. Wyss 
 (1. c. p. 11) points out that, as in 1430 Gutenberg appears 
 as a member of a political party, his birth must be placed 
 earlier than "the end of the first decennium of the 15th 
 century." Dr. Heffner in the Archiv des hist, Vereins 
 von Unterfranken, xiv. I. 168 sqq., speaks of Gutenberg 
 as having been bom in 1397. 
 
 „ II, lines 16, 26, and 34, read 17 instead of 16. 
 
 ,, 17. The contemporary Narrative, to which I refer as published 
 by Bodmann, is regarded by Dr. Wyss (1. c. p. 22), as 
 another forgery of this curious Prof. Bodmann. I gladly 
 accept his opinion in the matter ; but the question really 
 arises : is there anything in this subject that we can 
 trust ? This Gutenberg-experience should cure us all 
 from the weakness of copying ! In the beginning of my 
 work I have done it occasion2Jly in unimportant matters 
 where verification was impossible, and nearly each time 
 fallen into the trap. 
 
 d 
 
xxvi Corrigenda, Addenda, &c. 
 
 Page 49, right hand column, line ig, for the six words to pay on St. 
 Henry's day, we must, probably, read to repay omy. Dr. 
 Grotefend, the Archivist of Frankfurt, told me last year 
 that he did not think there was a date in the German 
 text ; he would read lu instead of an ; cf. further Lexer's 
 _ Lexicon, ii. 524, sub v. riickes. 
 
 1, 54. right hand column, line 13 from foot : But when the pil- 
 grimage &c.' — Dr. Wyss (1. c. p. 12) points out that this 
 reference to a putting off of the Pilgrimage is rather sur- 
 prising, as there can be no question of such a putting off, 
 the pilgrimage having taken place in the year in which it 
 was to have taken place. A septennial tumus was cus- 
 tomary, and in a document of 1445 it is distinctly said 
 that the last pilgrimage had been that of 1440, and that 
 the next would be that of 1447; other documents speak 
 of a pilgrimage of 1391 ; therefore there would be a 
 series of 1391, 98, 1405, 12, 19, 26, 33, 40, 47 etc. — 
 Perhaps Wenckeir or Schoepflin have been asleep here. 
 
 ,, 58, line 4 from foot, read Schmidt instead oi Schmid. 
 
 „ 59, line 1 : it is 3 ft. &c. All this is not said by Dr. Van der 
 Linde, but quoted by him from K. Klein's article (in 
 Mainzer Wochenblatt, 1856, No. 45 sq.) on the so-called 
 discovery of the Press. 
 
 „ 60, lines 26, 39, 45 read Schmidt, instead of Schmid. 
 
 „ 71, line 16 from foot, ioxfidelino bis, tesAJideli nobis. 
 
 „ 102, line 6, read than, instead oithat. 
 
 „ 114, line 18, for iZJan., read: (am dorns tag sant Antonientag, 
 i.e. on Thursday, St. Anthony's day, i.e.) 17 Jan. 
 
 „ 119, Ime S from foot, for Friday after Febr. 24, 1468, read 
 Friday after Febr. 25, i.e. Febr. 26, 1468. In the 
 original draft of my work I had copied the dates of all 
 the documents from Dr. Van der Linde's work. Finding 
 afterwards that nearly all his dates were wrong, I verified 
 them gradually before the sheets went to press. I have 
 already pointed out some of his errors (see p. 12); but 
 unfortunately the pages, where the two last dates occur, 
 went to press without my remembering that I had not 
 verified them. I now beg the reader to rectify them. 
 The last document (Honiery's bond of 1468) is dated uff 
 fry tag nach Sant Mathys dag, i.e. on the Friday after St. 
 Matthias day. The Matthias day is, in common years, 
 the 24th of Febr., but in the year 1468, which was a 
 leap-year, it fell on the 2Sth, and as this was a Thursday, 
 the Friday following it was, therefore, the 26th. 
 
 ,, p. 131 : Fratres communis vitae of Marienthal. Petzholdt's A'«<«r 
 Anzeiger, April, 1882, contains an interesting article on 
 the Marienthal Press, by Dr. Falk, the Catholic Pastor 
 of Mombach, near Mentz, of which, a few days ago, he 
 kindly sent me a copy, with a facsimile of the two real 
 Marienthal types, and another of two types which Dr. 
 
' Corrigenda, Addenda, &c. xxvii 
 
 Falk ascribes also to the Fratres (and which he calls, 
 therefore, types 3 and 4) on account of certain portions 
 of the Marienthal Breviary of 1474, being mixed with 
 portions of a Breviary printed in these types (3 and 4), 
 preserved in the Library at Giessen. I am unable to 
 investigate this matter just now, and can only remark 
 here that Breviaries are sometimes made up of sheets or 
 leaves belonging to different editions, and that I have 
 reason to believe that Dr. Falk's types 3 and 4 are not 
 Marienthal types, but belong to some Cologne printer. 
 
 Page 152, Dr. Wyss (1. c. p. 24) informs us that, in the Archives at 
 Marburg, there is a copy of the Indulgence of Paulinus 
 Chappe of 1454, which was issued at ErfRird. As nearly 
 a third part (of the left hand side) has been torn off, the 
 month and day of the month cannot be given. As Dr. 
 Wyss says that the copy agrees vrith the facsimile given 
 by Bernard I, pi. v No. 3, I presume that it is a copy of 
 the 3 1 -line Indulgence, and probably belongs to the 
 issue c. 
 
 „ 153, line 7 (number 3). Dr. Wyss (1. c. p. 24) speaks of this 
 copy as being in the Baronial Riedesel Archives at 
 Eisenbach. As he gives no further information, it 
 remains uncertain to which of the several issues this copy 
 belongs. 
 
 ,, p. 170, number J. A facsimile of this Donatus may be seen in 
 Fischer's Typogr. Seltenh. pt. i ; cf. ib. p. 53, and 
 
 Pt-3P-23. 
 
 Sotheby (Pnnapia Typogr. 11. 175) mentions another 
 edition of 33 lines, in the same 42-line Bible type, of 
 which the two remaining leaves are preserved in the 
 Bodleian Library at Oxford. They had successively 
 belonged to Dr. Kloss (see the Catalogue of his Library, 
 sold by Messrs. Sotheby, May 7, 1835, No. 1287), and 
 the Bishop (Butler) of Lichfield. 
 
 When I visited Paris in the summer of 188 1 I took no 
 notice of this Donatus nor of the edition mentioned on 
 p. 171, because at that time I had no intention of inserting 
 in this work a List of the so-called Gutenberg Incuna- 
 bula ; hence these two works are mentioned without any 
 description. 
 
GUTENBERG : 
 WAS HE THE INVENTOR OF PRINTING?* 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde, the latest author on the Invention of 
 Printing, is a Hollander by birth, but a German by bias 
 and inclination. He is a scholar of great erudition, and 
 has been before the literary English public during the last 
 eight years. He has always been a lover of books and 
 equally fond of writing them. In 1864, a large portion of his 
 enormous library, the catalogue of which occupied nearly 
 400 octavo pages, was sold at Brussels. We have from 
 his hand treatises on the orthoepy of the English language— 
 the orthography of the Dutch Dictionary (in German) — 
 Bibliography of Haarlem — of David Joris — of Balthazar, 
 Bekker — of Benedictus Spinoza — several works on Chess — 
 also the History and Literature of Chess, 2 vols. 8vo. (in 
 German) — studies on Theology, Bibliography, &c. &c. 
 
 No one can be surprised that a Hollander of such 
 varied literary attainments should have his attention drawn 
 to what we may call the vexed question of the invention of 
 Printing. Our readers are aware that a controversy has 
 been carried on between several towns, not always very 
 temperately, almost ever since the first spread of the art, as 
 
 * Gutenberg, Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen nachge- 
 wiesen, von Dr. A. van der Linde. 8vo. Stuttgart, 1878. 
 
 B 
 
Gntenbei'g : 
 
 to which of them could claim the honour of thai invention. 
 Even now the issue can scarcely be said to be narrowed to 
 the two well-known towns, Haarlem and Mentz. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde was born at Haarlem, and wrote 
 a Bibliography of Haarlem. He prepared himself for 
 the study of the question of the Invention of Printing 
 by conversations with the late Mr. Holtrop, Librarian 
 of the Royal Library at the Hague. These conversa- 
 tions led to his researches in the Archives of Haarlem, 
 ■ which in their turn produced his work on the Haarlem 
 Legend, published in Dutch in 1870, and afterwards 
 translated into English (London : Blades. 1870), French, 
 and German. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde's pen is sharp and venomous. His 
 " Haarlem Legend " is written in language as bitter as 
 wormwood, and that of his present book is no less 
 strong. Woe be to those who dissent from his views. 
 Whether his antagonists are men of importance or not 
 known at all, he attacks them all with the same relentless 
 severity. His large views and cosmopolitan spirit induce 
 him to ridicule, on all occasions, a country of such small 
 proportions as Holland. That his countrymen ever claimed 
 the honour of the invention of printing is to him not an 
 error of judgment but a capital offence. That the Dutch 
 never worshipped him for his vituperative language — that 
 they did not at once, at the appearance of his " Haarlem 
 Legend," destroy the statue erected to Laurens Janszoon 
 Coster, the supposed inventor of printing — is to him the 
 worst of all crimes they could perpetrate. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde's merits, with regard to the history of 
 the invention of printing, are great. The cobwebs of the 
 Haarlem tradition were laid bare, and torn asunder by him 
 TOth a masterly hand. But in every line he writes on the 
 subject he displays a hatred and contempt for the country 
 of his birth and his countrymen, which seem to me as mis- 
 placed as his indignation would seem to be unnecessary. 
 That Dr. Van der Linde does not love Holland and the 
 Hollanders is, perhaps, owing to bad treatment he has 
 received from their hands. But who could expect the 
 Dutch to fondle and caress the author of the Haarlem 
 Legend and of the book before us? That he loves 
 Germany and the Germans is a purely personal affair and 
 a matter of taste, with which science has nothing to do. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 3 
 
 In all that Dr. Van der Linde has written on the subject 
 he has shown great talents, but in his antipathy against the 
 Dutch he has overlooked one great point in the contro- 
 versy. Bibliography, even in the widest acceptation of the 
 word, is a field in which the labourers are few. These 
 labourers can, necessarily, be only librarians and private 
 collectors, or persons within easy reach of a library. The 
 study of the early-printed books, on which the question of 
 the invention of printing turns exclusively, is only a branch, 
 though it be a very important branch, of bibliography, 
 and the study of these books was not so easy in former 
 years, when the volumes found in the large collections 
 now concentrated in various towns and private houses 
 were more or less scattered all over Europe, and that 
 while travelling was not so easy as at present. Even in 
 our time they are dispersed all over the globe, and 
 access to them is difficult. Some of the great public 
 repositories of these treasures — the British Museum, the 
 Bodleian Library at Oxford, the Cambridge University 
 Library, the Hague Royal Library, the Paris Library, &c., 
 are open to every one. In a great many other towns we 
 find at present collections which will enable any one to 
 get at least some insight into the mystery of the incu- 
 nabula. But even now, who would say that, for instance, 
 in the British Museum the study of the early-printed books 
 is easy? Or who would say that it is easy in the Paris 
 Library, where there is not even a catalogue ? In fact, 
 with all the impediments in one's way, it is much easier to 
 account for the rather superficial knowledge prevailing in 
 this department of research than for the profound know- 
 ledge of incunabula which we meet with in Mr. Bradshaw. 
 His intimacy with early-printed books was acquired by 
 years of patient study. The results of this study are only 
 a few pages published in 1870 (A classified index of the 
 fifteenth-century books in the collection of the late M. J. 
 de Meyer) and 187 1 (List of the founts of type and wood- 
 cut devices used by printers in Holland in the fifteenth 
 century), but these few pages have done more good for the 
 study of the early-printed books than all the ponderous 
 volumes under which the question of the invention of 
 printing is buried. They have furnished us with an almost 
 infallible guide for describing and classifying incunabula, 
 and a guide which henceforth no cataloguer of these books 
 
4 Gutenberg : 
 
 can afford to discard. But Mr. Bradshaw's devotion to, 
 and patience for, this study are exceptional. Very few men 
 can afford to spend their time on a subject which requires 
 almost more time and labour than any other, and, in a 
 pecuniary sense, is the least remunerative of all. Very 
 few men have time and inclination to acquire that 
 intimate knowledge of manuscripts, of books, and of 
 history which has enabled Mr. Bradshaw to arrive at his 
 results. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde ought to have considered all the dis- 
 advantages under which the study of the invention of 
 printing and the incunabula is prosecuted, and that the 
 misdeeds he so freely and harshly imputes to all those who 
 have written on the Haarlem claims really arise from 
 nothing but ignorance and are the result of difficulties in 
 the way of this study. Dr. Van der Linde himself, with all 
 his knowledge, training, and zeal has not been able to 
 avoid the rocks on which so many of his predecessors 
 have stranded. His book is deficient in arrangement. The 
 information on certain important documents is very defec- 
 tive and scattered through his work, so as to make it 
 almost impossible to collect it. He copies from others 
 without saying who they are, so that it is not always easy 
 to discover his sources. I shall feel bound, moreover, to 
 point out some singular errors into which he has fallen, 
 which, if he had detected them in others, would have made 
 him wroth indeed. I am not the apologist of any avithor 
 who has written on this most troublesome and complicated 
 question, but I shall have to show that with respect to this 
 subject at least Dr. Van de^ Linde lives in a glasshouse, and 
 should not throw stones. 
 
 If what I have to say can induce Dr. Van der Linde to 
 moderate his tone, and to dissociate the question from 
 personal matters, I shall consider myself amply repaid for 
 all the labour I have spent in endeavouring to supplement 
 the shortcomings of himself and others who have written 
 on this subject. 
 
 Curiously enough, in the preface to his book. Dr. Van der 
 Linde asks the reader to have patience with Ms errors of 
 orthography, for, he says, "man errs as long as he 
 occupies himself with bibliography and orthography." 
 Surely such a request seems strange in a man who treats 
 every one as a knave who commits the most insignificant 
 
IVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 5 
 
 error in writing on Koster or the Haarlem question. But 
 let us turn to his book. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde has happily divided his work into two 
 parts — History and Fiction. I shall occupy myself exclu- 
 sively with what he himself considers to be the historical 
 part. The task of perusing the legendary part may be left 
 to those who have time and inclination for reading not 
 always pleasant or profitable. Even the historical part of 
 Dr. Van der Linde's book is interspersed with hard language, 
 which we do not agree with him to have been necessary. 
 
 The author commences with an explanation of the differ- 
 ence between xylography and typography, ie., printing from 
 wooden blocks and printing with movable cast types, and it 
 will, perhaps, not be superfluous to follow him to some extent. 
 The art of printing, i.e., the art of impressing by means of 
 certain forms and colours, figures, pictures, letters, words, 
 lines, whole pages, &c., on other objects, existed long before 
 the fifteenth century. Wuttke, in his " History of Writing " 
 (Leipzig: 1872), remarks that, in Ninive, centuries before 
 our era, the strokes of cuneated letters were impressed 
 without any difficulty in soft clay, by means of a graver ; 
 that the Babylonians cut the same characters in relief on 
 wooden blocks, in order to impress them by these means 
 in wet clay. In China, the art of printing books was in- 
 vented much, earlier than in Europe ; the earliest printed 
 work known — the books of Kungtse — is said to have been 
 prepared between 890 and 925. It is well known that the 
 Mongols, when they conquered China in the thirteenth cen- 
 tury, adopted Buddhism and learned Chinese writing and 
 block-printing. Afterwards they overran the East of Europe, 
 and remained there for nearly two centuries. Though we 
 have no documents to prove that the Mongols introduced 
 block-printing into Europe, ^t is certain that about 1400, 
 xylography became known all over Germany, as far as 
 Flanders. At the same time, we begin to hear of linen- 
 paper, stuff-printing, &c. 
 
 Engraving, which may be said to be inseparably connected 
 with printing, was practised from time immemorial, but the 
 idea of multiplying representations from one engraved plate 
 or block was wanting to the ancients. As late as the second 
 half of the fourteenth century, every book, including school 
 and prayer books, were written by hard ; all figures, even 
 playing-cards and images of saints, were drawn with the 
 
Gutenberg : 
 
 pen or painted with a brush. One of the picture-books of 
 the Middle Ages, the Bt'Mia Pauperum, is well known. It 
 contains the life of Christ ; and we have MSS. of this work 
 as early as circ. 1300 (cf Camesina, Die Darstellungen der 
 Biblia Pauperum, Wien : 1863, in which is described a MS., 
 of the beginning of the fourteenth century, preserved in 
 the Chapter Library of St. Florian, on the Enns in Austria ; 
 and'Ls&i und Schwarz, Biblia Pauperum, Zurich: 1867, in 
 which is described another MS. of about 1300, preserved 
 at Constanz). A remodelling and development of this 
 work is the Speculum humance salvationis. 
 
 In the fifteenth century these and other picture-books 
 were multiplied by means of wood-engraving and a mode 
 of printing technically called (anopisthographic) block-printing 
 or Xylography. At first the pictures alone were printed by 
 this process, and the text afterwards added in manuscript ; 
 as time went on, text and pictures were printed simul- 
 taneously. A goodly quantity of single leaves produced in 
 this manner, either without any text, or with short in-, 
 super- and sub-scriptions, have been found from, time to 
 time, especially in the bindings of earlyrprinted books. 
 Some of these leaves have dates which raise them to the 
 rank of historical documents. We may mention the Brussels 
 Mary-engraving of 141 8 (though doubts have been expressed 
 as to whether the date has not been tampered with) ; the 
 St. Christopher of 1423, in Lord Spencer's Library and 
 the National Library at Paris ; the St. Bernardinus of 1454, 
 a so-called Schrot-blatt or dotted print, &c. &c. 
 
 Of dated block-books, i.e. works of more than one 
 xylographic leaf, we have an illustrated alphabet, of 1464 
 — of which a perfect copy is at Basle, an imperfect copy 
 in the British Museum ; a Biblia Pauperum (in German), 
 printed at Nordlingen, in 1470; the Defetisorium oi 1470 
 and 147 r; the £ntkrist of 1472; the Ars moriendi of 1473 
 and 1504, &c. &c. 
 
 Books, exclusively consisting of texts, without any 
 pictures, either were but seldom made, or have been 
 lost, owing to their possessing but little attraction. We 
 know, among such, the Alexander Gallus, Doctrinale, 1446; 
 Donatus de acta partibus orationis, Ulm, 1475, &c. 
 
 Printing with wooden blocks was, however, not the only 
 mode in use in the fifteenth century ; pictures were also 
 engraved in metal. We have a leaf of a cycle of engraved 
 
Was he the Ifivento7' of Printing? 7 
 
 pictures of the passion (formerly in the possession of M. 
 Renouvier at Montpellier) of 1446; a copper Mary- 
 engraving of the Master P with the date 1451 (but see 
 Willshire, Ancient Prints, I. 49, 288) ; a Last Supper- 
 engraving, presei-ved in the British Museum, dated 1457, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 The number both of dated and undated leaves and block- 
 books is at present considerable. It is not my plan either 
 to enumerate them or to enter into the details of the 
 various processes of engraving or printing. The latter have 
 been treated in so many books that I may fairly suppose 
 the reader to be acquainted with them, or at least with 
 the books treating on these subjects. 
 
 One great desideratum still exists, namely, a list or 
 catalogue of all the prints or engravings and block-books 
 which^ have been discovered to this day, and have been 
 the subject of such elaborate discussions and treatises. 
 Messrs. Berjeau (Cat. illustrd des livres xylogr., Lond., 
 1865) and Weigel (Verzeichn. der xylogr. Biicher des 
 XV. Jahrh., Leipz., 1856; Weigel and Zestermann, Die 
 Anfange der Druckerkunst in Bild und Schrift, 2 vols., 
 Leipz., 1866) have done much towards the compilation of 
 such a list, but we are still very far from having a catalogue 
 of all there are. To give an idea of the vast quantity of 
 single prints, which have been discovered from time to 
 time, we need only say that the rich CoUectio Weigeliana, 
 described in the last-named work, contained about 100 
 early copper engravings, more than 150 wood engravings, 
 about 80 so-called Schrot-bldtter (dotted prints), 5 woodcuts 
 in metal frames (one of 1468), 10 prints on stuff (silk, tick, 
 linen), 5 prints on paste, and 60 metal engravings. 
 
 The sculptors {pyldsnytzer,beeldesmders),e.ng:3.\&x& {plaet- 
 snyders), printers (either briefdruckern — from breve, i. e. 
 scriptum — and druckem, printers, or prentern, printers), 
 briefmalern (/. e. painters of briefs), &c., &c., constituted 
 everywhere separate guilds. There existed one at Nord- 
 lingen, 1428 ; at Ulm, 1441 ; at Antwerp, 1442 ; at Bruges, 
 145 1. As brief drucker vfs. know Jan the prenter at Antwerp, 
 141 7 ; Wilhelm Kegel at Nordlingen, 1428 ; Henne Cruse 
 of Mainz, at Frankfurt, 1440, &c. The xylographers re- 
 garded themselves as printers, and the expressions used in 
 their art were afterwards transferred to typography. A 
 xylographic Bauernkalender is said to be "printed at 
 
Gtitenberg : 
 
 Regensburg;" Dinckmut says, under his xylographic Do- 
 natus : " Per Cunradum dinckmut Vimensis oppidi Civem 
 impressus." From the diary of the abbat Jean Le Robert 
 we know that in 1446 he bought a Doctrinale, which was 
 jet'e en moule {i. e. mechanically printed from a wooden 
 block or other instrument, on vellum ; I copy Dr. Van der 
 Linde), and in the privilege which the Paris printers 
 obtained in 1474, from Louis XI., it is said that they 
 obtained it "pour I'exercise de leur ars et mestiers de 
 faire livres de plusieurs maniferes d'escriptures en mosle et 
 autrement." Philippe de Comines wrote in his " Memoires," 
 under the year 1498, of Heronyme (Savonarola), that he had 
 all his sermons Jait mettre en moule, which in the edition of 
 Petitot, is altered to " il les a fait imprimer." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde lays stress on the point, that not 
 printing, the ars impressoria, was waiting to be invented, 
 but typography, i. e. the multiplication of writing by means 
 of cast (individual, movable, metal) types or letters. Tjrpo- 
 graphy is the art of printing, but the art of printing was not 
 yet typography. In the new art, printing was also the end 
 and the result, but the means to obtain this end were quite 
 different. Not the movability of the elements (letters) of 
 the writing to be printed, but the art of forming the types, 
 was the invention. The simple movability or individuality 
 of the types, he says, is not sufficient; their body has to 
 be of the utmost geometrical precision, which can only be 
 obtained by a correct manufacture of the patrices and 
 matrices, which are really the essence of the invention of 
 typography. The cutting and casting of metal types, and 
 the printing of single leaves or books, constitute the original 
 typography, the terminology of which is perfectly plain. 
 Not only is it called ars imprimendi, ars impressoria (1457), 
 but also ars caracterizandi (from caragma, a character, 
 letter). Gutenberg (I copy Dr. Van der Linde) is called 
 (1468)* protocaragmaticus. On account of the great sig- 
 nification of the cutting of the letters (/. e. punches) the 
 printer Jenson in Venice calls himself (147 1) even a 
 cutter of books " hbronim exsculptorem." Sensenschmied 
 says, in 1475, that the Codex Justiniani is cut (insculptus) ; 
 also that he has cut (sculpsit) the work of Lombardus 
 on the Psalter. Husner, of Strassburg, says of the 
 
 * Dr. Van der Linde writes 1466 on p. 16, but this is plainly an 
 error for 1468. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 9 
 
 Speculum Durandi (1473) that it was printed exsculptis 
 are litter is, and of the Praeceptorium Nideri (1476) 
 that it is printed litteris exsculptis artificiali certe conatu 
 ex cere. The goldsmith and printer Cennini, of Florence, 
 says, in 147 1, that he printed the " Legenda della 
 mirabile Vergine beata Chaterina de Siena " expressis ante 
 Calybe characteribus et deinde fusis Uteris. Jenson says 
 equally plainly of the Breviarium August. (1485) that it 
 was printed litteris divine sculptis ac conflatis, and Schoeffer 
 lays stress on the casting of the types ; the Grammatica 
 vetus rhytmica (1466) says : At Moguntia sum fusus in 
 ttrbe libellus. 
 
 At this point I approach the substance of Dr. Van der 
 Linde's book, namely the life of John Gutenberg. It was 
 natural that the author, having satisfied the literary world 
 that the history of a Dutch invention, and Dutch inventor, 
 of printing, is a fiction, should wish to write the history of 
 " Johann (or Henne) Gansfleisch zu Gutenberg, born at 
 Mayence about 1400-1410, the son of the patrician Frilo 
 Gansfleisch and Else zu Gutenberg." 
 
 I have considered it necessary to examine this portion 
 of Dr. Van der Linde's work carefully: ist, because it is 
 the main portion of the big tome before me ; 2nd, because 
 the rest of the book cannot interest any one very much if 
 that portion prove disappointing. 
 
 It will clear the reader's view, as far as the writer of the 
 present essay is concerned, when I say at the outset that 
 the perusal of Dr. Van der Linde's book, however learned it 
 may be, has grievously disappointed me. I took it up in 
 the hope that this enormous work (700 pages, large 8vo) 
 would remove all earthly doubts as to the inventor of 
 printing, but what I looked for in the book I have not found, 
 and I have found what I certainly did not expect to find. 
 To cut the matter short, in the case of Gutenberg — that is 
 to say of Gutenberg as inventor of printing — far more 
 forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of the Haarlem 
 inventor. To satisfy myself I had to make independent 
 researches, and to supplement Dr. Van der Linde to a 
 considerable extent. The title of my essay indicates the 
 result of my inquiry. However irksome it may be, I shall 
 have to enumerate all the documents which at any time 
 have served to make up Gutenberg's biography, and to 
 trace their history, 
 
 c 
 
I o Gtitenberg . 
 
 I approach this task with considerable diffidence. The 
 documents I have to deal with are by no means pleasant 
 reading, even if they were written in the most easy language. 
 But this is not the case with the German of the fifteenth 
 century. Besides, their history is most complicated, and 
 in tracing it I had to consult an enormous mass of books 
 which it was difficult to find, and, when found, most 
 laborious to go through. Sometimes it took me several 
 hours, sometimes whole days to trace certain statements 
 backwards to their origin And even now I have stuck at 
 certain points where I could not go further. 
 
 Moreover, I cannot conceal from myself that it is not a 
 light matter to criticise the work of a man gifted with such 
 brilliant talents and such an unfortunate readiness for abuse 
 as is Dr. Van der Linde. The mere fact that I cannot 
 agree with him will expose me at once to his bitter attacks, 
 and the most insignificant slip on my part may cause him 
 to denounce me as a dishonest man. 
 
 For all these reasons I have hesitated and still hesitate to 
 come forward as Dr. Van der Linde's criticiser. When I see, 
 however, that Dr. Van der Linde, on pp. 42, 81, 152, tells 
 his readers three times over that a certain Donatus bears 
 the manuscript notice Heydersheym 145 1, without quali- 
 fying this statement ; when I see that Dr. Van der Linde 
 accepts the enthusiastic utterances of Madden and De 
 Vinne as gospel truths ; and more especially when I see 
 that Dr. Van der Linde, with singular credulity and confi- 
 dence, accepts discoveries without verifying them, and on 
 the strength of such discoveries sets up systems, — I then 
 feel my courage revive, and I may hope to say something 
 sensible, without falling into too many errors myself. 
 
 I shall treat of the documents relating to Gutenberg in 
 chronological order. I shall number them consecutively, 
 adding, to those which Dr. Van der Linde has republished, 
 the number they bear in his work between parentheses. I 
 shall explain their contents as far as I think it necessary 
 and desirable. I shall state, wherever I can, how, when, 
 where, and by whom they were discovered, and where and 
 when they were published. I shall not, in the first instance, 
 give any opinion on them myself, but quote from other 
 writers as much as is wanted for my purpose. After having 
 treated of all the documents, then I shall venture to say 
 what I think of them myself. Those years which are of 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 1 
 
 special importance will be found printed in a more distinc- 
 tive type. 
 
 I. A letter dated 24 March, 1424, written from Strass- 
 burg by Henne Genszfleisch genannt Sorgenloch to his sister 
 Berthe, a nun in the Convent of St. Clara (Reichenklara) at 
 Mentz. 
 
 This document was published _/»r the first time by Oberlin 
 (Essai d'Annal. de la vie de Gutenberg, 1801, p. 3). In 
 the following year Fischer (Essai sur les Mon. typ. p. 23) 
 published it in the German of the original, adding Oberlin's 
 translation. In 1830 it was declared by Schaab (Erfind. der 
 Buchdruckerkunst, i., pp. 29, 32-43) to be one of Prof. 
 Bodmanti s forgeries. See also Van der Linde, p. 19. 
 
 It wiU not be superfluous to narrate briefly the reasons 
 which induced Schaab to pronounce this judgment on this 
 document and on document No. 16. He says— 
 
 We must take it for granted that they originated with Bodmann, 
 as he lived for twenty years after their publication and never repudiated 
 the discovery ascribed to him. Prof. Bodmann left nothing, among 
 his many papers which passed through my hands, about this discovery, 
 nor did he say a word about it in his writings. Prof Fischer alone 
 gives us an explanation. Of document i he says (Essai sur les Mon. 
 typ. 23) that his colleague Bodmann discovered it in the Archives of 
 Mentz, without mentioning the particular Archive in which he had 
 found it, and even without trying to see and examine himself this 
 autograph of Gutenberg. Of document 16 Prof. Fischer says (Typogr. 
 Seltenh., Lief. i. 42) : "A document, existing in the Archives of the 
 University, and written by Gutenberg himself in 1459, makes it cleat 
 that Johann Gutenberg, on midday of the brightest day of May, had 
 not only printed several books, but had even the best intentions of 
 going on with printing, and I give herewith a correct copy which I 
 have obtained from citizen Prof. Bodmann, the superintendent of the 
 Archive." Prof. Oberlin, who published document i for the first 
 time, merely says that Bodmann discovered it and document 16. It is 
 certain that Oberlin and Bodmann corresponded together, as several 
 letters of the former are found among Bodmann's papers. And Fischer 
 only tells us that Bodmann discovered it in the Archives of Mentz ; 
 that it is preserved in the Archives of the University, but that he only 
 obtained a copy from Bodmann. — Schaab then gives no less than nine- 
 teen reasons for declaring gainst the two documents : (i) He did not 
 find anything about these documents among the papers which Bod- 
 mann's widow had placed into his hands ; (2) nor was anything found 
 by Prof. Lehne, who made an inventory of Bodmann's literary pro- 
 perty left for the grand-ducal Government ; (3) nor was anything re- 
 garding these documents found in a packet on which Bodmann himself 
 had written Genszfleisch' sche Urkunden ; (4) nor did Schaab, after a 
 search of eight days, find anything in the Archives of the University ; 
 (S) nor anything about them in a MS. which Bodmann's son had given 
 
1 2 Gtitenberg . 
 
 to Schaab, and in which his father (Bodmann) had made several anno- 
 tations ; (6) Fischer never said that he saw the letter of 1424, and of 
 the document of 1459 he only obtained a copy from Bodmann ; (7) the 
 engraver Johann Lindenschmitt, a friend of Bodmann, who engraved 
 the family-seals of the Gensfleisch on copper, which Fischer added to 
 his first impression of the 1459 document, declares openly that he had 
 seen neither the documents nor the seals, but engraved them after a 
 drawing which Fischer had handed to him ; (8) had Bodmann pos- 
 sessed this document, it would have been found, after his death, 
 among his collection or in the University-Archives ; (9) Bodmann was 
 so versed in the documental language of the Middle Ages, that he was 
 able to imitate every kind of writing of all ages, and to prepare docu- • 
 ments of all kinds. Of this capacity he constantly and everywhere 
 boasted. He could draw the most perfect seals with the utmost 
 facility, and he left behind several thousands of them, among them 
 those of Gensfleisch with the pilgrim, in all shapes; (10) Prof. 
 Bodmann probably considered it, as was his wont, a good joke, or 
 an innocent thing, to assist, with his inventive imagination, his col- 
 leagues Fischer and Oberlin, — who worked in 1800- 1802 at a history 
 of Gutenberg's invention and hunted everywhere for Donatus fragments 
 and remains of Gutenberg — and to fill up the gaps in Gutenberg's life 
 from 142C-30, and from 1455-1460; (11) no Gutenberg incunabula 
 were found in the library of the Reichenklaren-convent at its dissolu- 
 tion in 1781 ; (12) because the 1459 document speaks of the brothers 
 Henne Genszfleisch von Sulgeloch genannt Gudinberg and Friele 
 Genszflejsch. Why, asks Schaab, does the latter not call himself 
 also von Sulgeloch? Why is Henne alone called von Gudinberg, 
 and not Friele also, who called himself von Gudenberg elsewhere? 
 (iS) no Bertha, no Hebele are found among the nuns entered in the 
 Necrology of the St. Clara convent, preserved in the Mentz town 
 library, though it contains the names of Gutenberg nuns of the 
 Gensfleisch branch, &c. &c. 
 
 Schaab's other reasons amount to this : the wag Bodmann 
 had been napping; being under the impression that the 
 name of Sorgenloch belonged to our Henne Genszfleisch 
 (£ e. H. G. genant Gutenberg), he forged the tAvo docu- 
 ments I and 16, which are contradictory to the others. 
 
 Fischer wrote in 185 1 from Moscow, where he resided, 
 to Aug. Bernard, that he had never been able to obtain any 
 communication of the document (No. i) itself (cf. Bernard, 
 Origine de Timprimerie, i. p. 118). 
 
 2 (II). A contract, dated (Feria Secunda ante Anthonii, 
 i. e.) Monday, Jan. 16,* 1430, with Else zu Gudenberg, 
 
 * In this and some other dates of the documents, I differ from 
 Dr. Van der Linde, who seems either to have regarded them as of no 
 importance, or to be unacquainted with Mediaeval dating of docu- 
 ments. Nor are other authors more accurate. The date of this 
 document is explained by Dr. Van der Linde to be June 1 1 ; Schaab 
 (i. 45) has June 13; Bernard (Origine de I'imprimerie, i. 118) has 
 
IVas he the Inventor of Printing f 1 3 
 
 Gutenberg's mother, regarding the money which Friele 
 Gensfleisch had to pay her. In this document, which was 
 found in an account-book of the town of Mentz, is men- 
 tioned Henne, son of the blessed Friele Gensefleische. 
 
 It was published for the first time, in 1 741, by Kohler, 
 Ehren-Rettung, p. 81, No. 14 (Aus dem Schuldbuch der 
 Stadt Mayntz, p. 3). Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. 
 (45), S3, tells us that the original of this MS. was preserved 
 in the family archives of the Zum Jungens at Frankfurt, and 
 at the extinction of this family came into the collection of 
 Mr. Von Glauburg, where it still is, and whence a copy, also 
 of document 5, was sent to Prof. Kohler at Gottingen. 
 Dr. Van der Linde adds, that Elschin zu Gutenberg appears 
 moreover in a document of July 25, 1425, and of 1457 
 (Schaab, Gesch. der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst, ii. 
 284, 286), and he asks whether Hetme Gudenberg, 1392 
 (Schaab, No. 41), might have been her father? 
 
 3 (1). A document dated (off den Dienstage nehst 
 kommen ist der Suntag da man sang in der Kirchen 
 letare Jherusalem, i. e. Tuesday next the Sunday on which 
 the Church sings Letare Jherusalem, i. e.) Tuesday, March 
 28,* 1430, relating the reconciliation, effected through the 
 intervention of the Archbishop Conrad [III.] of Mentz, 
 between the town of Mentz and a number of expatriated 
 citizens. In it we find mentioned Henchin zu Gudenberg 
 as "nit inlendig," i.e., as "not being in Mentz." 
 
 This document was published for the first time in 1727 
 by Geo. Chr. Joannis in chapter xii. (p. 460) of his work : 
 Scriptorum historice Moguntinensi ami maxime inservienitum 
 tomus novus, fol., Francof ad M. The 12th chapter itself 
 is headed : G. C. J[oannis] De patricioriim veterum Mogun- 
 tinensium familii's, discrimine, iuribus, contentionibus, fatis 
 
 June 12. But Mr. Bradshaw tells me that the ordinary St. Anthony 
 (the ^bbat, not the modern St. A. of Padua, the Franciscan Saint), 
 who is honoured on Jan. 17, must have been meant in the date. 
 Feria Secunda is Monday, the second day of the week. As Jan. 17 
 fell on a Tuesday in 1430, Feria 2'''' ante Anthonii must mean Monday 
 Jan. 16. 
 
 * Dr. Van der Linde has 18 March ; Schaab (ii. 222) 18 March ; 
 Bernard (i. 118) 26 March. But the Sunday on wliich the Church 
 sang Labtare J. is the Fourth Sunday in Lent. As Easter fell on April 
 16 in 1430, the Fourth Sunday in Lent, being three Sundays earlier, 
 will be March 26. The Tuesday following this is, therefore, Tuesday 
 JIarch 28. 
 
1 4 , Gutenberg : 
 
 commentariolwn. In the table of contents Joannis says 
 of this Commentariolum " e duobus libellis manu exaratis, 
 nondumque editis, superioribus annis a me confectum, et bre- 
 vibus quibusdam adnotatiunculis nunc illustratum." * In the 
 introduction to the chapter itself Joannis says (p. 45^) = 
 " Obiigere mihi ante hos odo annos duo libelli, sertnone uer- 
 naculo confedi, iique manu scripti. Alter agebat de funesto 
 illo, Dietherum Isenburgium inter et Adolfum Nassouium, 
 de Archiepiscopatu Moguntino infestis anhnis et armis deser- 
 tantes, dissidio : alter de statu civitatis Moguntinensis ante 
 et post intestines illos motus, ad universam illius pernide7n, 
 ut eventus docuit, gliscentes ; ab anno sdlicet MCCC ad 
 anmtm usque sceculi sequentis xxx. Uterque, prcBsertim 
 posterior, loco non uno de Patriciorum ueterum Mogun- 
 tinensium simul agebat familiis discrimine itidetn eorum, 
 iuribus, contentionibus ac fatis ; stridim quidem et in com- 
 pendia ; satis tamen plane, pradpuisque rerum capitibus in 
 medium allatis. Inde consiliutn cepi, omnem de hoc argu- 
 mento narrationem exinde excerpere, excerptam in commen- 
 tariolum quoddam conferre, et turn ueste latijia donare, turn 
 nonnullis ad rem facientibus, quce mihi aliunde bona sors 
 obiiciebat, augere iuxta illustrareque. Quod diam, quantum 
 per alia licuit negotia, horis subseciuis factum." t The first 
 Patrician family mentioned by Joannis is called Zum 
 Jungen ; Latine, de luueni. A Peter de luueni, Peter dictus 
 luuenis civis Moguntinus, is mentioned in documents 
 of the years 1297 and 1300, and regarding him Joannis 
 refers to Chronicon Santalbanense, lib. i. sect. ii. p. 767. — 
 
 * i. e. " Compiled by me in past years from two unpublished manu- 
 scripts and illustrated with short notes." 
 
 t " Eight years ago I found two manuscripts, written in our 
 vernacular. The one treated of the calamitous dissension between 
 Diether of Isenburg and Adolf of Nassau, disputing with hostile 
 feelings and arms about the Mentz Archiepiscopate ; the other of the 
 condition of the town of Mentz before and after these domestic broils 
 which culminated, as the event has shown, in its universal destruction 
 — namely from the year 1300 to 1430. Both MSS., especially the 
 latter, often treat of the ancient Patrician families of Mentz, of their 
 distinctions, rights, disputes, and fate, briefly, it is true, but yet 
 plainly, setting forth the chief points of the matters. Hence I resolved 
 to excerpt from them the whole narrative of this subject, and to gather 
 it into some short treatise, and not only to put it in a Latin dress, but 
 to augment and illustrate it with several other relevant matters which 
 I happened to find elsewhere. I have done this in my leisure hours 
 as far as other occupations allowed it." 
 
IVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 5 
 
 The sixth family is Gelthus zm jungen Alen. And Joannis 
 adds : " Forte ex his Adamus ille Gelthus fuit, qui Joanni 
 Gensfleisch hoc scripsit epitaphium " : [the epitaph follows 
 which A. Gelthus, a relative of Gutenberg, is supposed to 
 have written in Wimpfeling's Oratio in memoriam Marsilii 
 ab Inghen, Mainz, P. Friedberg, 1499, in which Joannes 
 Gensfleisch is called artis impressoria repertor, and where 
 it, is said that ossa ejus in ecclesia D. Francisci Mogunitm 
 feliciter cubant. This latter assertion is incorrect, accord- 
 ing to Bockenheimer, Gutenberg's Grabstdtte, Mainz: 1876, 
 8vo. ; and the same Bockenheimer asserts that the writer 
 of the epitaph is not Gelthus, but Wimpfeling himself] — 
 The twenty-third family is Gensfleisch von Sorgenloch. In 
 his notes we find Joannis stating that Joannes vera Gens- 
 fleisch, arte typographica diuino auspicio inuenta atque ex- 
 cogitata, externum sibi peperit nomen. Is enim et Joannes 
 Gudenberg unus idemque est, and in proof of this last asser- 
 tion quotes the words which " Marcus Antonius a Kraft, 
 dim e tabulis an. MCCCCXLI, viii. Kal. April, et an. 
 MCCCCXLIII (sic), XV Kal. Decembr. confectis, ac 
 sedis Thomanae Argentoratensis libro Salico B f. 293' 
 et f 302'' insertis, descripsit : loannes dictus Gensfleisch, 
 alias nuncupatus Gutenberg, de Moguncia, Argentinas 
 commorans." He then quotes from " uetusto quodam 
 Calendario, sine libro Ciuitatis Moguntinae foenebri olim 
 f. 74," the items of which I speak below under document 
 No. 5. Finally comes, as § 1 1 (on p. 460), the document 
 of which we here treat. 
 
 This document was recollated and republished by J. D. 
 Kohler, in his Ehren-Rettung, Leipzig, 1741, p. 67, Lit. 
 Bb., who says that it was " copied from an old written 
 Volumine Actorum between the Council and Community 
 of Mayntz, from A. 1332-1445." Dr. Van der Linde 
 (p. 513) explains that: "Allusion is made to a Codex 
 of the Frankfurt Town Library, Sagen von alten Dingen 
 der verehrlichen Stadt Mentze, 1581, and that [Kohler's] 
 copy was made by Johann Ernst von Glauburg (+ 1733)." 
 (Cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerkunst, i. p. 44, note 2, 
 S3, 467.) It is to be remarked that the difference between 
 the text of Joannis and that of Kohler is rather great. 
 
 The Frankfort MS. mentioned by Dr. Van der Linde 
 seems to be identical with the libellus de statu ciuitatis 
 Moguntinensis, referred to by Joannis. 
 
1 6 Gutenberg : 
 
 It is to be observed that the compiler or writer of the 
 MS. is not mentioned, nor is it stated whence the com- 
 piler got the document of 28th March, 1430. We know, 
 however, that the Frankfort Library acquired the MS. in 
 1690, after the death of Joh. Maxim, zum Jungen (born at 
 Frankfort, Sept. ii, 1596), who pretended to descend from 
 Gutenberg (see Bockenheimer, Gutenberg's Grabstatte, 
 Mainz, 1876, p. 5). 
 
 Consequently our date does not go further back than 
 1581. Dr. Van der Linde gives us (on p. 520) a notice, 
 which is written by the side of the document of which we 
 treat. He says : — 
 
 "On the 28th of Oct., 1443, Ort ium Jungen, Senior, lets his house 
 (hof^ z-uiii Jungen to Henne Gensfleisch Senior for three years [observe, 
 for three years : the inventor was coming to erect a press at Mentz]. 
 From these names and the Strassburg date appears the incorrectness of 
 a notice in (this MS.) on fol. ^b verso: Henchin zu Cudenberg, ex 
 familia Gdnsfleisch, primus et verus ille typographicae artis Inventor i 
 domo habitationis (ut moris tunc temporis in Moguntia inter nobiles 
 erat, neglecto gentis haereditaris nomine i domo vel curia habitationis 
 se denominare) Zum Gudenberg dicta denominatus \Friele and Henne 
 Gensfleisch zu Gutenberg bear, on the contrary, the name of both their 
 parents, as e.g. the Spanish Lopez y Mendez; Van der Linde], patreque 
 Frilone Gdnsfleisch natus. Obiit denique et apud majores sepultus 
 Mogimtise in Ecclesia D. Francisci [repetition of an error in the epi- 
 taph of Adam Gelthus 1499; Vander Linde] ao. Dm. MCCCCLXXVIIL 
 [sic, Van der Linde; cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerkunst, i. 456, 
 where Jacob von Sorgenloch is said to have died in 1478] ibidemque 
 Insignia ejus gentilia sunt suspensa. Qui Henne Gudenberg ao. 1443 
 Henne Gensfleisch senior audiit et domum Zum Jimgen ab Ortone zum 
 Jungen eodem ao. in Moguntia locationis titulo pro x fiorensis \sic\ 
 aureis annui census possedit." 
 
 This notice is, according to some (cf Schaab, i. 467), 
 an addition of Johann Maximilian zum Jungen. Others 
 thought it was written by Geo. Chr. Joannis, but we are 
 now requested to believe that it was added by Joh. Ernst 
 V. Glauburg, who, in 1728, caused researches to be made 
 in the Franciscan Church at Mentz for Gutenberg's grave 
 (cf Van der Linde, p. 521; Bockenheimer, p. 5). But Von 
 Glauburg could not say ibidem insignia ejus gentilia sunt 
 suspensa, as he was unable to find Gutenberg's grave (see 
 Kohler, Ehren-Rettung, 103, 104). 
 
 The other MS. mentioned by Joannis, is, no doubt, 
 identical with the MS. which was partly published by Franz 
 Jos. Bodmann (in Rheinisches Archiv fiir Geschichte und 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 7 
 
 Litteratur. Herausgegeben .von N. Vogt und J. Weitzel, 
 vols. 4 and 5, Mainz, 181 1) under the heading :— 
 
 Complete narrative, compiled by a contemporary and eye-witness, of 
 the hostility between the two archbishops, Diether v. Isenburg, and 
 Adolf V. Nassau, concerning the possession of the Archbishopric of 
 Mainz, and of the capture and subjugation of the town of Mainz, 
 treacherously effected at that time by the latter.* 
 
 I do not think the MS. will be of much importance in 
 the present inquiry ; but as it is evidently a compilation of 
 the same character and of the same period as the other MS. 
 used by Joannis, and as its compiler constantly alludes to 
 circumstances connected with early printing at Mentz, I 
 will give in a few lines what I have found about it. 
 Bodmann says of the manuscript : — 
 
 " The MS. from which I extract this narrative contains, except an 
 enormous mass of documents, for the most part unpublished, concern- 
 ing the late archbishopric of Mainz, also several historical essays which 
 have been added at the end, e. gr. the war of K. Albert I. with the 
 Archbishop Gerhard — the transactions between the Archbishops Hein- 
 rich and Gerlach — the diplomatic history of the dispute between the 
 Archbishop Sifridll., with the bishop Leopold of Worms — the trans- 
 actions between K. Heinrich Raspo and the Archbishop Sifrid III. on 
 the one hand, and the Roman King Conrad IV. on the other hand, 
 with all the documents belonging thereto. The above collection of 
 documents extends as far as the year 1416, and is written on vellum ; 
 it betrays a hand of the same period, and writer ; on the other hand 
 the additional historical treatises appear to emanate, according to the 
 handwriting, from different compilers. They are written on paper with 
 different watermarks; the first, third, and fourth are Latin, and are a 
 copy of treatises contemporary with the events they relate ; but the 
 second seems to have been planned only in the isth century ; it is 
 in German, and unusually detailed. After this follows, but in a 
 different hand, the narrative which I here communicate. It is pre- 
 ceded by a detailed narrative of the first election of the Archbishop 
 Diether, his differences and war with the Elector Friedrich von Pfalz, 
 the celebrated battle of Seckenheim, and the reconciliation of both 
 parties ; everything from and with documents. We omit these here 
 and commence with the narrative." 
 
 On p. 139, of vol. 4, we read : — 
 
 " Her Diether von Isenburg liesz auch einoffen brieffhin und widder 
 
 * Vollstandige, von einem gleichzeitigen und Augenzeugen gefertigte 
 Nachricht von der wegen dem Besize des Erzstifts Mainz zwischen 
 den beiden Erzbischoffen Diether v. Isenburg und Adolf v. Nassau 
 gefiihrten Fehde, und der damals von lezterm verratherischer Weise 
 geschehenen Einnehmung und darauf erfolgten Unterjochung der 
 Stadt Mainz. 
 
 D 
 
1 8 Gutenberg : 
 
 anslagen, darinn er sich hoch beswert seiner absetzung halben, welche er 
 alsz vnrechtmessig beclagt, erpelit sic rechtensz, und einer appellacion, 
 vnd seint vil exemplar getruckt werdm von dem ersten. Biichtrucker sii 
 Mentzjohan Gutenbergck, des Inhaltsz wie volgt . . . ." 
 
 Bodmann adds in a note : " I possess a copy of this which 
 is several feet {Schuhe) long and consists of sheets pasted 
 together." The document referred to is the Manifest of 
 Diether the Elector, of 4 April, 1462. Schaab also had a 
 copy(Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. 417, 418) and says that 
 the document was not printed by the first printer of Mentz, 
 Johann Gutenbergck, but by Fust and Schoeffer. Schaab 
 adds that there are many indications of the MS. having 
 been written nearly 100 years after the events which it 
 relates. E. gr. on p. 340 we read "... dasz wirthshusz 
 zum Spigell, Fausten Husz . . . ." which shows (says 
 Schaab, ii. 114) that the MS. is not contemporary, but 
 written about the middle of the i6th century, as Johann 
 Fust never called himself Faust, or was so called by others. 
 And on p. 50 of vol. 5 : " Die zum Mulbaum. Istjetz die 
 Druckerey." The latter addition shows (Schaab, ii. 117) 
 that the MS. is a whole century later than the event it 
 records, and must have been written between 1550 and 
 1560, as it was not until 1552 that the printer, Franz 
 Behm, settled in Mentz and in the Hof zum Maulbaum. 
 
 [Bernard (Origine de rimprimerie, i. 118) says: — "It 
 appears that Gutenberg made a journey to Mentz, in 1432, 
 no doubt to make some arrangements about interests." He 
 refers to Kohler's Ehren-rettung, p. 82, where the contract 
 of May, 1434 (see below, document 5), must be the one 
 which suggested this idea to Bernard.] 
 
 4 (III). An Act, dated (Sonntag nach St. Gregorien tag 
 des H. Pabsts, i.e., Sunday after Pope St. Gregory's day, 
 i.e.) March 14,* 1434, by which Johann Gensefleisch der 
 Junge, genannt Gutemberg, at the request of the council of 
 Strassburg, where he resided in the monastery of Arbogast, 
 
 * Dr. Van der Linde has March 12; but St. Gregory's day itself is 
 March 12 A. The Sunday letter in 1434 was C, therefore the Sunday 
 after St. Gregory's day must be March 14, 1434. Bernard (Orig. de 
 rimprimerie, i. 119), speaking of the date of this document, says that 
 " it is very difficult to determine it, as there are two popes of the name 
 of Gregory, and moreover two feasts for the first — Gregory the Great — 
 namely 12 March and 3 September." But the day of Gregory's com- 
 memoration, March 12, is no doubt meant in the document. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 9 
 
 released Niclause, the secretary of Mentz, and relinquished 
 the money (310 Rhenish guilders) which the town owed 
 him. 
 
 Schaab, Gesch. der Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. pp. 26, 
 30, tells us that this document was discovered about the 
 middle of the i8th century by the learned professor and 
 untiring antiquary Joh. Dan. Schoepflin, in a Register 
 of contracts (ex libro contractuum) of the year 1434, pre- 
 served at Strassburg. He published it for the first time 
 on p. 3 of his Vindicia Typographice. {Documenta typo- 
 graphicarum originum ex Argentinensibus tabulariis et 
 bibliothecis nunc primum editd), 4to., Argentorati, 1760. Dr. 
 Van der Linde remarks on this document that Gutenberg 
 showed himself in it greater as a youthful knight than as a 
 practical man of business. 
 
 5 (IV). A contract, dated (Dominica proxima post 
 Urbani, i.e., the Sunday after St. Urban, i.e.) May 30,* 
 1434, with Hengin Gudenberg, son of the blessed Friele 
 Gensfleisch, respecting 14 guilders, which were settled on 
 his brother Friele residing at Eltvil. 
 
 This entry was published for the first time by Kohler, 
 Ehren-Rettung (1741), p. 82, No. 16, from a MS. account- 
 book of the town of Mentz (Aus der Stadt Mayntz 
 Schuldbuch in MSSt., p. 32), the same volume which sup- 
 plied Kohler with document No. 2 (q.v.). Joannis (Scriptt. 
 rer. Mogunt. iii., 1727, p. 456) published however an 
 entry to the same effect, in which it is said that Gudenberg 
 obtained a new letter about this transaction, and had re- 
 turned the old one. Cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. 
 
 i- 45, S3- . , , . 
 
 6. A document' settmg forth an action brought m 1437 
 
 by Anna Zu der Iserin Thiire against Gutenberg for breach 
 
 of promise, the end of which affair was not stated in the 
 
 document. (Jo. Dan. Schoepflini Programma, quo typo- 
 
 graphiae, A. 1440 inventae, festum seculare indictum, 
 
 Argentorati, A. 1740, Idibus Octobris ;— this Program was 
 
 republished (?) at Basle in 1741 (Commentatt. Hist, et crit 
 
 Jo. Dan. Schoepflini, p. 557); M^moires de I'Acadtoie 
 
 des Inscriptions, xvii. 1740, p. 762 (766), Dissertat. sur 
 
 I'origine de I'imprimerie, par M. Schepflin; Schoepflin, 
 
 * St. Urban is May 25 E ; the Sunday following must be May 30, 
 H34- 
 
20 Gittenberg . 
 
 Vindiciee typogr., 1760, p. 17, cuius exitum charta non 
 docet). 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde says (p. 34) that in 1740 Schoepflin 
 [who himself tells us so on p. 13 of his Vindicise] received 
 this document (urkunde) from the [Strassburg] Archivist 
 Wencker [the same person from whom he received another 
 document, see below, Nos. 7 and 11], and he adds : — 
 
 "It was surprising that he [Schoepflin] did not publish this docu- 
 ment, whereas he printed all the rest entirely. When Meei-man 
 [Origines typogr., i. 168], after the publication of Schoepflin's Vind. 
 lyp., asked for a copy, the latter replied on the 20th of February, 
 1 76 1, that no stick document ot/j/^^ (ejusmodi chartam non exstare) 
 and that the information in question was merely contained in a 
 marginal annotation (verum unice annotationem quandam)! But 
 even the marginal annotation was not produced I This document, 
 therefore, was nothing ; consequently, I take an item, pretended 
 to have been copied from a HelbelingzoUbuch 'that Ennel Guten- 
 bergen had given this tax ' [cf. below document No. i r], to be a 
 forgery which was meant to complete the nothing-saying marginal 
 annotation, as it occurs in another place, without a year. At that 
 time notes were not made in stick a way, documents are not published 
 in such a way, and we may not represent Gutenberg as married, either 
 ecclesiastically or secularly, on the ground of such miserable acts. " 
 
 // should not he forgotten that Dr. Van der Linde speaks 
 here, not I ; the 7vords between [ ] are mine, however. 
 
 Schoepflin himself speaks of this breach of promise 
 case on several occasions. First in the Program which he 
 wrote and seems to have published in 1740 at the time 
 of the tercentenary of the invention of printing. In his 
 Commentationes historica et criticce, published at Basle in 
 1 74 1, this Program appears on p. 557, with the ■ following 
 heading: " Prograniina,quo Typographia, A. 1440 inventce, 
 Festum seculare indictum, Argentorati, A. 1740, Idibus Octo- 
 bris." Speaking of several towns celebrating in that year 
 the tercentenary of the Invention of Printing, he says that 
 these very towns serve the cause of Strassburg. They do 
 so, however, unwittingly, as they are not aware that 
 
 " Gutenberg at the very time of the birth of Typography had been 
 supporting a family, during a series of years, at Strassburg ; had there 
 applied himself to the invention and practise of several arts, and, for 
 that purpose, had formed divers associations in our town, which he 
 made, like a citizen, his abode for a long timcf . ... In the year 1437 
 he was accused before the Episcopal judge of Strassburg by a certain noble 
 maid Anna, Zu der Eisernen U hiire, the last of herrace, and afterwards 
 married her. In the years 1441 and 1442 he appears as a bail and 
 surety in documents of the St. Thomas Chapter. For several years 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 2 1 
 
 he pays the taxes imposed by the magistracy of our town, and during 
 all the time that he resided at Strassburg, he was an adroit and sedulous 
 investigator of wondrous things ; this we learn from the sentence pro- 
 nounced by the Strassburg judges, in 1439, when a controversy had 
 arisen between him and his associates to whom he had communicated 
 his secrets. Wliat forbids us to conjecture that the rudiments of the 
 typographical art were among these veiy secrets ? " * 
 
 In the same year 1740 he sent a "Dissertation sur 
 I'origine de I'lmprimerie " to the " Acaddmie des Inscrip- 
 tions," in which he says : — 
 
 "A few years afterwards [after 1434] Gutenberg had an intrigue 
 with a noble lady, Anne Porte-de-fer, the last of her family, and as he, 
 very probably, refused to carry out his promises, she caused him to be 
 summoned before the Strassburg Magistracy in 1437. We do not find 
 the judgment given on this occasion ; but either in virtue of a sentence, 
 or according to arrangement, the lady became his vrife, and appears 
 in this quality in our public registers where she is called Anne de 
 Gutenberg. We stiU find Gutenberg established at Strassburg, and 
 having children (!) in 1444. . . . The Archives of the city and those 
 of the collegiate Church of St. Thomas at Strassburg contain many 
 acts executed by Gutenberg during the years 1439, 1441, 144Z. . . . The 
 most remarkable is the first, by which he associates with three citizens 
 of this city to work up several arts and marvellous secrets which 
 approach the miraculous (these are the terms of the treaty written in 
 German), without, however, specifying what these secrets consisted of. 
 This same act reminds us of an anterior one, in virtue of which one of 
 the associates had previously contracted an association with Gutenberg 
 for the polishing of stones, which had been successful." + 
 
 *".... Latet eas, Guttenbergium illis ipsis Typographise nascentis 
 temporibus, per plurium annorum seriem Argentorati aluisse Familiam, 
 variis artibus inveniendis tractandisque ibidem incubuisse, eique fini 
 diversas in civitate nostra inivisse societates, adeoque diuturni temporis 
 incolam, civis instar, cum animo commorandi fortunarum suarum 
 sedem in ea fixisse constanter .... lUe A. 1437. apud Episcopalem 
 Argentinensium Judicem, a nobUi quadam Virgine Anna, Gentis suce 
 ultima, quse a (Zu der Eisernen Thiire) Ferrea Porta nomen tulerat, 
 accusatus est, eamque deinceps duxit uxorem. Ille Annis 1441. & 
 1442. Capitulo Thomano vadem & sponsorera solemnibus formulis se 
 obtulit ; lUe per plures annos nova, qua2 Magistratus, temporum 
 necessitate coactus, imposuerat tributa solvit ; atque per totum illud 
 temporis spatium, quo Argentorati versatus est, solers sedulusque 
 rerum mirabilium fuit indagator; Id quod sententia, cum A. 1439. 
 inter eundem & socios, quos arcanorum suorum participes reddidit, 
 controversia oriretur, a Judicibus Argentinensibus lata nos docet. Enim- 
 vero quid conjicere nos vetat, inter ipsa haec arcana, typographicae 
 quoque Artis extitisse rudimenta . . . . " On p. 560 Schoepflin adds, 
 in a note, that he owes the public documents to the liberality of the 
 Councillor Wencker. 
 
 t "Peu d'annees apres, il eut une intrigue avec une Demoiselle 
 
22 Gutenberg: 
 
 Schoepflin has never, as far as I know, said any more 
 about the children, of which he speaks here. Meerman 
 (Orig. typogr., 1765, i. 168) thought that Schoepflin was, 
 in 1740, under the impression that Anna Gutenberg was 
 Gutenberg's daughter, whereas, in 1760, he had come to 
 the conclusion that she was his wife. But Meerman, in 
 suggesting this explanation, overlooked the fact that even 
 in 1740 Schoepflin refers to Anna G. as Gutenberg's wife, 
 so that he could not speak of her at the same time as his 
 daughter. The children were to be produced, I suppose, 
 in another document. 
 
 The same Schoepflin says, in 1760 (on p. 13 of his 
 Vindiciae) : — 
 
 " Jacobus Wencker, Gustos of the [Strassburg] Archives, and after- 
 wards public Councillor, informed me [in 1740], from the Archives 
 of the [Strassburg] Court, that Gutenberg had married at Strassburg 
 a noble Alsatian wife, had paid public taxes to the city, and had entered 
 into an association with citizens in respect to a secret art."* 
 
 And (on p. 1 7 of his Vindiciae) : — 
 
 "Gutenberg had in 1437, before the ecclesiastical judge, a law-suit 
 with Anna (Ennelin zu der Iserin Thilre), a noble maid, a Strassburg 
 citizen, it seems on account of a marriage promised her, the end of 
 
 noble, Anne Porte-de-fer, derniere de sa famille ; & sur ce que, vrai- 
 semblablement, il refusoit de remplir ses promesses, elle le fit citer \ 
 rOfficialite de Strasbourg en 1437. Nous ne trouvons point le juge- 
 ment qui fut rendu sur cette instance : mais soit en vertu d'une sen- 
 tence, soit par accommodement, la demoiselle devint sa femme, & 
 parolt en cette qualite dans nos registres publics, oil elle est appelee 
 Anne de Gutenberg. Nous trouvons encore Gutenberg etabli a 
 
 Strasbourg, & ayant des enfans, en 1444 Les Archives de la 
 
 ville, & celles de I'eglise collegiale de St. Thomas de Strasbourg, con- 
 servent plusieurs actes passes par Gutenberg, pendant les annees 1439, 
 
 1441, 1442 Le plus remarquable est le premier, par lequel 
 
 il s'associa trois bourgeois (nommes Aridr^ Treize, Jean Riff & Andre 
 Heilmann) de cette ville, pour mettre en ceuure plusieurs arts & secrets 
 merveilleux qui tiennent du frodige (ce sont les termes du traite ^crit 
 en allemand) sans toutefois specifier en quoi consistoient ces secrets. 
 Ce meme acte en rappelle un autre anterieur, en vertu duquel un de 
 ces associ^s avoit contracte ci-devant avec Gutenberg une association 
 pour la polissflre des pierres, qui avoit eu du succes." 
 
 * ". . . Gutenbergium Alsaticam Nobilem Argentorati duxisse 
 uxorem, onera publica solvisse civitati, societatem circa artem 
 occultam cum civibvis inivisse, ex scrinio Curije me docuit Vir de 
 re literaria praeclare meritus. Jacobus Wenckerus, tabularii 
 custos, dein Reip. Consul." 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 23 
 
 which was not stated in the document. But as [the HelbelingzoUbvich] 
 expressly states that Anna Gutenberg had paid the same tax as Guten- 
 berg, 1 conjecture that she had become Gutenberg's wife." * 
 
 Finally in his "Alsatia illustrata" (Colmariae, 1761, 
 vol. ii. p. 346) Schoepflin says : — 
 
 " Gutenberg . . . having left his country, fixed the seat of his 
 fortune at Strassburg, where he married an Alsatian wife (the last of 
 a noble family, Ennelia [Anna] zu der Jsernen Thiir) and for ten years 
 enjoyed the right of citizenship . . . " t 
 
 7 (V). Six entries in different parts of three several MS. 
 registers of the city of Strassburg, containing all that is 
 known of the Law-suit between Jerge {Georg) Dritzehen 
 and Johan von Mentze genant Gutenberg in 1439. 
 
 First entry : the depositions of the 13 witnesses of 
 Jerge Dritzehen ; Barbel von Zabem ; Ennel, the wife of 
 Hanns Schultheiss; Hanns Sidenneger ; Hannsz Schult- 
 heisz ; Cunrad Sahspach ; Wernher Smalriem ; Mydehart 
 Stocker ; Peter Eckhart ; Thoman Steinbach ; Lorentz 
 Beldeck; Reimbolt von Ehenheim; Hans Niger von 
 Bischovissheim ; Fridel von Seckingen. 
 
 Second entry : the depositions of the 3 witnesses of 
 Gutenberg against Jorge Dritzehen : Anthonie Heilman ; 
 Hans Diinne ; Midehart Stocker. 
 
 Third entry : Querimonia of Lorentz Beildeck. 
 
 Fourth entry : List of Gutenberg's witnesses against 
 Jerge Dritzehen. 
 
 Fifth entry : List of Jerge Dritzehen's witnesses against 
 Hans Gutenberg. 
 
 Sixth entry : Sentence of the Council, dated (Vigil. 
 Lucie et Otilie Anno xxxix., Le.) Dec. 12, (14)39- 
 
 T\iQ first two entries were written in a volume (A) which 
 seems to have contained the entries of the actual deposi- 
 tions of witnesses in suits before the Council as the cases 
 
 • "Idem Gutenbergius a. 1437. coram Judice Ecclesiastico litem 
 habuit cum Anna (Ennelin zu der Iserin Thiire), nobili virgine, cive 
 Argentinensi, promissi, ut videtur, matrimonii causa ; cuius exitum 
 charta non docet. At idem Catastrum [the HelbelingzoUbuch] Annam 
 Gutenbergiam idem vectigal, Gutenbergio jam profecto, solventem, 
 nominatim cum exprimat, Gutenbergii conjugem earn devenisse con- 
 
 jicimus." /- • A 
 
 t " Gutenbergius . . . relicta patria, fortunse suae sedem fixit Argen- 
 torati ; ubi Alsaticam ducens uxorem (postremam gentis nobilis, Enne- 
 liam zu der Isernen Thiir) per decennium jure incolatus gavisus est. 
 
24 Gutenberg. 
 
 came forward. Schoepflin {Vindicim typogr., p. 5, Docu- 
 menta, Num. II.) calls it : ProtocoUum Senatus Majoris, and 
 it bore on the outside the title : Dicta* .... Testium 
 magni consilij Anno Domini M°. CCCC°. Tricesimo nono. 
 
 Leon DeLaborde, who examined the entries about 1840, 
 describes this volume {Debuts de I'lmprimerie i Strasbourg, 
 p. 22), as 
 
 "consisting of two quires, each of 42 sheets or 84 leaves, in all 1 68 
 leaves ; they were covered by a sheet of parchment which had become 
 yellow and soiled, on the recto of which the above title was written. 
 The paper, which had turned yellow and brown on the edge, bore per- 
 pendicular water-lines ; in the greater portion of the leaves the water- 
 mark was a pair of scales ; the fourth leaf had a small ox-head ; the 
 last leaves a still smaller ox-head, the water-lines of these leaves being 
 different ; the size of the paper was 10 inches (pouces) and 9 lines in 
 height and 9 inches in breadth. The first deposition of Dritzehen 
 against Gutenberg (first entry) is found on the recto of the 107th leaf, 
 with the heading : Dis ist die Warhdt, &c., and continues on the recto 
 and verso of the leaves 107-110, tiU it ends with thfe deposition of 
 Fridel von Seckingen. The depositions of Gutenberg's witnesses 
 against Jorge Dritzehen (second entry) occupy the two leaves 117 
 and 118, and terminate with that of Midehart Stocker." 
 
 The third, fourth, and fifth entries were written in a 
 volume (B), which Schoepflin {Vindicics typogr., p. 27, 
 Documenta, Num. IV.) also calls : ProtocoUum Senatus 
 Majoris, and which bore the title : Queremonie &• testes 
 registrati Magni Consilii, Anno Dni M°.CCCC°.XXX 
 nono. Though De Laborde says nothing of this title, he 
 tells us that 
 
 "this volume was also bound in parchment, and consisted of 24 
 sheets (= 48 leaves) of paper sewn together in a single quire (except 
 an old addition of some leaves). There are 43 leaves written upon, 
 and the J leaves 31-36 are left blank. The complaint of Lorenz 
 Beildeck is on the recto of the 2 1st leaf. The first list of the witnesses 
 \i.e. of Gutenberg's witnesses, with the heading, Dis ist Gutenbergs 
 Worheit, &c.] occupies the lower half of the verso of leaf 38 ; the 
 second list (which includes Lorentz, the servant of Gutenberg, and his 
 wife), which bears a heading \_Dis ist Jerge Dritzehen Worheit, &c.], 
 fills the whole recto of the 44th leaf. Everything connected with the 
 Law-suit is written in the volume by the same scribe, who, each time 
 that he resumed his work, imparted a little more firmness to his hand ; 
 a circumstance which makes it appear as if several scribes had taken 
 part in the work, whereas it is evident that it is that of a single one. 
 
 * In De Laborde's facsimile of this title there are some strokes of 
 other letters visible immediately following Dicta, but I am unable to 
 decipher them. — ^J. H. H. 
 
TVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 25 
 
 It is, moreover, certain tliat it is the original redaction,— indeed, the 
 original minute of the transaction, — because all the erasures and the 
 additions written in the margin are in the same ink and in the same 
 hand, and could not have been found in a copy, however clumsy this 
 may have been." 
 
 From this description of a careful eye-witness we gather 
 that the Querimonim and the lists of Testes registrati were 
 written separately, the former in the earlier, the latter in the 
 later portion of the volume. 
 
 The above two volumes, A and B, were, according to De 
 Laborde : — 
 
 " Inclosed in a gray pasteboard case, which has the form of a box ; 
 the back resembles that of a bound book, and on a printed title (Hire 
 imprimi), which dates, without any doubt, from Schoepflin's time, we 
 find : Documeuta typographia Argentorati inventcB." 
 
 The sixth or last entry was written in a volume (C) which 
 seems to have contained Decisions of the Strassburg 
 Council. Schoepflin {Vindida typogr., p. 2\, Documenta, 
 Num. III.) calls it : Protocollum. co7itractuum, i.e., a Register 
 of Contracts. The entry is the sentence of the Strassburg 
 Senate in the above Law-suit, and is dated : Vigil. Lucie &> 
 Otilie (i.e., 12 Dec), Anno xxxix. (i.e. mccccxxxix). 
 
 De Laborde omits all notice of this volume, though he 
 professes to give the documents all from his own tran- 
 scripts. And as I cannot find that .any other author has 
 attempted to describe this volume, we have no bibliogra- 
 phical description of this book as we have of the volumes 
 A and B. 
 
 It is observable that while De Laborde prints the Deposi- 
 tions line for line, apparently as they were in the MS., he 
 prints the Querimonia and the Sentence in the ordinary way. 
 Again, whereas De Laborde gives facsimiles of eleven 
 different passages from the volumes A and B, he gives none 
 from vol. C. So that we have no evidence from this that 
 De Laborde ever saw the Register C. 
 
 Schoepflin tells us in 1761 (p. 347 of vol. ii. of his 
 Alsatia illustrata), that that part of the Acts, which con- 
 tains the sentence of the Senate, had been communicated 
 to him in 1 740 by Jac. Wencker, Councillor and Chief of 
 the Public Archives at Strassburg ; which, of course, refers 
 to this vol. C. And on the same page he says that the 
 depositions of the witnesses (therefore the Registers A and 
 B) were found in 1745 by Jo. Henr. Barth (then Archivist) 
 
 E 
 
26 Gutenberg: 
 
 on the clearing out of the Record tower.* The two 
 latter volumes are stated to have been preserved in the 
 Town Library of Strassburg till 1870, when they are 
 believed to have been destroyed during the bombardment 
 of that city by the Germans. Vol. C may have shared the 
 same fate, but it is nowhere explicitly mentioned. The 
 three volumes seem all to have contained different kinds of 
 documents. I have called the Registers A, B, C, but of 
 course the entries interlace in point of time. The lists of 
 witnesses to be brought forward would naturally be 
 registered in B, before the trial began. The Querimonia in 
 B refers to what happened after the complainant had given 
 the evidence recorded in A. The decision would, of 
 course, come last. It would be interesting to learn what 
 has become of the rest of the series of Registers of which 
 these two (or three) were selected and kept in the case 
 described by De Laborde. 
 
 Schoepflin speaks already in 1740 of the Sentence of the 
 Senate (vol. C). In the Program which he wrote in that 
 year, on the occasion of the tercentenary of the Invention 
 of Printing (of which I have already spoken under docu- 
 ment No. 6, q. v.), he mentions the documents 4 and 6, 
 and the documents of 1441 and 1442, adding: — 
 
 ' ' during all the time that he [Gutenberg] resided at Strassburg 
 he was an adroit and sedulous investigator of wondrous things ; this 
 we learn from the sentence pronounced by the Strassburg judges, in 
 1439, when a controversy had arisen between him and his associates to 
 whom he had communicated his secrets." 
 
 At the end of the Program, referring again to the docu- 
 ments, he says that he owed the public ones to the 
 liberality of the Councillor Wencker (Publica amplissimi 
 Viri Consularis Wenckeri liberalitati debemus). 
 
 In his Dissertation on the origin of printing, which he 
 wrote also in 1740, and was inserted in vol. xvii. of the 
 Mimoires de PAcadhnie des Inscriptions (see above, docu- 
 ment 6), he says, speaking of the documents of 1439, 1441, 
 1442 :— 
 
 " The most remarkable is the first, by which he [Gutenberg] 
 associates himself with three citizens (named Andres Drizehen, Hans 
 
 * " Partem actorum, quae sententias Senatus An. 1439 continet, 
 ex Contractuum Protocollo mecum An. 1 740 jam communicavit Jac. 
 Wenckerus, Consularis, publico tum tabulario praefectus. At An. 1 745 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 27 
 
 Riff, and Andres Heilmann) of this city to work up several arts and 
 marvellous secrets, which approach the miraculous (these are the terms 
 of the treaty written in German), without, however, specifying what 
 those secrets consisted of. This same act reminds us of an anterior 
 one, in virtue of which one of the associates had previously contracted 
 an association with Gutenberg for the polishing of stones, which had 
 been successful." 
 
 I do not find that Schoepflin, on this occasion, mentions 
 Wencker. 
 
 In 1760, however, he does not make the same omission. 
 On p. 1 2 of his Vindicise typographicse, he says : — 
 
 " When in the 40th year of this century many German and Dutch 
 towns celebrated the memory of the Invention of Printing, I considered 
 it the proper occasion to investigate its origin more closely. I began to 
 examine more carefully the public documents of all kinds, the com- 
 mentaries and registers preserved in the Archives of our city, and 
 hitherto neglected by my predecessors. In the course of time success 
 responded to my investigation. That Joh. Gutenberg lived at Strass- 
 burg in 1441 and the following year is shown by two documents 
 [Nos. 8 and lo] of the Church of St. Thomas which Scherzius had 
 discovered in the Archives of that Chapter. Jacobus Wencker, the 
 keeper of the Archives, has informed me [in 1740] (from the Archives of 
 the Court) that the same Gutenberg had married at Strassburg a noble 
 Alsatian, paid public taxes to the city, and established an association with 
 citizens [of Strassburg] for the sake of a secret art. . . . I have explained 
 this in an Academical Program [in 1 740], and in the same year sent 
 a dissertation to the Royal Academy of Inscriptions on this subject [see 
 above]. Five years afterwards \i.e. in 1745] full light was thrown upon 
 my investigation when the tower called the Pfenningthurn (where the 
 Strassburg treasures were preserved) began to be destroyed. When I 
 was inspecting again the Strassburg flag and standard, the wax tables, 
 the charters provided with golden bulla, and other antiquarian stores, 
 several times seen already by me before, I at last entered into a room 
 which was more rarely unlocked before, where I discovered in a long 
 row the old protocols of the Senate, namely, small foUo paper codices, 
 marked with the years. Henricus Barthius, at that time the chief of 
 the Archives, and myself, drew them forth from the darkness. We 
 examined them, and I myself excerpted several. But when I took up 
 the codex of the year 1439, I had hardly opened the MS. when I saw 
 the name of Gutenberg. Looking further, I found a long series of 
 witnesses who gave their testimonies regarding the Gutenbergian 
 secret, most of which designated plainly the typographical art. The 
 authentic codex, which is preserved in a sacred place, and in which 
 the Acts of the Senate and the declarations of witnesses before the 
 delegates of the Senate have been written, is of a venerable authority. 
 In it are registered the witnesses produced in the law-suit brought 
 
 Jo. Henr. Barthius, custos Archivi, effata testiura, qui in causa hac 
 auditi sunt, reperit, cum Nummarise turris destruendae occasione 
 veteres chartse et codices in publica Curiae scrinia transferrentur." 
 
28 Gutenberg: 
 
 against Gutenberg when one of his associates had died and his heirs 
 wished to be admitted to tlie secret, which really was nothing but the 
 secret of typography. "* 
 
 Dibdin visited Strassburg in 1818, and what he then saw 
 appears plainly enough from what he says on p. 53 of 
 vol. 3 of his " Bibliographical, Antiquarian, and Picturesque 
 Tour in France and Germany," published in 1821 : — 
 
 " However, of other MSS. you will I 'am sure give me credit for 
 having examined the celebrated depositions in the laiv-suit between Fust 
 and Gutembei-g\ — so intimately connected with the history of early 
 printing, and so copiously treated upon by recent bibliographers (see yie 
 authorities quoted, and the subject itself handled, in the Bibliographical 
 
 * " . . . Quadragesimo autem hujus seculi anno secularem inventse 
 Typographiee memoriam apud Germanos et Batavos multse quum 
 celebrassent civitates, originis ejus propius investigandse mihi nata 
 occasio. — Publica omnis generis Acta, Commentaries, Registra, quae 
 decessores neglexerant, in tabulario Civitatis tum curatius investigare 
 incepi. Investigationi per temporum intervalla successus respondit. 
 Joh. Gutenbergium, a. 1441. & sequenti civem Argentinte vixisse, jam 
 pridem Instrumenta duo me docuerant Thomana, quK in scrinio 
 Capituli detexerat ScHERZius, Antiquitatum Teutonicarum scrutator 
 illustris. Eundem Gutenbergium Alsaticam Nobilem Argentorati 
 duxisse uxorem, onera publica solvisse civitati, societatem circa artera 
 occultam cum civibns inivisse, ex scrinio CuriK me docuit Vir de re 
 literaria prKclare meritus. Jacobus Wenckeeus, tabularii custos, 
 dein Reip. Consul. . . . Academico lisec Programmate paucis exposui, 
 cum ad secularem, Typographias inventse, orationem, a literato juvene 
 habendam, Academise cives invitarem. Eodem tempore Regise In- 
 scriptionum Academic Dissertationem super hoc argumentum Lutetiam 
 
 traiismisi At plenum denique investigationi mese lumen post 
 
 quinquennium accessit, quum Nummaria turris (lingua patria Pfen- 
 ningthurn) cimeliorum Argentinensium custos .... superiore ex 
 parte destrui ccepisset. Carrocium atque vexillum Argentinense, 
 tabulas ceratas, diplomata, aureis buUis instructa, aliamque antiquitatis 
 supellectilem, a me prius jam identidcm visam, quum denuo inspice- 
 rem, in Cameram denique incidi, rarius ante reseratam, ubi Vetera 
 Protocolla Senatus, chartaceos nempe codices, forma; folii minoris, 
 annis signatos, longa serie deprehendi. PIenricus Barthius, 
 tabularii tum Pra;fectus, Vir amantissimus literarum, eos mecum ex 
 tenebris protraxit. Excussimus singulos, nonnuUos excerpsi. Cum 
 autem ad Codicem a. 1439. pervenissem, vix evolvi volumen, quum 
 Gutenbergii nomen in meos oculos incurrit. Inquirens ulterius longam 
 testium seriem reperi, qui de Gutenbergiano arcano testimonia 
 perhibent, quorum pleraque typographicam artem designarunt aperte. 
 — Codex authenticus, loco sacro servatus, in quo publice perscripta 
 sunt Acta Senatus, testiumque effata coram delegatis Senatus fideliter 
 consignata, venerandae auctoritatis est . . ." 
 
 t I copy Dibdin word for word ; the italics are also his ; he con- 
 founds, of course, the law-suit of 1455 with this. — ^J. H. H. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 29 
 
 Decameron, vol. i. p. 316, &c.). — I own that I inspected these 
 depositions (in the German language) with no ordinary curiosity. 
 They are doubtless most precious ; yet I cannot help suspecting that 
 the character or letter is not of the time ; namely, of 1440. It should 
 rather seem to be of the sixteenth century. Perhaps at the commence- 
 ment of it. These documents are written in a small folio volume, in 
 one uniform hand — a kind of law-gothic — from beginning to end. 
 The volume has the following title on the exterior ; ' ' Dicta Testium 
 magni concilij Anno dni ni .cccc°. Tricesinio nono." The paper is 
 strong and thick, and has a pair of scales for the water-mark. The 
 younger Schweigh^user thinks my doubts about its age not well 
 founded ; conceiving it to be a coeval document. But this does not 
 affect its authenticity, as it m'ay have been an accurate and attested 
 copy — of an original which is now perished. Certainly the whole book 
 has very much the air of a copy : and besides, would not the originals 
 have been upon separate rolls of parchment ?" 
 
 It is evident from this quotation tiiat Dibdin only saw 
 volume A. Dr. Van der Linda, speaking (p. 514) of 
 Dibdin's visit to Strassburg in 1818, says, with his usual 
 amiability : — " Dibdin examined in 1818 the document 
 ,with English stupidity." 
 
 Schaab (Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst) 
 also speaks of the law-suit. On p. 27 of his first volume 
 he mentions the 
 
 " Declaration which Gutenberg made before the Great Council of 
 Strassburg regarding the complaint of Georg Dritzehen, and his 
 detailed defence, on which on the 12th of December, 1439, the 
 sentence of this Council followed. In Schoepflin Vind. typogr., 
 docum. No. 3."* 
 
 On p. 30 Schaab explains : — 
 
 " This important declaration of Gutenberg before, the Great Council 
 of Strassburg, and the still more important sentence of this Council, 
 was discovered by Mr. Wencker, the Archivist of Strassburg, among 
 the Protocols of Contracts of the year 1439." t 
 
 This, therefore, refers to the Sentence of the Senate (vol. C), 
 which is Schoepflin's docum. No. 3. 
 
 * " Die Erklarung Gutenbergs, welche er vor dem grossen Rath zu 
 Strassburg auf die Klage des Georg Dritzehen gab, und seine ausfiihr- 
 liche Vertheidigung enthalt, worauf am 12. Dezember 1439 von 
 diesem Rath das Urtheil erfolgte. In Schoepflin vind. typog. docum. 
 No. 3." 
 
 t "Diese wichtige Erklarung Gutenbergs vor dem grossen Rath zu 
 Strassburg und das noch wichtigere Urtheil dieses Raths hat Hr. 
 Wencker, Archivist in Strassburg, unter den ProtokoUen der Kon- 
 trakten des Jahrs 1439 entdeckt." 
 
30 Gutenberg: 
 
 On p. 43 Schaab mentions : — 
 
 1 (i). " The Protocol of the Great Council of Strassburg of the year 
 1439, on the hearing of 14 witnesses in the law-suit of Jorg Dritzehn, 
 citizen of Strassburg, against Johann von Mentze genannt Gutenberg." 
 (2). " Another Protocol, conducted before the same Great Council at 
 Strassburg, on all complaints which came before it, and the names of 
 the witnesses which were brought forward in these complaints. Among 
 the first is that of Lorenz Beildeck, the servant of Gutenberg, against 
 Georg Dritzehn, because the latter accused him of having given a 
 false testunony in the cause of his master. Among the latter are those 
 mentioned who had been heard in Gutenberg's and Dritzehn's 
 cause. " * 
 
 This, therefore, refers to the entries in the Registers A 
 and B. Schaab refers here to Schoepflin's Documenta II., 
 III., IV. ; but this is a slight mistake, as Schoepflin's 
 No. III. is the Sentence. 
 
 On p. 49 Schaab returns to the latter two acts, saying : — 
 
 "Schoepflin discovered these two important Acts at Strassburg in 
 an old tower, called the Pfennigthurm, among the old Protocols of the 
 Council, all bound in small folio, and marked according to the years, 
 among those of the year 1439. At present [1830] they \i.e. these 
 particular volumes A and B] are preserved in the Town Library at 
 Strassburg. The circumstances of the discovery of these and all 
 other Protocols of the Council of the once free city of Strassburg ; 
 the place where they were found, and the fact that those of the year 
 1439, mixed up with those of former and later years, agree most 
 minutely with the latter in their exterior and interior form, should 
 have protected them against every, even the slightest, suspicion of 
 falsification ; but Dibdin, the otherwise so esteemed English biblio- 
 grapher, intimated, on his tour through France and Germany in the 
 year 1818, to the Librarian, Schweighauser, who showed him these 
 Protocols of the Council in the Town Library, some suspicion as to 
 their genuineness. [Here follows the above quotation from Dibdin's 
 Tour]. . . . Dibdin, who in his former writings had shown a con- 
 spicuous antipathy against Gutenberg, who even regarded the latter's 
 42-line Bible as a product of Fust and Schoefi"er, who says himself that 
 he does not understand a word of German, could not form a critical 
 
 * " Das ProtokoU des grossen Raths zu Strassburg vom Jahr 1439, 
 Uber die Abhorung von vierzehn Zeugen in dem Prozess des Jbrg 
 Dritzehn, Biirgers zu Strassburg, gegen Johann von Mentze genannt 
 
 Gutenberg." "Ein anderes ProtokoU gefiihrt von dem nemlichen 
 
 grossen Rath zu Strassburg iiber alle Klagen, welche vor ihn gebracht 
 und die Namen der Zeugen, die in diesen Klagsachen angegeben 
 worden. Unter den ersten stehet die von Lorenz Beildeck, Bedienten 
 von Gutenberg, gegen Georg Dritzehn, well dieser ihn beschuldigt, ein 
 falsches Zeugniss in der Sache seines Herrn gegeben zu haben, unter 
 letztern sind jene namentlich genannt, die in Gutenbergs und Dritzehns 
 Sache waren abgehort worden." 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 31 
 
 judgment on the originality of these precious Acts. His opinion that 
 these Protocols might be a correct and attested copy from an original 
 which can no longer be found, is based upon nothing, and has not even 
 the appearance of probability ; equally incorrect is his assertion that 
 the original Acts would have been written on separate rolls of parch- 
 ment. Had he been speaking of the depositions of witnesses of the 1 3th 
 and even of the 14th century, he might have been right ; at that time 
 the use of parchment roUs was customary, of which the declarations of 
 witnesses still bear the name in the German judicial practice ; but 
 these had fallen into disuse in the 15th century, when linen paper 
 had been invented and its use had become general. At that period 
 we find already in the whole of Germany Protocols of Councils and 
 judicial Acts written on paper. The librarian, Professor Schweig- 
 hauser, Jun., wrote to me [Schaab] about these two important 
 sources on the 22nd April, 1836, as follows : — No. II.* is from a com- 
 paratively small folio volume, of which Schoepflin has correctly given 
 the title ; No. IV. t is from a much thinner volume, also correctly 
 indicated by Schoepflin. These two volumes are in our Library, 
 where I showed them to Dibdin. It is inconceivable how he could 
 doubt their authenticity, as they bear all external and internal evi- 
 dence of it most plainly. They are old volumes, entirely worn at the 
 edges, bound in rough parchment, which has become brown-yellow, 
 and repaired at the back with old parchment or strips of leather, in 
 which many other imimportant matters are contained. Besides the 
 complete uselessness of copying such things in the l6th century, the 
 fact that in the volumes frequently whole or half pages have been 
 crossed out, and others have been left blank, proves plainly that the 
 documents are the original "J 
 
 • This is evidently a reference to Schoepflin's documenta, whose 
 No. II. contains ^z first and second entries, or the depositions of the 
 witnesses, and is therefore our Register A. 
 
 t Schoepflin's No. IV. contains the third, fourth, and fifth entries, 
 and is therefore our Register B. 
 
 J " Schopflin hat beide wichtige AktenstUcke zu Strassburg in einem 
 alten Thurm, der Pfennigthurm genannt, unter den alten Rathsproto- 
 koUen, die alle in klein Folioformat gebunden und nach den Jahren 
 gezeichnet waren, und zwar unter denen vom Jahr 1439 entdeckt 
 (Schoepflin Vind. typ. 1760. 13, 14). Jetzt sind sie in der Stadt- 
 bibliothek zu Strassburg aufbewahrt. Die Umstande der Entdeckung 
 dieser und aller andern RathsprotokoUe der einst freien Stadt Strass- 
 burg, der Ort, wo sie gefunden worden und dass die von dem Jahre 
 1439 unter denen der friiheren und spateren Jahre vermischt gelegen, 
 mit diesen in ausserer und innerer Form auf das genaueste viberein- 
 stimmen, hatten sie gegen jeden, auch den leisesten, Verdacht der 
 Verfalschung sichern soUen ; allein Dybdin, der sonst so achtbare 
 englische Bibliograph, ausserte bei seiner Reise durch Frankreich und 
 Deutschland im Jahr 1818 dem Km. Bibliothekar Schweighiiuser, 
 der ihm diese RathsprotokoUe auf der Stadtbibliothek vorlegte, einen 
 Verdacht gegen ihre Aechtheit .... Dybdin, der in seinen friilieren 
 Schriften eine auffallende Abneigung gegen Gutenberg bewiesen, der 
 sogar dessen 42 zeilige Bibel fiir ein Produkt von Fust und Schoffer 
 
32 Gutenberg: 
 
 It is plain that we have here only a description of the 
 volumes A and B. 
 
 About the year 1853 Aug. Bernard visited Strassburg, 
 and on p. 1 2 1 of the first vol. of his work De Porigme de 
 V Imprimerie (Paris, 1853) he states : — 
 
 "the pieces of this Law-suit still exist in the original in the Library 
 of Strassburg, where I had the pleasure of perusing them and verifying 
 their authenticity." * 
 
 Therefore, Schoepflin (1740 — 1761), with all his verbosity 
 on the finding of the Registers and other matters, does 
 not say one word as to whether he ever saw with his 
 own eyes the Sentence of the Senate (in vol. C. ). Dibdin 
 (18 1 8 — 1 821) does not even speak of it. Neither Schaab 
 nor Schweighauser (1826— 1830) gives us the slightest hint 
 
 hielt, der selbst sagt, dass er nicht ein Wort deutsch verstehe, Icann 
 wohl kein kritisches Urtheil iiber die Originalitat dieser kostbaren 
 deutschen Aktenstiicke fallen. Seine Meinung, diese RathsprotokoUe 
 mochten eine richtige and beglaubte Abschrift von einem nicht mehr 
 vorfindlichen Originale seyn, hat er durch nichts begiiindet und sie 
 hat auch nicht den Schein der Wahrscheii^lichkeit ; eben so unrichtig 
 ist seine Behauptung : die Original verhbre seyen gewiss auf einzelne 
 PergamentroUen geschrieben gewesen. Wenn er von Zeugenrerhbren 
 des 13. und selbst noch des 14. Jahrhunderts redete, so mbgte er 
 Recht haben, dort war allerdings der Gebrauch der pergamentenen 
 Zeugenrotuln, von denen noch in der deutschen Gerichtspraxis die 
 Erklarungen der Zeugen den Namen fortfuhren ; allein diese waren 
 im 15. Jahrhundert in Abgang gekommen, als das Leinenpapier 
 erfunden, und sein Gebrauch allgemein geworden war. Jetzt trifft 
 man schon in ganz Deutschland RathsprotokoUe und Gerichtsakten 
 
 auf Papier geschrieben.^ Prof, und Bibliothekar Schweighauser der 
 
 Jiingere zu Strassburg, schrieb mir iiber diese beide wichtige Quellen 
 am 22. April 1826 : " No. II. ist aus einem betrachtlichen Idein Folio- 
 bande, dessen Titel Schbpflin richtig angegeben hat ; No. IV. ist aus 
 einem weit diinneren, gleichfalls von Schbpflin richtig bezeichneten. 
 Diese beide Bande sind auf unserer Bibliothek, wo ich sie Dybdin 
 gezeigt habe. Wie dieser an ihrer Authenticitat zweifeln konnte, ist 
 gar nicht zu begreifen, denn sie tragen alle aussere und innere Kenn- 
 zeichen derselben aufs Augenscheinlichste an sich. Es sind alte am 
 Rande ganz vergi-iffene, in rauhes, biaungelb gewordnes Pergament 
 gebundene und hinten mit altem Pergament oder Lederseiten nachge- 
 flickte Hofeln, worin zugleich viele andere unwichtige Sachen entbalten 
 sind. Was, ausser der ^nzlichen Unniitzheit, solche Dinge im 16. 
 Jahrhundert abzuschreiben, augenscheinlich beweisst, dass es die 
 Originalakten sind, ist, dass darin haufig ganze oder halbe Seiten 
 ausgestrichen, andere aber weiss gelassen sind ..." 
 
 * "Les pieces de ce proems, qui existent encore en original dans la 
 bibliotheque de Strasbourg, oil j'ai eu le plaisir de les parcourir et d'en 
 constater I'authenticit^ ..." 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 33 
 
 as to whether they had seen volume C, though the latter 
 actually lived at Strassburg and described the volumes A 
 and B. Bernard (1853) does not refer to vol. C. And as 
 De Laborde (1840), who is so careful and minute about the 
 volumes A and B, has not one word to say about the one 
 containing this Sentence, it would seem that this document 
 has never yet been seen by any human being ; Wencker, the 
 discoverer, of course excepted ! ! 
 
 Schoepflin published all the entries of the Law-suit in 
 1760 (fifteen years after the discovery of the depositions, 
 and twenty after that of the Sentence), in his Vindiciae Ty- 
 pographicae, accompanied by a Latin translation. They 
 were republished from his text, first by Meerman (Origines 
 typogr., Hagae Comit., 1765, ii. p. 58 sq.), who gave 
 also Schoepflin's Latin version, with some modifications 
 in some of the most material parts, and afterwards by 
 Wetter {Krit. Geschichte der Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. 
 durch Joh. Gutenberg, 8vo. Mainz, 1836, p. 56 sq.). De 
 Laborde republished {Debuts de I'imprimerie d, Strasbourg, 
 Paris, 1840, 8vo.) the German text from the original (at 
 least the first two entries), and added a French translation. 
 English translations of the most material parts of the Law- 
 suit may be found in Dr. Van der Linde's Haarlem Legend 
 (Engl, translation, Lond., Blades, 187 1); in W. Skeen's 
 Early Typography (8vo. Colombo, 1872), and De Vinne's 
 The Invention of Printing (8vo. Lond., 1877, p. 380). The 
 German text was reproduced by Dr. Van der Linde, in his 
 "Gutenberg" (p. vi. of the Urkunden). He does not state 
 from whom he takes it, but as his text is arranged exactly 
 like that of De Laborde, we must presume that he followed 
 him, especially as he prints the latter part of Midehart 
 Stocker's deposition in the same way as De Laborde, though 
 this author printed it defectively, as appears from the facsimile 
 which he traced with his own hand and added to his work 
 
 A great many authors have commented upon the Law- 
 suit, but even after all that has been said and done in the 
 matter, I do not consider a literal and unabridged transla- 
 tion of the entries we have to be out of place. I give the 
 original and my translation in parallel columns. I have 
 followed De Laborde's text, and have only altered those 
 words which deviate from his own facsimiles. As space 
 does not allow printing the text Une for line as De Laborde 
 gives it (apparently from the MS.), the place where his 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 lines break oiF has here been marked by || . 
 readings are given in notes. 
 
 \First entry.] 
 
 Schoepflin's 
 
 Dis ist die worheit die Jerge 
 dritzehen || ' geleit' hat wider Johan' 
 von Mentzell genant gutenberg In 
 prsesentia Claus Duntzenheim und 
 Claus zur Helten. 
 
 Item Barbel von Zabem die 
 KoiifFelerin hatt geseit das siill uff 
 ein nacht allerleye mit Andres 
 Dritzehen gerett habe und|| under 
 andem Worten sprach sii zu ime 
 VfoUent nit doline|| gon slaffen, do 
 habe er ir geantwurt Ich musz 
 disz vor machen, || Also sprach dise 
 gezugin, aber hiilffe Gott was ver- 
 tiint er groszH geltes es mochte 
 dolrae iiber x. guldin haben costet, 
 Antwurtll er ir wider und sprach du 
 bist ein dorin, wenestu das es mich|| 
 nuwent x. gl. gecostet habe, hb- 
 restdu, hettestu als vil als es|| mich 
 iiber lli«. bare guldin gecostet hett 
 du hettest din leptage|| gniig, und 
 das es mich minder gecostet hatt 
 dann v'. gl. das istll gar liitzel one 
 das es mich noch costen wiirtll 
 darumb ich min eigen und min 
 erbe versetzt liabe, Sprach|| dise 
 gezugin aber zu ime : heiliges liden 
 misselinge uch dann|| wie woltent 
 ir dann tun, Antwurt er ir uns mag 
 nitll misselingen, ee ein jor uss- 
 kommet so hant wir unser houbt- 
 gut widerll und sind dann alleselig, 
 Gott welle uns dann blogen.|| 
 
 This is the truth which Jerge 
 Dritzehm has deposed against 
 Johan von Mentze named Guten- 
 berg. In the presence of Claus 
 Duntzenheim and Claus zur 
 Helten. 
 
 Item, Barbel von Zabeifi, the 
 trades-woman, has said that one 
 night she talked about several 
 things with Andres Dritzehen, 
 and, among other words, she said 
 to him : ' Will you not go and 
 sleep ? ' but he replied : ' I must 
 make this first.' Then this wit- 
 ness said : ' but, help [me] God, 
 how much money do you spend ; 
 this must have cost you more than 
 X guilders.' He answered again 
 and said : ' thou art a fool, thinkst 
 thou that it has cost me only 
 X guilders? Look here, if thou 
 hadst as much as it has cost me 
 over 300 guilders ready money, 
 thou wouldst have enough for thy 
 life, and what it has cost me less 
 than 500 guilders is very little, 
 besides what it will still cost me ; 
 wherefore I have mortgaged my 
 house and my ground. ' Then this 
 witness said to him : ' Holy pas- 
 sion, if you fail, what will you 
 do ? ' He replied : ' we cannot 
 fail ; before a year is passed, we 
 have our capital back and will all 
 be happy, unless God wished to 
 afflict us.' 
 
 ' In this heading the first two 
 lines are divided according to De 
 Laborde's facs., the remainder Is 
 printed in the ordinary way, as De 
 Laborde's facs. does not go further 
 than gutenberg, and he does not 
 divide the lines in his text. 
 
 " De Laborde prints geseit, but his 
 facs. shoyis geleit ; the latter word is 
 also found in Schoepflin's text. 
 
 3 De Laborde prints Johann, but 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 35 
 
 Item frouwe Ennel Hans Schul- 
 heissen fruwe des Holzmans hattll 
 geseit das Lorentz Beildeck zu 
 einer zit inn ir hus kommen sy|| 
 zu Claus Dritzehen irem vetter und 
 sprach zu ime, lieber Claus|| Drit- 
 zehen, min' Juncker Hanns Gut- 
 temberg halt uch gebetten das'H 
 Andres xiij ' selig halt iiij stucke 
 Inn einer pressen ligen do hatt'|| 
 gutenberg* gebeten das ir die vsz 
 der pressen nement vnd die von 
 einanderll legent vff' das man nit 
 gewissen kune was es sy* daim er 
 hatt nit gerne das das Jemand 
 sihetll 
 
 Dise gezugin hatt ouch geseit, 
 Als sye by||j| Andres Dritzehen 
 jrem vetter gewesen|| sy do habe 
 sii jme desselben wercks dick 
 helffenll machen tag und naht, Sie 
 hatt ouch geseitll das sii wol wisse 
 das Andres Dritzehen jr vetter 
 seligll in den ziten sin pfennig gelt 
 versetzt habe ob|| aber er das zii 
 dem werck gebrucht habe wisse|| sii 
 nit. II 
 
 Item Dame Ennel, the wife of 
 Hans Schulheiss, wood-merchant, 
 has said that Lorentz Beildeck at 
 one time came into her house to 
 Claus Dritzehen, her cousin, and 
 said to him : ' dear Claus Dritze- 
 hen,' the blessed Andres Dritzehen 
 has four pieces " lying in a press ; 
 now, Gutenberg has requested that 
 you will take them out of the press 
 and separate them, the one from the 
 other, that no one may know what 
 it is, because he would not like that 
 anybody saw it.' 
 
 This witness has also said : 
 ' When she was [staying] with 
 Andres Dritzehen, her cousin, she 
 often helped him to make the 
 work by day and night.' She also 
 said • that she knew well that 
 Andres Dritzehen, her blessed 
 cousin, had, at one time, mort- 
 gaged his capital, but whether he 
 used that for the work she did not 
 know.' 
 
 his facs. shows Johan, which latter 
 form is also found in Schoepflin's 
 text. 
 
 ' De Laborde prints min — das 
 between ( ), and places a star after 
 the word das, but does not explain 
 what he means. Schoepflin, how- 
 ever, tells us that after the name 
 Dritzehen, the following words are 
 written in the original : min Juncher 
 Hanns Gutemberg hatt uch gebetten 
 das, but have been deleted. 
 
 2 So in De Laborde's facs., i.e., 
 Dritzehen. 
 
 ' Here follow apparently two let- 
 ters according to De Laborde's fac- 
 simile, but they have been struck 
 through, and I am unable to de- 
 cipher them. 
 
 ■" The first word in the hne is uch, 
 but it is struck out, and gutenberg is 
 added in the margin. See De La- 
 borde's facsimile. 
 
 * vff— sy added in the margin. 
 
 ' Here follow in the original the 
 words ' ' min yuncher [yuncker, De 
 Laborde) Hanns Gutemberg [Gui- 
 temberg, De Laborde) hatt .uch 
 gebetten das;" i.e., "my Juncker 
 (Nobleman, esquire), Hanns Gutem- 
 berg has requested you," but the 
 words seem to have been struck 
 through. 
 
 ' Schoepflin has paginas. 
 
36 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 Item Hanns Sidenneger hat' 
 geseit das. jme|| Andres Dritzehen 
 selig dick und vil geseit habe,|| das 
 er gros gelt ufif das egemelte werk' 
 
 geleitll habe ' und in vil 
 
 costete und sprach|| damit zii die- 
 sem* gezugen er wuste nit wie|| er 
 darinne tun soUte,* Also antwurte 
 jme dieser^ll gezuge und sprach 
 Andres bistu darin|| kommen so 
 miistu je ouch darus kommen,|| 
 Also sprach Andres aber zii disem|| 
 gezugen er miiste das sine ver- 
 setzen, antwurt jm|| diser gezuge 
 so versetze es und sage nyemand|| 
 nutzit davon, das habe nu Andres 
 getonll ob aber der summa uf die zit 
 vil oder lutzel gewesen sy|| wisse 
 er nit. II 
 
 Item Hannss Schultheiss hat' 
 geseit das Lorentz|| Beildeck zu 
 einer zit heim inn sin huss kom- 
 menll sy zii Claus Dritzehen als|| 
 dieser* gezuge jn heim gefiirt hette, 
 Als Andres Dritzehen|| sin bruder 
 selige von todes wegeu abgangen 
 was, undll sprach da Lorentz Beil- 
 deck zu Claus Dritzehen, AndresH 
 Dritzehen uwer bruder selige hat 
 iiij. stiicke undenan inn|| einer 
 pressen liegen," da halt uch Hanns 
 Gutemberg gebetten|| das Ir die 
 daruss nement und uff die presse 
 legentll von einander so kann' man 
 nit gesehen was das ist,|| Also 
 gieng Claus Dritzehen und suchete 
 die stiicke do vant|| er nutzit, Diser 
 gezuge hat ouch geseit das er vor|i 
 guter zit von Andres Dritzehen 
 gehort habe ee er von todes wegen|| 
 abgangen sy das er sprach, das 
 werck hette jn me dannjl III" gul- 
 din costet.|| 
 
 ' hatt, Schoepflin. 
 " werck, Schoepflin. 
 ' De Laborde places here five 
 spots ; Schoepflin's text runs on. 
 * dis-, Schoepflin. 
 '• solte, Schoepflin. 
 " ligen, Schoepflin. 
 ' kan, Schoepflin. 
 
 Item Hanns Sidenneger has said 
 ' that the blessed Andres Dritzehen 
 had told him over and over again 
 that he had spent much money on 
 the said work .... and that it 
 cost him much, and, therefore, 
 said to him (witness), he did not 
 know how he should act in this 
 matter.' Then this witness an- 
 swered him and said : ' Andres, 
 hast thou got into It, thou must get 
 out of it also.' Then Andres said 
 to this witness ; ' he had to mort- 
 gage his property,' and this wit- 
 ness answered him : ' yes, mort- 
 gage it and tell nobody an3^hing 
 about it ;' Andres has done this 
 now, though he did not know 
 whether the sum, at that time, had 
 been large or small. 
 
 Item Hanns Schultheiss has said 
 that Lorentz Beildeck at one time 
 came to his house to Claus Drit- 
 zehen, when this witness had con- 
 ducted him thither, when Andres 
 Dritzehen, his blessed brother, had 
 died, and then Lorentz Beildeck 
 said to Claus Dritzehen : ' Andres 
 Dritzehen, your blessed brother, 
 has four pieces ' lying underneath 
 in a press, and Hanns Gutem- 
 berg has requested you that you 
 should take them out of it and 
 lay them separate on the press, so 
 that nobody can see what it is.' 
 Therefore Claus Dritzehen went 
 and searched for the pieces,' 
 but found nothing. This witness 
 has also said that he had heard, 
 some time ago, from Andres 
 Dritzehen, before he died, that he 
 had said the work had cost him 
 more than 300 guilders. 
 
 ' Schoepflin has paginas. 
 ' Schoepflin has formas. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 37 
 
 Item Cunrad Sahspach halt ge- 
 seit das Andres Heilman|| zu einer 
 zit zu jme komen sy inn Kremer 
 gasse und sprach|| zu jme, lieber 
 Cunrad als Andres Dritzehen|| ab- 
 gangen ist da hastu die pressen 
 gemaht' vnd weist|| vmb die sache 
 do gang dohin vnd" nym die 
 stiickell vss der pressen vnd zerlege 
 sii von einander so weis nieraand'H 
 was es ist, da nu diser gezuge das 
 tun wolte undll ako suchete das 
 were uff Sanct|| Steffans*tag nehst 
 vergangen do was das ding hin- 
 weg,|| Diser gezuge hatt ouch ge- 
 seit das Andres Dritzehen selige|| 
 zu einer zit gelt umb jn gelehenet 
 habe dasH habe er zu dem werck 
 gebruchet, Er hat' ouch|| geseit das 
 Andres Dritzehen selige jme zu 
 einer zit geseit habe|| und clagete 
 er miiste pfeiming gelt versetzen, 
 sprach diser|| gezuge das ist bose, 
 doch bistu darin kommen, so 
 mustu ouchll darus, und also wisse 
 er wol das er sin pfenning gelt|| 
 versetzt habe. || 
 
 Item Wemher Smalriem hatt 
 
 geseit das er|| °1| 
 
 by iij. Oder vier koUffe geton|| 
 habe, wen aber das anegienge 
 wisse er nit, und under|| andem ist 
 ein kouff gewesen by C. und XIII. 
 guldin,|| an demselben gelt hant ir 
 drye fiir LX. guldin|| versiglet, do 
 hatt Andres Dritzehen selige XX. 
 angehurt,'!! und uff ein zit vor dem 
 zile sprach Andres Dritzehen zu|| 
 disem gezugen er solte heim kom- 
 
 ' So in Laborde's facsimile. 
 
 ' There seems to be er after vni 
 in De Laborde's facsimile, but he 
 does not give it in his text. 
 
 ' Schoepflin and De Laborde print 
 nyemand, but the latter's facsimile 
 gives niemand. 
 
 * Steffanns, Schoepflin. 
 
 ° hatt, Schoepflin. 
 
 ^ De Laborde prints here a line of 
 spots, but does not say why ; 
 Schoepflin's text runs on. 
 
 ' angeblirt, Schoepflin, 
 
 Item Cunrad Sahspach has said 
 that Andres Heilman came to 
 him at one time in the Kremer 
 street and said to him : ' dear 
 Coiu-ad, as Andres Dritzehen has 
 died and thou hast made the press 
 and knowst of the affair, so go 
 thither and take the pieces^ out of 
 the press and take them the one from 
 the other, then nobody knows what 
 it is.' Now, when this witness 
 wished to do this and searched, 
 which was on St. Stephen's day 
 last, the thing was gone. This 
 witness has also said 'that the 
 blessed Andres Dritzehen had, at 
 a certain time, borrowed money 
 from him, which he nsed for the 
 work.' He has also said ' that the 
 blessed Andres Dritzehen had told 
 him at one time and complained 
 that he had to mortgage his in- 
 come, ' to which this witness replied : 
 ' this is bad, but if thou hast got 
 into it, thou must also get out of 
 it ; ' and therefore he knew well 
 that he had mortgaged his income. 
 
 Item Wemher Smalriem has 
 
 said that he 
 
 had made about three or four pur- 
 chases, but did not know whom it 
 concerned ; and among other 
 things there was a purchase of 1 13 
 guilders, towards which money 
 three of them had subscribed for 
 60 guilders, while the blessed An- 
 dres Dritzehen engaged for 20 
 guilders. And at a certain time, 
 before the term, Andres Dritzehen 
 
 ' Schoepflin has paginas. 
 
38 
 
 Gutenberg . 
 
 men und die XX. gl.|| nemen, 
 Antwurt jme diser gezuge er solte 
 jme dasll gelt zusamen bringen und 
 insammeln das tett Andres, || und 
 also damach kam Andres Drit- 
 zehen aber zu disem|| gezugen und 
 sprach, das gelt wer by einander 
 inn Hermll Anthonien Heilman 
 hus da' solte er das holen, das|| 
 tett diser gezuge und nam das gelt 
 inn Herm Anthonien|| hus, und 
 das iibrige' gelt das habe alle- 
 wegenll Fridel von Seckingen be- 
 zalilt.»|| 
 
 Item Mydehart Stocker hat* ge- 
 seit Als Andresll Dritzehen selige 
 uff Sanct Johannis tag zu Winach- 
 ten'll do man den Kiutzgang fett 
 sich nydergeleit habell und siech 
 wart do lag er inn dis gezugen stu- 
 benil an eim bette. Also kam nu 
 diser gezuge zu|| jme und sprach, 
 Andres wie got es,|| Antwurt er 
 jme ich weis werlich mir ist gar 
 totlichy und sprach damit, soil ich 
 sterben so wolte ich dasll ich nye 
 inn die geselleschafFt kommen wer, 
 sprach diser|| gezuge wie so, sprach 
 er aber do weis ich wol das mine 
 briiderell mit Gutemberg nyemer 
 iiberkommen kunnent, || sprach 
 diser gezuge, ist dann die gemein- 
 schaft" nitll verschrieben' oder sint 
 keine lute da gewesen, sprach 
 Andresll ja es ist verschrieben,' do 
 frogete jn diser gezuge wiell die 
 gemeinschafft zugangen wer, do 
 seite er jme wie|| das Andres Heil- 
 mann,' Hanns Riife, Gutemberg 
 und er inn|| eine gemeinschafft 
 kommen werent, darin hetten 
 Andresll Heilman und er jr je- 
 
 ' do, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' uberige, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' bezalt, Schoepflin. 
 
 < halt, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Winahten, Schoepflin. 
 
 * -schafft, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' verschriben, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' -man, Schoepflin. 
 
 said to this witness ' that he should 
 come home and take the 20 guil- 
 ders.' But this witness answered, 
 'he should bring the money to- 
 gether and collect for him,' which 
 Andres did. But eSX.tTW3X&s Andres 
 Dritzehen came again to this wit- 
 ness and said : ' that the money 
 was together in the house of Mr. 
 Anthonie Heilman, where he could 
 fetch it,' which this witness did, 
 and took the money in Mr. Antho- 
 nie's house, and the rest of the 
 money was certainly paid by Fridel 
 von Seckingen. 
 
 Item Mydehart Stocker has said: 
 'When the blessed Andres Drit- 
 zehen, on St. John's day at 
 Christmas, when the procession 
 took place, lay down and became 
 ill, he was lying in the room of 
 this witness on a bed. And this 
 witness came to him and said : 
 ' Andres, how are you ? ' to which 
 he replied : ' I know I am mor- 
 tally ill, ' and also said : ' if I were 
 to die I should wish never to have 
 joined the partnership.' This wit- 
 ness asked, why. To which he 
 replied : ' I know well that my 
 brothers never can agree with 
 Gutemberg.' Said this vritness : 
 ' has then the association not been 
 vpritten down, or have no persons 
 been present ? ' Said Andres : 
 'yes, it has been written down.' 
 Then this witness asked him, how 
 the partnership had been made, to 
 which he replied 'that Andres 
 Heilmann, Hanns Siffe, Gutem- 
 berg, and himself had entered into 
 partnership, to which, as he recol- 
 lected, Andres Heilman and him- 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 39 
 
 glicher LXXX. guldin geleit, alz er 
 behalten habe|| Also su nu inn der 
 gemeinschafft werent do werent|| 
 Andres Heilman und er zu Gutem- 
 berg kommen zu' Sanctil Arbogast 
 do hette er nu ettliche Kunst vor 
 jnen verborgen|| die er jnen nit ver- 
 bunden was zu zeugen, darane 
 hettenll sii nu nit ein gevallen ge- 
 hebt und hetten daruff|| die gemein- 
 schafft abgeton und ein ander 
 gemeinschafftll mitteinander ver- 
 fangen also das Andres Heilman 
 und er jr jeglicher zu den erstenll 
 LXXX. guldin so vil geben und 
 legen solte das es V'= guldin|| wur- 
 dent, das' sie auch gethan habe" 
 undll werent sii zwene ein man inn 
 der gemeinschafft, II und desglich 
 soltent Gutemberg und Hanns 
 RifFell jr jeglicher innsunders ouch 
 als vil legen als die zwene, || und 
 darufF solte Gutemberg alle sine 
 kunst die er kunde|| nit vor jnen 
 verbergen, und dariiber wer ein 
 gemeinschafftll brief gemaht wor- 
 den, und wer das jr eime inn der|| 
 gemeinschafft abgienge so soltent 
 die iibrigen' gemeinere desselben|| 
 abgangen erben C. guldin harus 
 geben, und das iibrig^lj gelt und 
 was iim die gemeinschafft gehorte 
 solte dann under den andem|| ge- 
 meinern inn der gemeinschafft 
 bliben. Diser Gezuge hatt ouch|| 
 geseit das jme Andres Dritzehen 
 selige zu der zit ouch|| geseit habe 
 so wisse er ouch das von jme selbs 
 wol, dasll er ettlich sin pfenning 
 gelt versetzt* habe, ob aber das|| 
 vil oder wenig oder obe er das zu 
 dem werck gebruchetH habe oder 
 nit wisse er nit.H 
 
 In praesentia Diebolt Brant und 
 * Rotgebe.ll 
 
 ■ Laborde prints zu without say- 
 ing anything ; Schoepflin prints 
 between ( ) " supply zu." 
 
 '' Schoepflin omits das — habe. 
 
 ^ iiberigen ; iiberig, Schoepflin. 
 
 * versetzet, Schoepflin. 
 
 " Schoepflin adds : Jocop. 
 
 self had each contributed 80 guil- 
 ders.' And when they were in this 
 partnership, Andres Heilman and 
 himself came to Gutemberg at St. 
 Arbogast, where he had concealed 
 several"^ arts^ from them, which he 
 was not obliged to show them. This 
 did not please them ; whereupon 
 they had broken up the partner- 
 ship and replaced it by another to 
 this effect, that Andres Heilman 
 and himself should each add so 
 much to the first 80 guilders that 
 it would make 500 guilders, which 
 they did, and they two were one 
 man in the partnership. 
 
 And in 
 the same way Gutemberg and 
 Hanns Riffe should each contri- 
 bute as much as the two, and then 
 Gutemberg should conceal' from 
 them none of the arts he knew? 
 Concerning this an association con- 
 tract was made, and in case one of 
 the partners died, then the others 
 should pay loo guilders to the 
 heirs of the deceased, and the rest 
 of the money and all that belonged 
 to the association should remain in 
 the partnership as the property of 
 the other partners. This witness 
 has also said that the blessed 
 Andres Dritzehen had told him at 
 that time ' that he knew very well 
 from himself that he had often 
 mortgaged his income, ' though he 
 did not know whether this was 
 much or little, nor whether he had 
 employed it for the work or not. 
 
 In the presence of Diebolt Brant 
 and Rotgebe. 
 
 ' Schoepflin translates : nonnulla 
 artis sucB arcana. 
 
 ' Schoepflin translates : omnia 
 artis suce, qu<B nosset, arcana com- 
 municaret. 
 
40 
 
 Gutenberg . 
 
 Herr Peter Eckhart lutpriester 
 211 Sanct' Martin dixit|| das Andres 
 Dritzehen selig in den Winahten 
 virtagen noch|| jme schihte er solt 
 sin Bihte horen, und da|| er zu jm 
 kam und er gerne gebihte da|| 
 fragete jn diser gezuge ob er yeman 
 schuldig werll oder ob man jme 
 schuldig wer, oder ob er utzit|| 
 geben hette das solt er sagen, da 
 sprach Andres er|| hette gemein- 
 schaffl mit etlichen, Andres Heil- 
 manll und andern, und da hette er 
 wol II' guldin oder 111= ussgeleit|| 
 das er keinen pfenig hette, und 
 seit ouch, das Andres]] Dritzehen 
 dann zemol in den cleidern lege 
 am bett, ]] 
 
 Thoman Steinbach het geseit 
 das Hesse der underkouffer uff ein 
 zit zu jm kam und]] frogte jn ob er 
 keinen kouflf wiiste do man lutzel 
 an verlure wann]] er wuste ettliche, 
 und nante domit Johann Guten- 
 berg, Andres]] Dritzehen und einen 
 Heilman die bedorffte wol bar 
 gelt,]] Also do koufFte diser gezug 
 jnen xiiij. Liitzelburger und wuste 
 do-]] mit wol einen kouffman der 
 sii wider kouffen wolt, und ver- 
 kouffte sii ouch]] widerumb und 
 wurdent bi den xii^- guldin daran 
 verlom und]] ware" Fridel von 
 Seckingen burge fiir sii und wart 
 ouch in dasj] kouflfhus buch ver- 
 schriben. ]| 
 
 Lorentz Beldeck het geseit das 
 Johann Gutenberg jn zu einer zit]| 
 geschickt het zu Claus Dritzehen, 
 nach Andres sins bruders]] seligen 
 dode und det Clausen Dritzehen 
 sagen das er die presse]] die er 
 hiinder jm hett nieman oigete 
 zoigete,' das ouch diser]] gezug det, 
 
 ' Sant, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' wart, Schoepflin. 
 
 ^ oigeU and zoigete mean one and 
 the same thing ; one of the words is 
 therefore superfluous. 
 
 Mr. Peter Eckhart, parish priest 
 at St. Martin, has said that the 
 blessed Dritzehen, during the 
 Christmas feastdays, sent to him 
 to hear his confession, and when 
 he came to him and he confessed 
 freely, witness asked him 'whether 
 he owed anybody anything, or 
 whether any one was indebted to 
 him, or whether he had given any- 
 thing, he should say so ; ' where- 
 upon Andres said, 'he had a 
 partnership with several persons, 
 Andres Heilman and others, and 
 had laid out certainly 200 or 300 
 guilders, so that he had not a 
 penny left ; ' and he also said that 
 Andres Dritzelien at that time was 
 lying in the bed in his clothes. 
 
 Thoman Steinbach has said that 
 Hesse, the retail-dealer, came to 
 him at one time and asked him 
 ' whether he knew of any purchase 
 in which little could be lost ; ' as 
 he knew several [persons], but 
 mentioned among such Johann 
 GiUenberg, Andres Dritzehen, and 
 a [certain] Heilmann, who were 
 likely to be in want of ready 
 money. Then this witness bought 
 for them 14 Liitzelburger,' and 
 knew a merchant who would buy 
 them again, and he did sell them 
 again, and 12J guilders were lost 
 by it ; Fridel von Seckingen re- 
 mained surety for them, and it 
 was written down in the book of 
 the sale-house. 
 
 Lorentz Beildeck has said that 
 Johann Gutenberg had sent him at 
 one time to Claus Dritzehen, after 
 the death of his blessed brother 
 Andres, to tell Claus Dritzehen 
 tlmt he should not show to any oru 
 the press which he had under his 
 care; which witness did. He 
 
 ' i.e. Luxemburger. I do not 
 know what article is meant by this 
 word. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 4 1 
 
 und rette ouch me und sprach|| er 
 solte sich bekumbem so vil und 
 gon iiber die presse|| und die mit 
 den zweyen wUrbelin ufF dun so 
 vielent die stucke|| von elnander, 
 dieselben stucke solt er dann in die 
 pressell oder uff die presse lege so 
 kunde darnach nieman gesehen 
 noch ut gemercken,|| und wenn jr 
 leit uskeme so solt er zu Joliann|| 
 Gutenberg hinus komen' dann er 
 het ettwas mit jn zell reden. Diser 
 gezuge ist wol ze wissen das 
 Johann Gutenberg AndresH seligen 
 nut ze dim sundern Andres Hans 
 Gutenberg ze dun wer vnd|| jm 
 sollichs ze zilen geben solt, in den 
 zilen er ouch abging. Er het ouchll 
 geseit das er In nie keiner burse bi 
 jme gewesenll sig wann die burse 
 nach den Winahten anging. Diser|| 
 gezug het Andres Dritzehen seligen 
 dick gesehen by Johann|| Guten- 
 berg essen aber er gesach jn nie 
 kein pfening geben. || 
 
 Reimbolt von Ehenheim het ge- 
 seit das er vor den Winahten|| un- 
 lang zu Andres kam un'' frogte jn 
 was eril also mehte mit den nbt- 
 lichen dingen domit er umging,|| 
 Antwurt jm Andres selige Es hett 
 jn me dann V= guldin|| costet^ doch 
 so hoffte* er wann es us gefertiget 
 wurde das|| sii gelt losten ein giit 
 notdurfft, dovonerdisem gezugen|| 
 
 ' kumen, Schoepflin. 
 ^ und, Schoepflin. 
 ' kostet, Schoepflin. 
 * hofftet, Schoepflin. 
 
 [Gutenberg] said, moreover, that 
 he should take great care and go to 
 the press and open this by means of 
 the two little buttons, whereby^ the 
 pieces would fall asunder. He 
 should, thereupon, put those pieces 
 in or on the press ^ after which 
 nobody could see or comprehend 
 anything. And if he happened 
 to go out' he was to come to 
 Johann Gutenberg, who had some- 
 tiling to talk about with him. This 
 witness knew well that Johann 
 Gutenberg owed nothing to the 
 blessed Andres, but that Andres 
 was indebted to Gutenberg, and 
 was to pay him this debt by instal- 
 ments, but died while he was -pay- 
 ing it. He has also said that he had 
 never been present at their reunion, 
 since their reunions had taken 
 place after Christmas. This wit- 
 ness had often seen the blessed 
 Andres Dritzehen dine at Johann 
 Gutenberg's, but he had never seen 
 him give a penny. 
 
 Reimbolt von Ehenheim has 
 said that shortly before Christnias 
 he came to Andres and asked him 
 'what he did with those nice things 
 with which he was busy.' The 
 blessed Andres answered him ' that 
 it had cost him more than 500 
 guilders, but he hoped, when it 
 should be ready, to gain a good 
 quantity of money, with which he 
 
 ' Schoepflin has ut paginae dila- 
 bantur in partes, casque partes vel 
 intra vel supra prelum poneret. 
 
 2 Schoepflin translates; " utque 
 justis solutis." De Laborde (Debuts 
 de I'imprimerie i Strasbourg, p. 33) 
 translates: "et quand il sortirait." 
 Dr.VanderLinde (Haarlem Legend, 
 the Hague, 1870, p. 25) translates : 
 "en mogt hy uitgaan," i.e. in Engl., 
 ' ' and if he happened to go out. " I 
 have adopted this translation, but 
 am imable to say whether it is cor- 
 rect. The German ir must mean 
 their; but I do not know the mean- 
 ing of leit. 
 
 G 
 
42 
 
 Gutenberg ; 
 
 und andem gelt geben mohte -und 
 ouch alles das leides ergetzetH 
 wiirde. Diser gezug het geseit das 
 er jm des selben moIes|| VIII. gul- 
 din lech wenn er gelt haben must. 
 So hett ouch dis|| gezugen kellerin 
 Andres ettwie dick gelt geluhen, 
 Andresll kam ouch zu einer zit zu 
 disem gezugen mit einem ring|| den 
 schetzet er fiir XXX. guldin, den 
 versatt er jm ze Ehenheim|| fiir V. 
 giildin hiinder die Juden. Diser 
 gezug het ouch geseity das im wol 
 wissen sig das er im herbst II. 
 halb omenll gesottens wins in 
 zweyen vesseln gemaht het do 
 schancktell er Johann Gutenberg^ 
 Omen und den andem' halben 
 omenll schenckte er Midehart und 
 schenckte ouch Gutenbergjl etwie 
 uil biren, Andres bat ouch disen 
 gezugen zu einer|| zit da' er jm II. 
 halb fuder wins kouffte, das ouch 
 diser gezugli dett, und von den- 
 selben II. halben fudem hand' 
 Andresjl Dritzehn und Andres 
 Heilman Hans GutenbergH das 
 eine halb fuder gemein ge- 
 schenckt. || 
 
 Hans Niger von Bischoviszheim 
 het geseit das|| Andres zu jm kam 
 und sprach er bedorffte gelts, dar-lj 
 umb so miiste er jm und andem 
 sinen lehenluten|| dessen getrangen 
 dun, wenn er het ettwas under 
 hendenll darafF kunde er nit gelts 
 genug ufifbringen, Alsoll do frogte 
 diser gezug was er schaffen hett, 
 Antwurtll er, er wer ein spiegel- 
 macher. Also do stalte diserlj ge- 
 zuge trbschen und furte sin kom 
 gon Molssheim und|| Ehenheim 
 und verkouffte das do und bezalt 
 jn. Diserll gezug het ouch geseit 
 das er und Reimbolt jm zu einer|| 
 zit II. halb fuder wines koufften 
 und furte es diser gezuglj har, und 
 also er kam bi Sant Arbegast do 
 
 should pay this witness and others 
 and see all his sufferings rewarded.' 
 This witness has said that on that 
 occasion he lent him 8 guilders, a.s 
 he was in want of money. The 
 housekeeper of this witness had 
 often lent money to Andres, and 
 Andres came once to this witness 
 vrith a ring which he valued at 30 
 guilders, which he pawned for him 
 at Ehenheim with the Jews for 5 
 guilders. This witness, moreover, 
 said that he knew well that, in the 
 autumn, he had put two half-omens 
 of sodden wine into two vessels and 
 sent one half-omen to Johann 
 Gutenberg, and presented the other 
 half to Midehart, and also pre- 
 sented Gutenberg with a quantity 
 of beer. Andres also requested 
 this witness at one time to buy him 
 two half-measures of wine, which 
 witness did, and of these two half- 
 measures Andres Dritzehn and 
 Andres Heilman presented one to 
 Hans Gutenberg. 
 
 Hans Niger vo>i Bischoviszheim 
 has said that Andres came to him 
 and said ' that he was in want of 
 money, wherefore he had to appeal 
 to him and his other money- 
 lenders, as he had something in 
 hand on which he could not spend 
 money enough.' Therefore this 
 witness asked him what he was 
 doing, to which he replied ' he was 
 a manufacturer of looking-glasses.' 
 Then this witness had his com 
 ground and took it to Molssheim 
 and Ehenheim, where he sold it, 
 and paid him [the money]. This 
 witness has also said that he [Drit- 
 zeken] and Reimbolt bought from 
 him at one time two half-measures 
 of wine, and he eifected the trans- 
 
 ' andren, Schoepflin. 
 ' das, Schoepflin. 
 ^ hant, Schoepflin. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 43 
 
 hatt er|| ouch ^ omen gesottens wins 
 uff dem wagen, den nam|| Andres 
 und trug jn Johann Gutenberg 
 heim, und ouch|| ettwie vil biren, 
 und von denselben II. halben 
 fudemll verschanckte Andres selige 
 und Andres Heilmann|| Johann 
 Gutenberg I. halb fuder wins.|| 
 
 port of it ; and when he came to 
 St. Arb^ast he had also half an 
 omen of sodden wine on his cart, 
 which Andres took and carried it 
 in to Johann Gutenberg, and also 
 a good deal of beer ; and of these 
 two half-measures the blessed 
 Andres and Andres Heilmann pre- 
 ' sented one half to Johann Guten- 
 
 In bywesen Boschwilrs. 
 
 Item Fridel von Seckingen hat 
 geseit, das Gutenberg'H ein kouff 
 geton habe und das er fur jnen 
 biirge wiirde und das er nit|| anders 
 wust dann das es Her Anthonie 
 Heilman ouchll anging,'' und das 
 aber damoch die schulde|| von des 
 selben kouffs wegen bezalt worden 
 sy. Er hatll ouch geseit, das 
 Gutenberg^ Andres Heilmann' und 
 Andresll Dritzehen jnen gebetten 
 haben jr biirge zu werden, gegen 
 Stoltzll Peters dochterman* viir CI. 
 guldin, das habe er geton, || also, 
 das sii drye jm deshalb' einen 
 schadeloss briefiF geben|| soltent, 
 der ouch geschriben und mit 
 Gutenbergs'il und Andres Heil- 
 mans Insigeln versigelt wiirde, 
 Aberll Andres Dritzehem hette jn 
 alles hiinder jm und kunde jm|| von 
 jm nit'versiegelt' werden, doch so 
 habe GutenbergH solich gelt dar- 
 noch alles bezahlt^ in der vast- 
 messe nehst vergangen.|| Dirre 
 gezuge hat ouch geseit, das er von 
 der obgenannten' dryer gemein- 
 schafftll nit gewisset habe, dann er 
 nye dar zu gezogen noch|| dabei" 
 gewesen sy. || 
 
 ' -burg, Schoepflin. 
 ' angieng, Schoepflin. 
 ' -man, Schoepflin. 
 < doht-, Schoepflin. 
 ' deshaip, Schoepflin. 
 ^ -burgs, Schoepflin. 
 ' versigelt, Schoepflin, 
 ^ bezalt, Schoepflin. 
 ' obgenanten, Schoepflin. 
 '^ dobei, Schoepflin. 
 
 In the presence of Boschwilr. 
 
 Item Fridel von Seckingen has 
 said that Gutenberg had made a 
 purchase, and that he had become 
 surety for him, and that he did not 
 know otherwise but that it con- 
 cerned Mr. Anthonie Heilman 
 also, and that afterwards the debt 
 concerning this purchase had been 
 paid. He also said that Gutenberg, 
 Andres Heilmann, and Andres 
 Dritzehen had requested him to 
 become their surety with Stoltz, 
 the husband of Peter's daughter, 
 for loi guilders, which he did, in 
 this way that these three should 
 give him, on this account, a letter 
 of indemnification, which indeed 
 had been written and sealed with 
 the seals of Gutenberg and Andres 
 Heilman. But Andres Dritzehen 
 always delayed the matter, and he 
 could not induce him to seal it. 
 Gutenberg, however, paid after- 
 wards all the money at the time 
 of the fair of last Lent. This wit- 
 ness has also said that he did not 
 know of the partnership of the 
 above three, because he had never 
 been joined to it, nor had been 
 present. 
 
44 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 \Second entry.] 
 
 GutenbergsWorheit wider Jorge Gutenberg s testimony against 
 Dritzehn. In bywesen Franz|| Jorge Dritsehen. In the presence 
 Bemer und Boschwiler.H of Franz Beruer and Boschwiler. 
 
 Item Herr' Anthonie Heilman 
 hat geseit AIs er gewar wurde das 
 Gutenbergll Andres Dritzehen zu 
 einem dirten teil wolte nehmen" in 
 die Ochevart zu den Spiegeln|| do 
 bete er jn gar flisseclich das er 
 Andres sinen bruder ouch darin 
 neme, wolte eril zu mol gem umb 
 jn verdienen', do spreche erzu jm, 
 er enwuste Andres Friinde*|| mbh- 
 ten mora sprechen es were gbckel 
 werk^, und were jm nit wol zu 
 willen,|| do iiber bete er jn und 
 mahte jm einen zedel, den solte er 
 jnen beden zoigen und|| sollten* 
 daruff gar wol zu rate werden/ den 
 zedel brehte er jnen und wurdent 
 zu|| rote das sii es also woltent tun, 
 was im zedel verzeichent stunde, 
 und ginge es|| also mit jm'. In 
 disen dingen bate Andres Drit- 
 zehen disen gezugen|| jm umb geld 
 zu helffen, do spreche er, hette er 
 gut underpfant, er wolte jm balde|| 
 helffen und hiilffe jm also zu leste 
 umb LXXXX.lb und brehte jm das 
 gelt hinussll zu Sanct" Arbgast, und 
 domit loste er den Frowen Sant 
 Agnesen II. lb geltz abe,|| und 
 sprehe'" dirre gezuge was sol dir so 
 vil geltz du bedarffst" doch nit me 
 
 ' Her, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' nemen, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' De Laborde has here a star, but 
 does not explain what it means. 
 Schoepflin's text runs on. 
 
 * frunde, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' werck, Schoepflin ; but wrongly. 
 See Laborde's facsimile. 
 
 ' solten, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' De Laborde places here two 
 stars without explaining what they 
 mean. 
 
 * Schoepflin adds : in. 
 ' Sant, Schoepflin. 
 
 '" spreche, Schoepflin. 
 " bndarftt, Schoepflin. 
 
 Item Mr. Anthonie Heilman has 
 said : When he became aware that 
 Gutenberg would accept Andres 
 Dritzehen for a third part in the 
 pilgrimage to Aix - la - Chapelle 
 about the looking-glasses, he re- 
 quested him urgently to accept also 
 his brother Andres if he wished to 
 render him \Anthonie\ a great ser- 
 vice. He \_Gutenberg'\ then said 
 to him, 'he was afraid that the 
 friends of Andres would speak of 
 it as sorcery, which he would not 
 like.' On that account he \Antori\ 
 requested him again, and drew up 
 a contract which he should show 
 to both, and which they should 
 discuss carefully j he brought him 
 the contract, and they resolved to 
 do according to the contract, which 
 was, therefore, agreed upon. In 
 the midst of these arrangements 
 Andres Dritzehen requested this 
 witness to help him with money ; 
 to which he replied that, if he had 
 a good pledge, he would soon 
 help him, and at last assisted him 
 with 90 lbs. , and brought him the 
 money at St. Arbgast, whereby he 
 redeemed 2 tts. of money from 
 the St. Agnes nuns ; and this wit- 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 45 
 
 dann LXXX.|| guldin, do antwurte 
 er jme, er miiste sust ouch gelt 
 han,|i und das wer II. oder III. 
 tage in der fasten vor unser 
 Frawen'tagell [d]o gebe er LXXX. 
 guldin Gutenberg, So gebe dirre 
 gezuge ouch LXXX. guldin, wannll 
 die beredunge were LXXX. guldin 
 jegelichem teil, umb das iibrige" 
 dirte teil|| so dann Gutenberg noch 
 hette, und wurde das gelt Guten- 
 berg, umb den teil|| und um die 
 kunst, und wurde in kein gemein- 
 schafft geleit. Damoch|| so habe 
 Gutenberg zu disem gezugen ge- 
 sprochen Er muste ein anderes' 
 gedenken'll das es in alien sachen 
 glich wiirde, sit er jn vor so vil 
 geton hette und gantz|| mitenander 
 in eins kement, nit das einer vor 
 dem andern ut verhelen m6hte,|| so 
 dienet ouch es wol zu dem andern. 
 
 Der rede was dirre gezuge fro|| und 
 riimete es den zwein, und darnoch 
 iiber lang do sprache er aber die- 
 selbell rede, do bate in dirre gezuge 
 aber als vor, und sprache er wolte 
 es umbll jn verdienen. 
 
 Darnoch 
 so mehte er jm ein zedel uif die- 
 selbe rede und sprechell zu disem 
 gezugen, heiszen sii wol zu rote 
 werden, obe es jr gefug sy, das|| 
 dete er und wurdent daruff etwie 
 lange zu rate, Sii nement in joch 
 ouchll zu rate, do spreche er sit 
 dem mole das yetz so vil geziiges 
 do ist, undll gemaht wprde das 
 uwer teil gar nohe ist gegen 
 uwerem gelt, so wurt uch|| doch 
 die kunst vergeben. 
 
 Also gingen* 
 
 ' Frowen, Schoepflin, and, per- 
 haps, also Laborde. 
 ^ iiberige, Schoepflin. 
 3 anders gedencken, Schoepflin. 
 '' gingent, Schoepflin. 
 
 ness asked, ' what do you ask so 
 much money for, as you don't 
 want more than 80 guilders ? ' He 
 replied that ' he wanted still more 
 money, and that it was two or 
 three days in Lent before Lady 
 Day that he had to give 80 guilders 
 to Gutenberg.' This witness also 
 gave 80 guilders, as the agreement 
 was 80 guilders for each share, and 
 the other third part, which Guten- 
 berg still had, would become 
 Gutenberg's property, as his share 
 and for his art, and would not be 
 put into any partnership. After- 
 wards Gutenberg spoke to this 
 witness that 'he had to mention 
 something else, namely, that there 
 should be equality in everything 
 because he \Anton\ had done so 
 much for him, and that they should 
 understand each other well that 
 the one should conceal nothing 
 from the other, and that it should 
 serve also the others." This wit- 
 ness was pleased by this conversa- 
 tion, and spoke highly of it to the 
 other two, and long afterwards he 
 \Gutenberg\ repeated this conver- 
 sation, and this witness requested 
 him as before and said that he 
 wished to make himself worthy of 
 it. After this he made a contract 
 according to this proposition, and 
 said to this witness : 'Tell them that 
 they should consider it carefully 
 whether this be convenient to 
 them.' This he did, and they dis- 
 cussed this point a long time, and 
 even consulted him \Gutenberg\, 
 who said afterwards at a certain 
 time : ' there are at present so many 
 tools ready and in course of pre- 
 paration that your part is very near 
 your own money [which you ad- 
 vanced], and so the art will be 
 confided to you gratuitously.' In 
 
 ' Schoepflin has here idque ad 
 reliquum opus pertinere. 
 
46 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 sii die sache mit jme in,|| umb zwen 
 punten, den einen gar abe zu tunde, 
 und den andem|| bass zu liitemde. 
 Der punt abe zu tunde was, das sii 
 nit woltenll verbunden sin, von 
 Hans Riffen wegen gross oder 
 clein, wan sii nit vonil jme hettent, 
 was sii hetten das hetten sii von 
 Gutenbergs wegen. || Der ander 
 punte zu Ititernde was, wer es das 
 jr einer' von todes|| wegen abeginge, 
 das das bass gelutert wiirde, und 
 wart der also|| geliitert, das man 
 des erben so abeginge, solte viir 
 alle ding gemahtH oder ungemaht 
 viir gelt geleit so sich jegelichem 
 teil gebiirt zu kosten|| zu zu legen 
 und formen und alien geziigk 
 niitzit usgenommen, noch|| den 
 fiinff joren geben hundert guldin, 
 do dett er jn gross vorteilH wer es 
 das er abeginge, wan er liess jn 
 ouch darin gon, alles so er fiirli 
 sinen kosten solte voran ban ge- 
 nommen zu sinem teil, und solten 
 dochy sinen erben nit me dann'' 
 hundert guldin geben fur alle ding, || 
 als der andem einer. Und ge- 
 schach das uf das, wer ess das jr 
 einerll abeginge, das man nit muste 
 alien erben die kunst wisen und 
 ufiFenll sagen oder offenboren, und 
 das were alles eime also gut als 
 demll andem. 
 
 Damoch so habent 
 die zwene Andres disem gezugen 
 under den|| Kiirsenem geseit, das 
 sii mit Gutenberg eins worden 
 sient von des|| zedels wegen, und 
 hette jnen den punten von Hans 
 Riffen wegen|| abegelon und wolte 
 jnen den lesten punten bass liitem, 
 so in demll nehsten artickel stet, 
 und seitent ouch doby das Andres 
 Dritzehen hette|| Gutenberg geben 
 XL . guldin, und dis gezugen bruder 
 jm L. guldin, || wann die beredunge 
 uff das zil was funfzig guldin, als 
 derll zedel wiset, und damach in 
 
 this manner they agreed with him 
 on two points, one of which was 
 to be quite done with, and the 
 other to be explained well. The 
 point which was to be regarded as 
 settled was that they vrished to be 
 under no obligation to Hans Rif- 
 fen, either great or small, as they 
 had nothing from him ; what they 
 hadtheyhaditfromCafey/^^r^f, The 
 matter which was to be explained 
 was that, if one of them happened 
 to die, exact explanation should be 
 given ; and they decided that, at 
 the end of the 5 years, they 
 should pay to the heirs of deceased, 
 for all things made or unmade, for 
 the money advanced, which every 
 partner had to pay in the expenses, 
 and for the forms anifor all tools, 
 nothing excepted, 100 guilders. In 
 case, therefore, of his death, it 
 would be a great advantage to 
 them, because he left them every- 
 thing which he could have taken 
 as his part for the expenses, and 
 yet they had not to pay his heirs 
 more than a hundred guilders for 
 everything, just as one of the 
 others. And this was stipulated 
 in order that, if any one died, they 
 should not be under the necessity 
 of teaching, telling, or revealing the 
 art to all the heirs, which was as 
 favourable to the one as to the 
 others. Thereupon the two An- 
 dreses told witness [i.e., Anton 
 Heilmann\ at the reunion of the 
 furriers, that they had agreed with 
 Gutenberg regarding the contract, 
 and that he had settled the point 
 regarding Hanns Riffen, and 
 wished to explain to them the last 
 point further as it was put in the 
 next article. They also said that 
 Andres Dritzehen had given 40 
 guilders to Gutenberg, and the wit- 
 ness's brother [Andres Heilmann\ 
 had given him 50 guilders, as the 
 agreement was 50 guilders for this 
 
 ' keiner, Schoepflin. 
 ^ wann, Schoepflin. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 47 
 
 den nehsten Winahten XX. gul- 
 din, und dasH syent die Winahten 
 nehst vergangen, und dann dar- 
 nachll zu halbvasten aber gelt als 
 der zedel wiset do sich dirre gezuge 
 uff-ll gezuhet, und spricht ouch' 
 diser gezuge das er den zedel be- 
 kenne by den|| zilen, und wiirde 
 das gelt nit in gemeinschafft geleit|| 
 es solte Gutenberges sin. So habe 
 ouch Andres Dritzehen|| kein burse 
 mit uns geleit und nye kein gelt 
 usgeben, do usse|| fur essen und 
 trinken* so sii do usse dotent. 
 
 Dirre gezuge hot' ouch|| geseit das 
 er wol wisse das Gutenberg unlange 
 vor Wihnahtenll sinen kneht sante 
 zu den beden Andresen, alia for- 
 
 ' auch, Schoepflin. 
 ' trincken, Schoepflin. 
 3 hat, Schoepflin. 
 
 term, as was shown by the con- 
 tract, and afterwards, the follow- 
 ing Christmas, 20 guilders, which 
 was Christmas last, and then after- 
 wards, at mid-Lent [the fourth 
 Sunday in Lent], as much as the 
 contract showed which witness had 
 signed. And witness also said 
 that he acknowledges the contract 
 by the terms, and the money was 
 not put into the association, but 
 was to belong to Gtdenberg. 
 Neither had Andres Dritzehen 
 lived in common with them, and 
 had never spent any money, not 
 even for the food and drink which 
 they took outside [the town, i.e., 
 at St. Arbogast, where Gutenberg 
 lived]. This witness also said that 
 he knew very well that Gutenberg, 
 shortly before Christmas, had sent 
 his servant to the two Andreses to^ 
 
 ' Schoepflin translated : " ut 
 omnes formas peteret, quae in con- 
 specu ejus disjectee, quod nonnulla 
 in illis emendanda reperiret." Meer- 
 mann (Orig. typogr., II., 76) has : 
 ' ' ut omnes formas peteret, easque in 
 conspectu eius dissolutas, et com- 
 plures etiam formas defectu labo- 
 rasse." De Laborde translates : 
 *'pour chercher les formes, afin qu'il 
 pftt s'assurer qu'elles avaient iti 
 siparies et que m6me plusieurs 
 formes lui avaient donnS du regret." 
 Dr. Van der Linde (Haarlem Legend, 
 p. 27) translated : ' ' om alle formen 
 te halen ; deze werden voor zyn 
 oogen versmolten, wat hem van 
 ettelyke formen leed deed ; " i.e. in 
 English : "to fetch all the forms ; 
 these were -melted before his eyes, 
 which he regretted on account of 
 several forms." Why does Dr. Van 
 der Linde use here the word melted, 
 whereas it appears plainly enough 
 from the depositions of the other 
 witnesses that there is question of 
 taking something to pieces? He 
 explains in his Haarlem Legend, 
 p. 36: " Zurlossen = zerlassen 
 means ' to melt.' " On p. 27 of his 
 "Gutenberg" he maintains this 
 explanation and illustrates it vrith 
 the Dutch lateti, ontlaten, which 
 
48 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 men zu holen|| und wurdent zur 
 lessen das er ess sehe, und jn joch 
 ettliche formen|| ruwete. Do noch 
 do Andres selige abeginge, und 
 dirre gezuge|| wol wuste das liite 
 gem hettent die, presse gesehen, do 
 spreche GutenbergH sii soltent noch 
 der pressen senden er fohrte' das 
 man sii sehe, do sante]| er sinen 
 kneht harin sii zur legen, und wann 
 er miissig were so|| wolte er mit jn 
 reden, das entbot er jn. Er hat 
 ouch geseit das von|| Reimbolt 
 Muselers wegen und von sinen 
 wegen synie" gedaht worden. || 
 
 fetch all the forms, and that they 
 were taken asunder before his eyes, 
 ■which he [either witness or Guten- 
 berg] regretted on account of several 
 forms. At the time that the 
 blessed Andres died and this wit- 
 ness well knew that people would 
 have liked to see the press, Guten- 
 berg said they should send for the 
 press, as he feared that any one 
 should see it, whereupon he sent his 
 man to take it to pieces ; and when 
 he had the time he would talk 
 with him, which was what he pro- 
 posed to him. He has also said 
 that on the part of Reimbolt 
 Museler and on his own part they 
 had never been summoned. 
 
 Item Hen' Anthonie Heilman 
 hat anderwerbe geseit, das der 
 lengestell zedel under der* zwein 
 zedeln gewesen sy von dem in 
 siner obegemelten sage|| stet, so 
 Gutenberg den zwein Andres geben 
 liess sich daruff zubedenken,'|| 
 und von des andem zedels wegen 
 
 Item Mr. Anthonie Heilmann 
 has also said that the longest of 
 the two contracts was that men- 
 tioned above which Gutenberg 
 caused to be given to the two 
 Andreses to consult about it ; 
 
 and of 
 the other contract, which was 
 
 ' forhte, Schoepflin. 
 ' sy nye, Schoepflin. 
 ' Her, Schoepflin. 
 ' den, Schoepflin. 
 ^ -dencken, Schoepflin. 
 
 means to thaw, to melt (said of 
 snow). On p. 515 he returns to the 
 word and tells us : " zerlassen means 
 to melt, and not {\) to take asunder, 
 to distribute a page [of type] " (zer- 
 lassen ist schvielzen und nicht aus- 
 einandernemen, einen schriftsaz dis- 
 tribuieren). After this follows the 
 opinion of an educated printer .... 
 I have translated zur lessen by taken 
 asunder, and not by melted. Zur- 
 lossen is a dialectic pronunciation 
 of zerldssen, which is a past part, 
 of zerlassen, which means to take 
 asunder, to separate,iust as well as it 
 may mean to melt (cf. Lexer, Mittel- 
 hochdeutsches Handwbrterb., iii., 
 1072, i.v. zerldszen) ; and I may 
 observe that the first meaning is the 
 prevaiUng one: cf. Leo, Angels. 
 Glossar, col. 452 ; Mor. Heyne's 
 Heliand, Paderbom, 1866, Glossar, 
 voce Idtan, &c., &c. With respect 
 to the words und — ruwete, De La- 
 borde and Dr. Van der Linde seem 
 to be right. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 49 
 
 der der erst gewesen sin sol, do|| 
 weis dirre gezuge nit obe er es sy 
 Oder nit, dann es sy jm usser|| 
 synne gangen. Er hat ouch geseit, 
 das Andres Dritzehn' und Andres|| 
 Heilman dem obgenanten Guten- 
 berg ein halb' fuder wins geben 
 hantll vilr das sii by Im du usse 
 gessen und getrunken^ hant. So 
 habe ouch Andres|| Dritzehn* Im 
 besonders geben I. omen gesottens 
 wins und by hundert Regelsbiern|| 
 So liat er ouch geseit, das er sinen 
 bruder damoch gefraget habe 
 w a n n 'II sii anfingent zu leren, do 
 habe er jm geantwurt, Gutenberg 
 brestell noch X. guldin von Andres 
 Dritzehn,* an den funftzigH guldin 
 so er an r u c k e s ' geben solt 
 han.ll 
 
 Item Hans' Diiime der goltsmyt 
 hat geseit, das er vor dryenlj joren 
 oder doby Gutemberg by den hun- 
 dert guldin abe verdienet habelj 
 alleine das zu dem trucken ge- 
 h6ret.|| 
 
 Item Midehart Stocker hat ge- 
 seit' dass er wol wisse das Andreas 
 xiijil den vj. ° gelts ver- 
 
 setzet habe viir CXX. lb. und das|| 
 das selbe gelt Claus xiij. sinen 
 briid worden sy, und das der|| selbe 
 Claus solich gelt den von Bischoffs- 
 heim by Rosheim geben habe|| viir 
 xij. L. gelt lipgedinge' und das er 
 
 ' -zehen, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' halp, Schoepilin. 
 
 ' getnmcken, Schoepflin. 
 
 * -zehen, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Laborde spaces these words ; 
 Schoepflin prints them in the ordi- 
 nary way. 
 
 ' Hanns, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Schoepflin prints here five dots, 
 and omits all that follows till and 
 including the next geseit in this 
 paragraph. 
 
 ' The same space is left in La- 
 borde's text. 
 
 ' De Laborde has liszgedinge, but 
 erroneously, I suppose. 
 
 said to have been the first, 
 witness did not know whether 
 this was the case or not, as he 
 had forgotten it. He has also 
 said that Andres Dritzehn and 
 Andres Heilman had given to the 
 said Gutenberg half a measure of 
 wine in return for what they had 
 eaten and drunk with him outside 
 [the town]. Andres Dritzehn, in 
 particular, presented him with one 
 omen of sodden wine and nearly 
 a hundred flasks of beer. He has 
 also said that be asked his brother 
 when they commenced to leam, to 
 which he replied that Gutenberg 
 still claimed lo guilders from 
 Andres Dritzehen of the 50 which 
 he had to pay on St. Henry's day. 
 
 Item Hans Diinne, the gold- 
 smith, has said that three years 
 ago or thereabout he had earned 
 from Gutenberg nearly 100 guil- 
 ders merely for that which belonged 
 to printing. 
 
 Item Midehart Stocker has said 
 that he knew well that Andreas 
 Dritzehen had mortgaged the . . ." 
 VI [lbs.] . . .^ of money for 120 lbs., 
 and that this same money had be- 
 come the property of Claus Drit- 
 zehen his brother, and that the 
 same Claus had given this money 
 to those of Bischofsheim near Ros- 
 
 ' There seems to be a lacuna here 
 in the manuscript. 
 
50 
 
 Gutenberg . 
 
 andres xiij. auch zu im|i gesetzet 
 habe, Also wer es das er es ab- 
 ginge dan er so solte Andresll die 
 selbe lipgedinge sinn lebetage auch 
 nyessen, Und' das gelt dasH er in 
 gemeinschafft legen solte wurde 
 beret zu zilen zu geben,^|| Er hat 
 auch geseit das er von Andres xiij 
 [i. e. Dritzehen] gehort habe, das 
 er|| spreche hiilff In got das das 
 gemahte werk' in* der gemein- 
 schaft* vertriben wurde, So hoffte|| 
 und truwete er vsz alien sinen 
 nijten zu kummenll 
 
 heim for 12 lbs. of money of a 
 
 life-annuity' 
 
 when Andres 
 would enjoy the same life-annuity 
 during his lifetime. And it was 
 agreed that the money which he 
 would put into the association 
 should be paid by instalments. 
 He has also said that he had heard 
 from Andres Dritzehen that he 
 said may God help him that the 
 work made in the partnership 
 might be sold, in which case he 
 hoped and trusted that he would 
 get out of all his needs. 
 
 \Third entry : Querimonia of Lorentz Beildeck.] 
 
 ICH Lorentz Beildeck clage ucli 
 Herren der meister abe Jorg Drit- 
 zehen, Als hatt er mir fiir uch mine 
 gnedigen Herren meister und 
 Rath* gebotten Ime ein worheit zu 
 sagen, da ich ouch by minem ge- 
 swomen eide geseit habe was ich 
 davon wuste, Als ist nu der ege- 
 nannt Jbrg Dritzehen darnoch aber 
 fur uch komen und hatt einen 
 botten anderwerbe an ffiich ge- 
 vordert jme eine worheit zu 
 sagen und hat damit geret ich 
 habe vor nit wor geseit. Darzu 
 hat er ouch zu mir offenlich ge- 
 ruffet, hbrestu worsager du must 
 mir wor sagen solte Ich mit dir 
 ufif die leiter kommen, und hat 
 mich damit frevenlich geschuldiget 
 
 I, Lorentz Beildeck, complain 
 before you. Lords magistrates, on 
 account oljorg Dritzehen, that he 
 — having summoned me before 
 you, my gracious Lords magistrates 
 and council, to give him a testi- 
 mony, and I having said on my 
 sworn oath what I knew of the 
 matter — that yet the said Jorg 
 Dritzehen has again come before 
 you and forwarded a messenger to 
 me to give him a testimony, and 
 has said that at first I have not 
 spoken the truth. He has also 
 publicly said to me : hearest thou, 
 witness, thou shalt have to tell me 
 the truth even if I should have to 
 go to the gallows with thee ; and 
 has therefore criminally accused 
 
 * Und — kummen has been given 
 here according to De Laborde's fac- 
 simile, not according to his printed 
 text. 
 
 ' There is a sign in Laborde's facsi- 
 mile, by the side of the line which he 
 has omitted in his text, probably 
 because he thought that the sign 
 indicated that the line was to be de- 
 leted ; but it appears to be nothing 
 but a letter inadvertently written 
 by the scribe and afterwards struck 
 through. 
 
 ' werck, Schoepflin. 
 
 * in — gem. added in the margin. 
 ' Ral, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' After this first life-annuity (Germ. 
 lipgedinge) follow 19 words, of which 
 I am unable to make out the exact 
 meaning. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 5 1 
 
 und gezugen das ich ein meineidi- 
 ger bbsewicht sye, da er mir doch 
 von den gnaden Gottes unrecht 
 geton hatt das doch swer bdse 
 sachen sint, etc. 
 
 me and represented that I am a 
 perjured criminal, and has, by the 
 grace of God, done me wrong, 
 which is a bad affair. 
 
 [Fourth entry : List of Gutenberg's witnesses against 
 Jerge Dritzehen.] 
 
 Dis ist Gutenbergs Worheit This is Gutenberg's tmth against 
 wider Jerge Dritzehen. Jerge Dritzehen. 
 
 Item Her Anthonie Heilman. — 
 Item Andres Heilman. — Item 
 Claus Heilman. — Item Mudart 
 Stocker. — Item Lorentz Beldeck. 
 — Item Wemher Smalriem. — Item 
 Fridel von Seckingen. — Item 
 Ennel Drytzehen. — Item Coniat 
 Saspach. — Item Hans Dunne. — 
 Item Meister Hirtz.^ — Item Her 
 Heinrich Olse. — Item Hans Riffe. 
 — Item Her Johans Dritzehen. 
 
 Item Mr. Anthonie Heilman. — 
 Item Andres Heilman. — Item 
 Claus Heilman. — Item Mudart 
 Stocker. — Item Lorentz Beldeck. — 
 Item Wemher Smalriem. — Item 
 Fridelvon Seckingen. — Item Ennel 
 Drytzehen. — Item Conrat Saspach. 
 — Item Hans Dunne. — ■ Item 
 Meister Hirtz. — Item Mr. Hein- 
 rich 0/if.— Item Hans Riffe. — 
 Item Mr. Johans Dritzehen. — 
 
 \Fifth entry : List of Jerge Dritzehen's witnesses against 
 Hans Gutenberg.] 
 
 Dis ist Jerge Dritzehen Worheit 
 gegen Hans Gutenberg. 
 
 Item Liitpriester zu Sant Mar- 
 tin. — Item Fridel von Seckingen. 
 — Item Jocop Imeler. — Item Hans 
 Sydenneger. — Item Midhart Ho- 
 nowe. — Item Hans Schultheis der 
 holzman.' — Item Ennel Dritzehen 
 sin husfrowe. — Item Hans Dunne 
 der goltsmit. — Item Meister Hirtz. 
 — Item Heinrich Bisinger. — Item 
 Wilhelm von Schutter. — 
 
 Item 
 Wemher Smalriem. — Item Tho- 
 man Steinbach. — Item Saspach 
 Cunrat. — Item Lorentz Guten- 
 bergs kneht und sin frowe. — Item 
 Reimbolt von Ehenheim. — Item 
 Hans IX jor von Bischoffsheim. — 
 Item Stoszer Nese von Ehenheim. 
 — Item Berbel das clein frbwel. — 
 
 This is Jerge Dritzehen's truth 
 against Hans Gutenberg. 
 
 Item the parish priest at St. 
 Martin. — Item Fridel von Seckin- 
 gen. — Item Jocop Imeler. — Item 
 Hans Sydenneger. — Item Midhart 
 Honowe. — Item Hans Schultheis, 
 the wood-merchant. — Item Ennel 
 Dritzehen, his wife. — Item Hans 
 Dunne, the goldsmith. — Item 
 Meister Hirtz. — Item Heinrich 
 Bisinger. — Item Wilhelm von 
 Schutter. — Item Wernher Smal- 
 riem. — Item Thoman Steinbach. — 
 Item Saspach Cunrat. — Item Lo- 
 rentz, the servant of Gutenberg, 
 and his wife. — Item Reimbolt von 
 Ehenheim. — Item Hans IX jor 
 (i.e., nine year) von Bischoffsheim. 
 — Item Stoszer Nese von Ehen- 
 heim. — Item Berbel, the little 
 
 ' hoUzman, Schoepflin. 
 
52 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 Item Her Jerge Saltzmiitter. — 
 Item Heinrich Sidenneger. — Item 
 ein brieff iiber X. lb gelts hant die 
 Herren zum jungen Sant Peter her 
 Andres versetzt. — 
 
 Item ein brieff 
 iiber II. lb gelts hant die Wurmser 
 ouch. — Item Hans Ross der golt- 
 smit und sin fro we. — Item Her 
 Gosse Sturm zu Sant Arbegast. — 
 Item Martin Verwer. 
 
 woman. — Item Mr. Jcrge Saltz- 
 miitter. — Item Heinrich Siden- 
 neger. — Item a letter about lo lbs. 
 of money, which the Canons of 
 St. Peter jun. have pawned to 
 Mr. Andres. — Item a letter 
 about 2 Bs. of money is in the 
 hands of the people of Wurms. — 
 Item Hans Ross, the goldsmith, 
 and his wife. — Item Mr. Gosse 
 Sturm, at St. Arbegast. — Item 
 Martin Verwer. 
 
 \Sixth entry : Sentence of the Council.] 
 
 WIR Cune Nope der Meister 
 und der Rat zu Strassburg thun 
 kund' alien den die disen brieff 
 sehent oder horent lessen, dass fiir 
 uns kummen ist Jerge Dritzehen 
 unser burger im namen sin selbs 
 und mit vollem gewalt Clauss 
 Dritzehen sins bruders, vmd vor- 
 derte an Hans Genszfleisch' von 
 Mentz genant Gutenberg, vnsern 
 hindersosz, und sprach alss hette 
 Andres Dritzehen sin bruder selige 
 ein erber gut von sime vatter seli- 
 gen geerbet, und desselben sins 
 vetterlichen erbs und guts etwa vil 
 versetzet und darus ein trefflich 
 summe gelts broht, und wer also 
 mit Hans' Gutenberg und andem 
 zu einer gesellschafft und gemein- 
 schafft kommen, und hett solch 
 gelt in dieselbe gemeinschafft zu 
 Hans Gutenberg geleit, und het- 
 tent gut zit Ir gewerbe mittenander 
 gemacht' und getriben des sie auch 
 ein mychel teil zusammen broht 
 hettent, So were auch Andres 
 Dritzehn' an vil enden do sie bli 
 und anders das darzu gehort kauffl 
 hettent, biirge worden, das er auch 
 vergolteu und bezahlt* hette, Alss 
 
 1 kunt, Schoepflin. 
 
 ^ Genszefleisch, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Hansz, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' gemaht, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Drytzehen, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' bezalt, Schoepflin. 
 
 We, Cune Nope, the Master and 
 the Council at Strassburg, an- 
 nounce to all who will see this 
 letter, or hear it read, that before 
 us has appeared Jerge Dritzehen, 
 our citizen, in his own name, and 
 with full power of Clans Dritzehen, 
 his brother, and laid a claim 
 against Hans Genszfleisch von 
 Mentz genant Gutenberg, our inha- 
 bitant, and said : Andres Drit- 
 zehen, his blessed brother, had in- 
 herited some goods from his blessed 
 father, which paternal inheritance 
 and goods he had rather heavily 
 mortgaged, and thereby procured 
 himself a good deal of money ; and 
 he had also entered into a society 
 and partnership with Hans Guten- 
 berg and others, and had put this 
 money into this partnership to 
 Gutenberg, and ihatfor a consider- 
 able time they had made and exer- 
 cised their trade with each other, of 
 which they had derived a good deal 
 of profit. ks&AndresDritzehn\vAA 
 remained security in many places 
 when they bought lead and other 
 things belonging to it, which [secu- 
 rities] he had redeemed and paid. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 53 
 
 nu derselbe Andres von tode abge- 
 gangen' were, hette er und sin " 
 bruder Clauss ettwie dick an 
 Hansz^ Gutenberg gefordert, das 
 Er sie an Irs bruder seligen stat, 
 in die genneinschafft nemen solte, 
 Oder aber mit Inen iiberkommen 
 umb solich ingeleit gelt, so er zu 
 Im in die gemeinschafft geleit 
 hette, das er aber alles nie getun 
 wolte, und sich domit behiilflfe, das 
 Andres Dryzehen solich gelt in die 
 gemeinschaft' zu Im nit geleit 
 haben solte, do er aber hoffle und 
 truwete erberlich su erziigen wie er 
 dovor geret hette, dasz das also 
 ergangen were, und darumb so 
 begerte er noch hiitbitage dass 
 Gutenberg In und sin bruder 
 Clauss in Ir erbe und in die ge- 
 meinschaft^ an Irs bruder seligen 
 stat setzen, oder aber solich inge- 
 leit gelt, von Irs bruders seligen 
 wegen wider hams geben wolte, 
 Alss Inen das von erbes und rechtes 
 wegen biUig zugehorte ; Oder aber 
 seite warumb er das nit tun solte. 
 Dagegen antwurt Hanns Guten- 
 berg, dass Ime solich vorderunge 
 von Jerge Drytzehen unbillig 
 neme. Sit er doch durch etlich 
 geschrifft und zedel so er und sin 
 bruder hinder Andres Drytzehen* 
 Irem bruder noch tode funden 
 hatte wol underwissen were, wie 
 er und sin bruder sich mitten- 
 ander vereiniget* hettent, Dann 
 Andres Drytzehen'' hette sich 
 vor ettlichen Jahren^ zu Im 
 gefuget und understanden ett- 
 lich kunst von Im zu leren 
 und zu begriffen, Dess hett er In 
 nu von siner bitt wegen geleret, 
 Stein boUieren das er auch zu 
 den ziteu wol genossen hette, 
 Donoch iiber gut zit, hette er mit 
 
 Now, when the said Andres had 
 died, he and his brother Claus had 
 often demanded of Hansz Guten- 
 berg that he would take them into 
 the partnership in the place of 
 their blessed brother, or to make 
 an agreement with them regarding 
 the money which he had brought 
 into the partnership j which he 
 \Gutenberg\ declined to do, and 
 excused himself by saying that 
 AndresDryzehen had never brought 
 such money to him in the partner- 
 ship ; as 'he, however, hoped and 
 trusted to show honestly that the 
 matter had passed, as he had said 
 before, and on that account he 
 still desired that Gutenberg should 
 put him and his brother Clauss 
 into their inheritance and into the 
 partnership in the place of their 
 blessed brother, or to pay back 
 the money which their blessed 
 brother had contributed, because 
 it reasonably belonged to them as 
 an inheritance and by right ; or to 
 say why he would not do this. 
 
 Against this Gutenberg ?iXi.'?>Vi&c&i, 
 that he considered such a demand 
 on the part of Jerge Drytzehen 
 unreasonable, because he could 
 know, through many writings and 
 contracts, which he and his brother 
 must have found after the death 
 of their hxoihex Andres Drytzehen, 
 how he [Gutenberg'] and his brother 
 [Andres Dritzehen'] had associated 
 with each other : namely, Andres 
 Drytzehen had come to him some 
 years ago with the understanding 
 to learn and comprehend some arts 
 from him ; for which reason he had 
 taught him, in consequence of his 
 request, to polish stones, of which he 
 had enjoyed [some] good [profits] 
 at the time. Yet, after a consider- 
 
 abegangen, Schoepflin. 
 ■ Hannsz, Schoepflin. 
 
 -schafR, Schoepflin. 
 ' Dryzehen, Schoepflin. 
 ' vereyniget, Schoepflin. 
 ' Jaren, Schoepflin. 
 
54 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 Hanns Rififen vogt zu Lichtenow 
 ein kunst understanden Sich der 
 uff der Ocher heiltumsfahrt' zu 
 gebruchen und sich des vereinigt^ 
 dass Gutenberg ein zweiteil und 
 Hans Riffe ein dirteil daran haben 
 solte, Dess were nu Andres Drit- 
 zehen' gewar worden, und hette 
 In gebeten Inen solich kunst auch 
 zu leren und zu underwisen, und 
 sich erbotten dess* noch sim willen 
 umb In zu verschulden. In dera 
 hette Her Anthonie Heilmann 
 Inen deszglichen von Andres Heil- 
 manns sins bruders wegen auch 
 gebetten, do hette er nu Ir beden 
 bitt angesehen und Inen ver- 
 sprochen Sie des zu leren und zu 
 underwissen, und ouch von solicher 
 kunst und afentur das halbe zu 
 geben und werden zu lassen, also 
 dass sie zween ein teil Hans Riff 
 den andren teil und er den halben 
 teil haben solte, Darumb so soltent 
 dieselben zwene Im Gutenberger 
 hundert und Ix. gulden geben in 
 sinen seckel von der kunst zu leren 
 und zu underwisen, Do Im auch 
 uff die zit vom jr jeglichem Ixxx. 
 gulden worden were, Als hettent 
 sie alle vor Inen dass die heiltums- 
 fart uss' dis Jar solte sin, und sich 
 daruff geriistent und bereit mit Ir 
 kunst, Alss nu die heiltumbfart 
 sich eins Jares lenger verzogen 
 hette, hettent sie fiirbas an In 
 begert und gebetten Sie alle sin 
 kiinste und afentur so er fiirbasser 
 oder in ander wege mer erkunde 
 Oder wuste, auch zu leren und des 
 nicht viir Inen zu verhelen. Also 
 iiberbatent sie Ine dass sie des eins 
 wurdent und wurde nemlich beret 
 dass Sie Im zu dem ersten gelt 
 geben soltent 11+°. gulden, das 
 were zusammen 410. gulden, und 
 soltent Im auch des hundert gul- 
 
 abletime, heand HannsRiffen, Pro- 
 vost of Lichtenow, came to an under- 
 standing about an art which was to 
 be used on the occasion of the Ocher 
 pilgrimage [to Aix-la-Chapelle], 
 and they had united on the condi- 
 tion that Gutenberg should have 
 two parts, and Hans Riffe a third 
 part in this undertaking. Now, 
 Andres Dritzehen had become 
 aware of this, and requested him to 
 teach and show him also this art, 
 promising him to pay for it what- 
 ever he should desire. Meantime 
 Mr. Anthonie Heilmann requested 
 him also on the part of his brother, 
 Andres Heilmann, and he had con- 
 sidered the request of both, and 
 promised them to teach and in- 
 struct them in it, and also to give 
 and transfer to them the half of 
 stuh art and undertaking^ so that 
 they two would get one part, Hans 
 Riffles other part, and he [Guteti- 
 berg\ the half. On that account 
 the two would have to pay to 
 Gutenberg 160 guilders into his 
 purse, for his teaching and instruct- 
 ing them in the art. He had 
 received, indeed, at that time, 80 
 guilders from each of them, as 
 they imagined that the pilgrimage 
 would take place that year, and 
 they had prepared themselves with 
 their art. But when the pilgrimage 
 was put off for one year, they 
 further desired from him and re- 
 quested fe tecuh them all his'' arts and 
 undertaking ° which he might fur- 
 ther, or in- another way learn, or 
 knew at present, and to conceal 
 nothing from them. Thus they 
 persuaded him and came to an 
 understanding, and it was agreed 
 that in addition to the first sum 
 they should give him 250 guilders, 
 which would make together 410 
 
 -fart, Schoepflin. 
 vereynigt, Schoepflin. 
 Dryzehen, Schoepflin. 
 dass, Schoepflin. 
 US', Sclioepflin. 
 
 ' The German word afentur im- 
 plies an undertaking liable to some 
 risk. 
 
 ' Schoepflin translates : aries mi- 
 rabiles atque secretas. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 55 
 
 den geben als bar, dess Im auch 
 uff die zit 50. gulden von Andres 
 Heilmann und 40 fl. von Andres 
 Dryzehen worden vi^erent, und 
 stundent Im von Andres Dryzehen 
 des noch 10. fl. uss. Darzu soltent 
 die zwene Ir jeglicher Im die 75. fl. 
 geben zu dryen zilen noch dem 
 dann dieselbe zil deszmols beret 
 worden werent, Do ober Andres 
 Dritzehen' in solichen zilen von 
 tode abegangen were und Ime 
 solich gelt von sinet wegen noch 
 usstiinde, so were auch uff die zit 
 nemlich beret, dass solich Ir afien- 
 ture mit der kunst solt weren funs' 
 gantze Jar, und wer es dass ir einer 
 under den vieren in denfunff jaren 
 von tode abeginge, so solte alle 
 kunst, geschirre und gemaht werck 
 by den andem bliben, und soltent 
 des abegangenen erben dafiir noch' 
 ussgang der fiinff jor werden hun- 
 dert gulden. Das und anders auch 
 alles zu der zit verzeichent und 
 hinder Andres Dryzehen kommen 
 sy dariiber einen versiegelten' brieff 
 zu setzen und zu machen, alss das 
 die zeichenlss luter uswisset, und 
 habe auch Hans' Gutenberg sie 
 sithar und darufF solich afentur und 
 kunst gelert und underwisen, dess 
 sich auch Andres Dryzehen an sine 
 todtbett^ bekannt* hette, Darumb 
 und wile di zedel so dariiber be- 
 griffen und hinder Andres Dry- 
 zehen funden werent, das luter 
 besagen und innhalten, und er das 
 auch mit guter kuntschaft* hoffte' 
 
 guilders. Of this he {Gutenberg^ 
 was to receive 100 guilders in ready 
 money ; and he did receive 50 
 guilders from Andres Heilmann, 
 and 40 guilders from Andres Dry- 
 zehen, so that Andres Dryzehen 
 had still to pay him 10 guilders. 
 Besides this the two should each 
 pay him 75 guilders in three 
 instalments, as had been pre- 
 viously agreed upon. But as 
 Andres Dritzehen had died within 
 these terms, and the money was 
 still due from him, it was decided 
 that their adventure with the art ' 
 should last for five whole years, 
 and in case one of the four died 
 within the five years, then all their 
 art, tools, and work made already 
 should remain with the others, and 
 after the expiration of five years 
 the heirs of deceased should receive 
 100 guilders. This and other 
 things were viritten down at the 
 time, and after the [death of]' 
 Andres Dryzehen they had agreed 
 to prepare a sealed letter about the 
 matter as is clearly shown by the 
 act' and henceforth Hans Gutenberg 
 had taught and instructed them, in 
 such undertaking and art,* which 
 had been acknowledged by Andres 
 Dryzehen on his death - bed. 
 Therefore, and because the con- 
 tracts which concern it, and were 
 found with Andres Dryzehen, 
 clearly declare and contain it, and 
 he \Gutenberg\ hoped to prove 
 with good witnesses, he desired 
 
 ^ Dryzehen, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' versigelten, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' Hanss, Schoepflin. 
 
 * tot bett bekant, Schoepflin. 
 
 '" kuntschafft hofte, Schoepflin. 
 
 I Schoepflin translates : fro exer- 
 cenda arte mirabili. 
 
 ^ The sense is not quite clear 
 here : hinder means after ; there- 
 fore, perhaps to be supplied the 
 death of. There is further in the 
 original : Andres Dryzehen kommen 
 sy dariiber einen versiegelten, &c., 
 where we might have expected the 
 word ein after dariiber. 
 
 ' or signature ? 
 
 •* Schoepflin translates : hanc secre- 
 tam 6* mirabilem artem. 
 
56 
 
 Gutenberg . 
 
 byzubringen, so begerte er dass 
 Jorge Dryzehen und sin bruder 
 Clauss Im die 85. gulden so Im 
 von Irs bruder seligen wegen noch 
 also ussstiinden, an den 100. gul- 
 den abeschlahent, so woUe er Inen 
 die iibrigen^ 15 gulden nochgeben, 
 wiewol er des noch etliche jahr 
 zit^ hette, und Inen darumb tun 
 noch wisunge solicher zedel davon 
 begriffen, Und alss Jerge Dryzehen 
 fiirbas gemeldet hette wie Andres 
 Dryzehen sin bruder selige etvvie 
 vil sins vatters erbe und guts ge- 
 hebt, versetzet oder verkauft habe, 
 das gange Ine nicht an, und Im sy 
 von Im nit me worden, dann er 
 vor erzalt habe, ussgesat ein halben 
 omen gesotten wins, ein korp mit 
 bieren und er und Andres Heil- 
 mann haben Im ein halb fuder 
 wins geschencket, do sie zwene 
 east' me by Im verzert hettent, 
 darumb Im aber niitzit worden 
 were, Darzu als ir* fordert Inen in 
 sin erbe zu setzen, do wisse er 
 deheim' erbe noch gut do er Ine 
 insetzen soUe oder dovon er Im iht 
 zu thun sy. So sy auch Andres 
 Dryzehen nirgent* sin biirge wor- 
 den, weder fiir bli oder anders, 
 ohne'' ein mol gegen Fridel von 
 Seckingen, von dera habe er Ine 
 noch sime tode wider gelidiget und 
 gelbset, und begert darumb sin 
 kundschaft' und worheit zu ver- 
 leien. 
 
 Alss nachdem' Wir Meister und 
 Rat obgenannt forderunge und 
 antwurt, rede und widerrede, auch 
 kuntschaffi und worheit so sie 
 
 that Jorgi Dryzehen and his 
 brother Clauss should deduct the 
 85 guilders, which he had still to 
 claim from their blessed brother, 
 from the 100 guilders, whereupon 
 he should give them the remaining 
 IJ guilders, though he had still 
 some years' time to do this in, 
 according to the contents of the 
 act. And as to Jerge Dryzehen 
 having further said how Andres 
 Dryzehen, his blessed brother, had 
 raised much upon his father's 
 inheritage and property, or had 
 mortgaged or sold it, this did not 
 concern him \Gutenberg\, for he 
 had never received more from him 
 than he had related before, except 
 half an omen of sodden wine, a 
 basket with beer, and he [Dritze- 
 heri\ and Andres Heilmann had 
 presented him with half a measure 
 of wine, though the two had 
 almost more consumed with him, 
 and for which he had obtained 
 nothing. Moreover, when he 
 demands to put him into his inheri- 
 tance, he did not know of any 
 inheritance or property into which 
 he could put him, or with which 
 he had anything to do. Nor had 
 Andres Dryzehen become his 
 security anywhere, either for lead 
 or for anything else, except once 
 vrith Fridel von Seckingen, from 
 whom he had redeemed and 
 relieved him after his death, and 
 on that account requests to bring 
 forward his witnesses and truth. 
 
 We Master and Council having 
 heard the aforesaid demand, and 
 response, the discussion for and 
 against, also the witnesses and 
 
 iiberigen, Schoepflin. 
 zil, Schoepflin. 
 ' fast, Schoepflin. 
 er, Schoepflin. 
 dehein, Schoepflin. 
 niergent, Schoepflin. 
 one, Schoepflin. 
 kuntschafft, Schoepflin. 
 nochdem, Schoepflin. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 57 
 
 beder site furgewant habent und 
 besunder den zedel wie die beie- 
 dung vor Uns gescheen, verhor- 
 tent, do komment Wir mit recht 
 urteil iiberein und sprochent es 
 auch zu recht : wile ein zedel da 
 ist der da wiset in welcher masse 
 die beredunge zugangen und ge- 
 schehen sin soil. Sy dann dass 
 Hanns Riff, Andres Heilmann und 
 Hanns Gutenberg schwerent einen 
 eit an den Heiligen, dass die sache 
 ergangen sient, alss das der obge- 
 melt zedel wiset, und das derselbe 
 zedel daruf begriffen wurt dass 
 ein besigelter brieff daruss gemaht 
 sin solt ob Andres Dryzehen by 
 sinem leben bliben were, und dass 
 Hanns^ Gutenberg domit sweret, 
 dass Im die 85. gulden von Andres 
 Dritzehen noch unbezahlt' usstont, 
 so sollen Im dieselben 85. gulden 
 an den abgemelten* 100. gulden 
 obegon,^ und soil die iibrige 15 
 gulden gemelten Jorge und Clauss 
 Dryzehen harus geben, und soUent 
 die 100 gulden domit bezalt sin 
 noch innhalt der obgemelten zedel, 
 Und soil Gutenberg furbas von 
 dess wercks und gemeinschafft 
 wegen mit Andres Dryzehen all. 
 niitzit zu tun noch zu schaffen 
 haben. Solichen eit Hans Riff, 
 Andres Heilman und Hanns 
 Gutenberg vor Uns also geton 
 habent, ussgenommen dass Hanns^ 
 Riff geseit hat dass er by der bere- 
 dung am ersten nit gewesen' sy, so 
 bald er aber zu In kommen und 
 sie Im die beredung seiten, da liesz 
 er das auch daby bliben, daruff 
 gebieten Wir diese verheiszung 
 iu halten. Datum vigil. Lucie et 
 Otilie Anno xxxix. 
 
 truth, .which both parties have 
 brought forward, and having 
 especially seen the contract and 
 the convention, we have agreed 
 with a correct judgment, and 
 pronounce it also as right : while 
 there exists an act which shows in 
 what form the convention has 
 come about and has taken place. 
 Let, therefore, Hanns Rif, Andres 
 Heilmann, and Hanns Gutenberg 
 swear an oath by the Saints, that 
 the matters have taken place as 
 the aforesaid act indicates, and 
 that this same act had contained a 
 provision that a sealed letter 
 should have been made of it if 
 Andres Dryzehen had remained 
 alive ; and that Hanns Gutenberg 
 also take an oath that he has still 
 to claim 85 guilders from Andres 
 Dritzehen ; so that these 85 guilders 
 may be deducted from the above- 
 mentioned 100 guilders, and he 
 shall pay the remaining 15 guilders 
 to the said Jorge and Glaus Dry- 
 zehen, wherewith the 100 guilders 
 shall have been paid in conformity 
 with the contents of the said act ; 
 and Gutenberg shall henceforth 
 have nothing to do or to arrange 
 with Andres Dryzehen, on account 
 of the work and the partnership. 
 This oath having been taken before 
 Us by Hans Riff, Andres Heilman, 
 and Hanns Gutenberg, except that 
 Hanns Riff has said that he had 
 not been present at the first con- 
 vention ; but as soon as he came 
 to them and they showed him the 
 convention, he altered nothing, 
 wherefore we command to main- 
 tain this convention. Datum vigil. 
 Lucie et Otilie Anno xxxix (12 
 Dec. 1439). 
 
 ' darufi, Schoepflin. 
 ' Hanss, Schoepflin. 
 ' unbezalt, Schoepflin. 
 
 * obg-, Schoepflin. 
 
 * abegon, Schoepflin. 
 ' Hans, Schoepflin. 
 
 ' gewessen, Schoepflin. 
 
58 Gutenberg: 
 
 8 (VI). An act, with dates (secundo ydus Jan. j quarto 
 ydus Febr. ; xii kalend. Marcii; viii kal. April. i.e.) Jan. 12, 
 Feb. 10, Feb. 18, and March 25, 1441, in which the Knight 
 Luthold von Ramstein, and Johannes didus Gensefleisch 
 alias nuncupatus Gutenberg de Maguntia (later on Johannes 
 Gutenberg), both livmg at Strassburg, remain surety before 
 the judge of the Strassburg cury, for 100 guilders (about 
 400 fr.), which a certain Joh. Karle, armiger, had borrowed 
 from the St. Thomas Chapter at so/o- 
 
 This act and document 10 were, according to Schoepflin 
 (Vindicise, p. 12), discovered by Prof Jo. Geo. Scherz, in 
 the Archives of the Church of St. Thomas, at Strassburg, 
 in 17 17, who communicated extracts from them to some 
 friends, who in their turn communicated them toSchellhom, 
 who mentions thtra, for the first thne, in 1720, in his "Amoeni- 
 tatum Literar." torn. iv. p. 304. Schellhorn did not publish 
 them, but only quotes from them the words " Joannes dictus 
 Gensfleisch, alias nuncupatus Gutenberg de Maguncia Ar- 
 gentinse commorans," for the purpose of showing that Guten- 
 berg and Gensfleisch were one and the same. He says, 
 however, that both documents were communicated to him 
 by "Generosissimus Dominus Marcus AntoniUs de Krafft, 
 Reip. Ulmensis, Senator, & . . . . Patronus mens demisse 
 colendus," who copied them at Strassburg while on a tour. 
 Schellhorn's quotation was evidently copied, in 1727, by 
 Joannis in his Scriptt. Hist. Mogunt. tomus riovus, p. 456. 
 The documents (8 and 10) were published in extenso in 
 1760, by Schoepflin, in his Vindicise (8 as Num. V., ex 
 libro salico eeclesise Thomanae Argentoratensis, N°. B., 
 fol. 293 a; 10 as Num. VI., ex libro salico eccl. D. Thom. 
 Argent., N". B., fol. 302 3.) Cf Schaab, Erfind. der Buch- 
 druckerkunst, i. 27, 28, 31, where we read that 
 
 "in 1826, the Strassburg Librarian Schweighauser found the docu- 
 ments in the place mentioned. Volume B is a large folio, for the 
 most part written on paper. It contains contemporary copies of 
 documents, and a table of contents, written on parchment, is bound at 
 the beginning of the volume." Schaab adds: "The four important 
 documents (Nos. 4, 7, 8, 10) are preserved at Strassburg, and it would 
 be audacious to entertain the slightest doubt as to their genuineness." 
 
 Cf C. Schmid (Nouv. details sur la vie de Gutenberg) 
 who says that the original of doc. 8 does no longer exist, 
 but that the entry found in Reg. B, fol. 293" is a copy. 
 
 9 [a.d. 1441]. A piece of oak, of which Dr. Van der 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing f 59 
 
 Linde(p. 87) tells us that "it is 3 ft. in length and provided 
 with a screw-hole ; that it was discovered in Gutenberg's first 
 printing-house at Mentz, im Hofe zum Jungen, on the 22nd 
 of March, 1856, in the afternoon at five o'clock, at the 
 digging of a cellar 24 ft. under the ground. This piece of 
 wood had done service as a press, and bore the inscription 
 J. MCDXLI.G." (a ridiculous inscription according to Dr. 
 Van der Linde, p. 517). He adds : — 
 
 "It was found among a heap of smaller and larger pieces of wood 
 of the same kind, so that with these fragments a whole press might 
 have been constructed ; not a single piece of iron or other metal was 
 found near them, but close by to the right were found eight baked, 
 round, perforated stones (as they are sometimes found in Roman 
 tombs), four Roman coins of copper of Aug., Trajan, Marc. Aurel., 
 and two fragments of Roman vases of terra-sigillata. A couple of 
 feet further on the right, Roman stoves were discovered in their original 
 situation (Dr. Van der Linde places here an ?), &c. &c." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde says that he himself has been on the 
 spot and has seen these interesting objects, and remarks 
 that it is obvious to the most superficial that in this falsifi- 
 cation ignorance and impudence vie with each other for 
 mastery, and he refers us to "a contemptible apology of 
 K. Klein, Professeur au College Grand-Ducal de Mayence, 
 &c. &c.," entitled, Sur Gutenberg et le fragment de sa 
 presse, trouv6 dans la maison oil il a ^tabli sa premifere 
 imprimerie, Mayence, 1856, 8vo. 
 
 In Notes and Queries, Sec. Series, vol. xi. p. 23, an 
 article on the above interesting discovery, by the well-known 
 Mr. Francis Fry, may be found. He saw the objects in 
 i860. There were then, beside the principal block (which he 
 calls " precious relic"), and preserved in a glass case, Some 
 other pieces of wood, supposed to have been parts of the 
 press, a few stone mulls, used no doubt for grinding the 
 ink, and four coins, one of each of the reigns of Augustus, 
 Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius, one illegible. [The Roman 
 portion of the find reveals Gutenberg to us as a numismatist 
 and a general antiquary; but why does Mr. Fry not men- 
 tion the stoves ?] 
 
 Mr. Fry goes on to say : 
 
 " Gutenberg, on his return from Strassburg about the year 144S1 
 settled in a portion of the house of his paternal uncle, John Geinsfleish, 
 the Hfltel du Jungen, where he erected his press ; and from the date 
 on the beam it must have been used in Strassburg, where Gutenberg 
 
6o " Gutenberg: 
 
 resided in 1441, in the production of prints from wood-blocks, which 
 he is known to have executed in that town. The locality in which 
 the discovery was made confirms the opinion generally held that he 
 worked in secret &c. &c. " 
 
 Any one desirous of reading an enthusiastic and romantic 
 notice of this discovery may consult Madden, " Lettres d'un 
 BibHographe," se Sdrie; Cf. also Bernard, Origine de 
 rimpr. i. 157. 
 
 10 (VII). An act, dated (xv kal. Dec, i.e.) Nov. 17, 
 1442, v^'htrehy Johannes dtcfus Gensefteische alias Guttenberg 
 de Maguncia, and Martin Brechter, a citizen of Strassburg, 
 obtain a loan of 80 guilders from the Chapter of St. Thomas 
 Church at Strassburg, for which they pledge their salvation 
 (seligkeit), and Gutenberg's inheritance from Johannes 
 Richter, otherwise Lehe5rmer, the secular judge of the town 
 of Mentz, his great-grandfather. Gutenberg's seal, still 
 intact, is attached to this document, as well as those of the 
 episcopal court, and of Martin Brechter. (Cf. Le BibHo- 
 graphe Alsacien, 1869, p. 203, and Lempertz' Bilderheften, 
 1858, tab. i.). This document, which formerly belonged 
 to the Archives of St. Thomas, is at present deposited in 
 the Library of the Protestant Seminary, at Strassburg, 
 Cf. No. 8 (VI). Cf Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdrucker- 
 kunst, i. 28 ; and see above, doc. 8. 
 
 The following particulars deserve to be translated from 
 C. Schmid, Nouv. details sur la vie de Gutenberg : — 
 
 "Martin Brechter offers himself as codebtor, and on the 17th Nov., 
 1442, Johann called Gensefleische . . . and he present themselves 
 before the episcopal judge. For the Chapter appear the Canons Nic. 
 Merswin and Conrad HUter to treat with Gutenberg, who sells to the 
 Chapter a rent of 4 livres ( = 16 fr.), payable each year on St. Martin's 
 day, on a revenue of 10 florins on the town of Mentz, which he had 
 inherited from his uncle, Johann Richter, called Leheymer, secular 
 judge in his native town. This sale is effected for 80 livres { = 320 fr. ), 
 which the two canons handed to the buyers, and which money was 
 entirely for the use of Gutenberg. The latter gives mortgage to the 
 Chapter on the said revenue of 10 florins. — This document, like No. 8, 
 was published from a copy in the registers of St. Thomas (Reg. B. 
 fol. soa""), but some years ago (Schmid writes in 1841) the Librarian 
 Jung discovered the original document among the ancient papers 
 preserved in the magazines of the Grandes-Boucheries (Cf. Le Biblio- 
 graphe Alsacien, 1869, p. 204). Martin Brechter belonged to a family 
 which was afterwards ennobled ; Cf. Schoepflin, Alsatia iU., ii. 639." 
 
 In perusing the old books of the Chapter of St. Thomas 
 Schmid found 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 6 1 
 
 " that Gutenberg paid his interest till 1458, even after his return from 
 Strassburg to Mentz in 1444. The accounts of the years 1443, 1444, 
 '47, '48, '49, '51, '52, 'S4, '56 are wanting. In the quires of 1445, 
 '46, '50, '53, '57, it is each time said : 
 
 Item Johan Gutenberg d' (dat) iiij lib. 
 or Item Jolian Giittenberg und Martin Brechter d' iiij lib. As no 
 observation is made in the registers, it is to be assumed that the 
 interest was paid also in those years of which the registers are wanting. 
 Gutenberg therefore paid his debts even after 1448, when his cousin 
 and friend Arnold Gelthus of Mentz had borrowed 150 florins to assist 
 him, and even after 1455 when Fust deprived him of his presses. 'But 
 after 1455 Dr. Humery began to advance him money and after St. 
 Martin's day of 1458 Gutenberg began to forget (oublid) what he owed 
 to the Chapter and the 4 livres interest were no longer paid. In the 
 contract it was stipulated that after a certain time had elapsed 
 before any rent had been paid, the Chapter would have the right to 
 seize the goods of Gutenberg and his surety. The Chapter allowed 
 two years to elapse before using their rights ; and only in the spring 
 of 1461 they decided to take action against Gutenberg and Brechter. 
 The Chapter brought their complaint before the Imperial Chamber at 
 Rottweil in Suavia, and on the loth of April 1461 wrote to the Count 
 Jean de Sultz, the president of this chamber the letter," which will be 
 found below as documeait No. 18. Cf. Bernard, Origine de I'lmpri- 
 merie, i. 149. 
 
 1 1 (VIII). Some items in the Strassburg HelbelingzoU- 
 buch (a register of the hellerzoll, i.e. a tax of a heller or 
 penny), in the first of which it is said that Hans Gutemberg 
 paid a tax in July, 1439, but remained in debt for 12 shil- 
 lings, which he paid on the 24th of June, 1440. He pays 
 again on the 21st of Sept., 1443; and again March 12, 
 1444. 
 
 In this same register appeared the entry in which it is 
 said that " Ennel Gudenbergen diesen ZoU zahlt habe " 
 (cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerkunst, i. 44), of which 
 entry we have seen Dr. Van der Linde speak under docu- 
 ment 6 as being a forgery. The several items were published 
 for the first time in 1760, by J. D. Schoepflin, Vindicise 
 typogr., documenta, N". VII, p. 40. 
 
 [It will not be superfluous to remark that after this last item 
 of 1444 ng further trace of Gutenberg is said to be found at 
 Strassburg, and he is considered to have been dissatisfied 
 with his results in that town and to have quitted it as 
 soon as possible to try his fortune in his native town. Some 
 authors quote, in support of their opinion that he emigrated 
 in 1443, a document of the same year by which Johan 
 Gensfleisch hired, at Mentz, the house zum Jungen, which 
 Gutenberg occupied afterwards (see above, p. 16). But this 
 
62 Gutenberg: 
 
 Johan Gensfleisch is called the alte and is Gutenberg's oncle 
 (Cf. Kohler, Ehren-retiung, p. 67, 82 ; Schaab, Erfind. der 
 Buchdruchrk., ii. 250 ; Bernard, Origine de VImprimerie, i. 
 
 ISS-] 
 
 12 (IX). A letter relating a transaction which had taken 
 place (Inne deme Jare . . . Dusent vyerhundert vyertzygk 
 und Echte Jare vff sant Gallen tag des heyligen Confessors, 
 i.e. in the year 1448 on the day of St. Gall, the holy Con- 
 fessor, i.e.) the i6th Oct., 1448, and published (Anno preno- 
 tatoferia quinta proxima post diem beati galli confessoris,i.e.) 
 the 1 7 th Oct. 1448, by which Arnolt Gelthuss gives security 
 to Reinhart Bromser and Johann Rodenstein for a loan of 
 150 guilders, contracted by him in behalf oiHenn {Henchin) 
 genssefleisch, called gudenbergk, who now resided at Mentz. 
 
 , This letter we only know from a later document of the 
 secular court of Mentz, dated (mitwuchen nehist nach sant 
 Bernharts tagk des heyligen abbtes, i.e.) 23rd Aug., 1503, in 
 which the letter is repeated and authenticated in behalf of 
 Dhiel Hepp von breythart, a tailor and citizen of Mentz, 
 and Elsse, the widow of the blessed Clese fresenheimer. 
 
 This latter document is preserved in the town library at 
 Mentz, and Bodmann (who forged at least three documents 
 in behalf of Gutenberg's biography) has written on it, " Ad 
 Historiam Typographiae inventae." 
 
 Schaab, after he had come into the possession of Bod- 
 mann's papers, published it for the first time in 1830 
 (Gesch. der Erfind. der Buchdr. ii. 253) and calls it 
 " the most interesting document of his collection, because 
 (cf. his vol. i. p. 165) it fills up the epoch 1445-1450, 
 which had hitherto remained the darkest of Gutenberg's 
 existence, and the document shows us that during this time 
 Gutenberg was in Mentz, had no property and no credit, 
 and was supported by his rich relatives by means of borrowed 
 money" — cf. further his vol. i. 461 sqq. 
 
 In this letter Gutenberg is spoken of as Henn genssefleisch 
 den man r\sm\tX gudenbergk, and Henchin genssefl&ische. We 
 find also mentioned Hans von Sorchenloche genante gensse- 
 fleische^^hanss von Sorgenloche gnante genssefleisch, a distant 
 relation of John Gutenberg. Schaab (i. 32) says of it : "The 
 vidimused document lay before the eyes of the tribunal. They 
 examined the writing, seals, &c., and described it correctly. 
 The precious document is written on a large sheet of parch- 
 ment, with Latin characters. The five seals which had 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 63 
 
 been attached to it have, indeed, come off, but the slits at 
 the bottom of the parchment still prove this number. In 
 one of the corners is written, in a newer hand : das Haus 
 Zum alien Rath belangend. 1st selbiger Zinsz von Meister 
 Jorge Hqfsattler im Jahr 1666 abgelegt worden." 
 
 13. "A notarial document, dated 3rd July, 1453, in which 
 Johann Gudenberg is mentioned as a witness, and in which 
 Hans Schumacher von Selgenstadt, brother and servant of 
 the convent of St. Clara, gives and bequeathes to this con- 
 vent all his possessions, outstanding debts, &c. From the 
 original, or copy." 
 
 The above note was found among the papers of the well- 
 known Bodmann, but Schaab tells us (ii. 267) that he has 
 in vain looked for the notarial document or the copy. 
 
 14 (X). The Notarial Instrument of the Law-suit of 
 Johann Fust against Johann {Johan) Gutienberg ( Guten- 
 berg ; Guttenbergk) alleged to have been decided on the 
 6th Nov., 145s (cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerkunst, i. 
 47, 58 &c. &c.).* 
 
 * I think it necessary to state that the history of this document 
 was vpritten and in type before I had an opportunity of making 
 researches for the original in Germany. I found it needful to make 
 these researches, because every author on the invention of printing 
 speaks of an Of^iginal or autographum, yet when I compared what they 
 said with the circumstances under which they published their text, 
 there was in some cases a certainty, in other cases a strong suspicion, 
 that they had printed from a transcript which emanated, in the seven- 
 teenth century, from Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the very 
 man who wrote a long discourse to demonstrate that Johan Fust was 
 the inventor of printine, and his ancestor. It is true, Joh. David 
 Kohler stated plainly mough, in 1741, that he printed the document 
 "from an original on vellum in forma patente," but in his preface 
 he declared that he had obtained all his documents from Johan 
 Ernst von GlaUburg. As it will be seen from the letter's own words 
 (on pp. 74, 75, 93) that he, on two occasions, contented himself with 
 transcribing this document from the Faust von AscAaJiniurfftiaoscnpt, 
 and never even speaks of an original, it was to my mind out of the 
 question that Ae could have supplied Kohler with an authentic copy, 
 while he himself preferred to deal with a transcript. 
 
 I have failed to find the original used by Kohler, but I saw, in the 
 Darmstadt Archives (Oct. 9, iSSo) a letter written by him in 1728 to 
 this very Joh. Ernst von Glauburg informing him that he had obtained 
 the original from a relation ( Vetter) 6i von Glauburg" s. Who this rela- 
 tion was or where his literary property is now preserved, 1 have been 
 unable to ascertain, but Kohler's letter must: set at rest, at least for the 
 present, all doubts as to the source of his text. 
 
 The external history of the document doeS not seem ever to have 
 
64 Gutenberg .' 
 
 The contents of the document are well known. It idi 
 sometimes called the Helmasperger document, because in 
 it the Mentz Notary Ulricus Helmasperger testifies to have 
 drawn it up for and on behalf of Johan Fust, and it bears 
 his name and notarial mark. 
 
 Allusion is made in this document to another one 
 which has not come down to us — namely, the contract 
 {czettel, mod. Germ. Zettel, see line 43 of the In- 
 strument) made between Gutenberg and Fust, at the 
 commencement of their association (see Schaab i. 169, 170); 
 
 This association is calculated to have commenced in the 
 second half of the year 1450, because, in the Instrument, 
 Fust reckons the interest of the first advanced 800 guilders 
 to amount to 250, which is exactly the amount (at 6 per 
 cent.) for five years and two-and-a-half months, and points 
 to the 26th Aug., 1450, as the day on which the 800 
 guilders must have been advanced. After two years this 
 money- appears to have been spent, and about the 6th of 
 December, 1452, Fust advanced another 800 guilders. 
 
 At the time the first loan was advanced, Gutenberg 
 seems to have had no printing tools, but was to make 
 them with Fust's money, and to pledge them to Fust for 
 the money advanced (Dass ym Guttenberg — ^Johann Fust 
 800 Gulden verlacht solt hain, mit solchem Gelde er sin 
 gezuge zurichten und machen solte — und solche geziige 
 des genanten Johann — Fust — pffant sin solten). Schaab 
 (Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. 174), from whom these 
 particulars are copied, adds : — 
 
 "As there is question of a new manufacture of printing tools, it 
 follows that Gutenberg did not bring any with him to Mentz from 
 Strassburg, and did not procure them even at Mentz, until the contract 
 of association had been concluded. Fust acknowledged that it was 
 
 had any attraction for writers on the origin of printing. It is not 
 given anywhere, and German authors who ought to know publish par- 
 ticulars regarding this external history dnd the whereabouts of the 
 document which are most perplexing to foreigners, as I have found 
 to my cost. For these reasons I publish the result of my reading and 
 research unaltered, however confused it may appear, in the hope that the 
 extraordinary errors to which I allude vriU be removed and the attention 
 of Librarians and Archivists may be directed to the matter, and a search 
 for the original or originals made without delay. The results of my re- 
 searches at Hamburg, Frankfurt on the Main, Hochst on the Nidder (in 
 Baron Carl von Gunderrode's library), and Darmstadt, as far as they bear 
 on this subject, have been stated in notes or in paragraphs preceded by U. 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 65 
 
 Gutenberg's invention and only advanced the money for the making of 
 the tools. . . . Gutenberg presumably commenced with the tools which 
 we have partly seen in the house of Andreas Dritzehn at Strassburg, 
 namely a press, cut characters, forms for putting them together, and 
 wooden blocks."* 
 
 On p. 313 Schaab argues that — 
 
 " Peter Schoffer must have married Fust's daughter before 14S5i ^"d 
 I see in this close relation between Fust and Schoffer the cause of the 
 law-suit and the breaking up of the association. Fust and Schoeffer 
 knew by that time Gutenberg's secret ; the latter had fully equipped 
 his printing-office ; Schoeffer's improvements in the casting of type 
 had been effected ; Gutenberg could be dispensed vrith ; he had spent 
 the remainder of his property in the printing-business, and they knew 
 that he was unable to repay the money advanced to him. It was now 
 the most favourable moment not only to exclude Gutenberg from the 
 partnership and to secure his printing-office, but also to make him harm- 
 less for the future.^* A pretence was soon found, namely the costs of 
 
 the Latin Bible Fug; was a rich man, but had purposely 
 
 borrowed the money, which jhe lent to Gutenberg, from Jews and 
 Christians, in order to excuse his usury and to be able to claim six 
 per cent. Gutenberg was summoned by Fust before the tribunal, and 
 — according to the document of which we treat — the tribunal decided, 
 1st. that Gutenberg should furnish an account of all receipts and 
 expenses concerning the work which he had prepared for their mutual 
 profit ; 2nd, that when it resulted that he had received more money 
 than he had spent, and had devoted this not to their common use, but 
 to his own profit, he was to pay this to Fust ; 3rd, if Fust proved 
 by oath or legal evidence — legal testimony — that he had obtained 
 the sum mentioned on interest, and had not lent it from his own 
 money, Gutenberg was to pay him this interest, according to the 
 contents of the contract. The notarial Helmasberger Instrument does 
 not say that Gutenberg produced the account, but as he replied that 
 he vfould account for the second 800 guilders, we may conclude that 
 he drew it up and prtfduced it. The tribunal awarded interest at six per 
 cent., a rate tuhich was forbidden by the then sectilar and ecclesiastical 
 
 * " Da hier von einer neuen Zurichtung des Druckgezeugs die Rede 
 ist, so muss Gutenberg keines von Strassburg nach Mainz gebracht, 
 und auch daselbst nicht vor Abschliessung des Gesellschaftsvertrags 
 sich angeschafft haben. In diesen Akten ist von Fust anerkannt 
 wordetn, die Erfindung gehore unserm Gutenberg an imd Fust habe 
 das Geld yprgelegt, damit Gutenberg sin gezuch mit solchem zurichten 
 und machen soUe ; es sich also nicht anders denken lasse, als dass 
 Gutenberg gleich nach dem mit Fust abgeschlossenen Gesellschafts- 
 vertrag die Hand ans Werk gelegt, uin neue Druckwerkzeuge zu ver- 
 fertigen, lind dass er dabei von seinem Gesellschafter seye unterstiitzt 
 worden. Vermuthlich hat er mit den Werkzeugen angefangen, welche 
 wir zum Theil in Strassburg in der Wohnung von Andreas Dritzehn 
 gesehen , haben, nemlich einer Presse, geschnittenen Buchstaben, 
 Formen zu ihrer Zusammensetzung undhblzernen Tafeln." 
 
 K 
 
66 Gutenberg : 
 
 law ; it even awarded interest on interest, or, as Gutenberg called it, 
 usurious interest, which it was forbidden to take ; finally it awarded 
 the full payment of interest for the capital sum which had only been 
 advanced from time to time." * 
 
 Schaab goes on : — 
 
 Which tribunal pronounced this judgment, which is so remark- 
 able in many respects, and when it was pronounced, are matters 
 about which the notarial document and llentz history are silent. 
 
 * Die Epodhe der Verheirathnng Schofifers mit Fustens Tochter 
 Chrstina last sich um so gewisser fur die Jahre 1453 und 1454 anneh- 
 men, als. . . Da ich den Beweis geliefert zn haben glaube, dass die 
 Epoche von Peter Schoffers Verheirathung vor das Jahr 1455 falle, so 
 sehe ich in dieser nahen Verbindung zwischen Fust und Schoffer die 
 Ursache zur Erhebung des .Prozesses gegen Gutenberg und zur Tren- 
 nung der Gesellschaft. Fust und Schoffer- befanden sich im Besitze 
 eines Geheimnisses, dass Gutenberg so lang und sorgfaltig bewahrt 
 hatte, die Druckerei war von ihm vollstandig eingerichtet, Schoffers 
 Verbesserungen des Gussverfahrens waren geschehen, Gutenberg war 
 ihnen entbehrlich, er hatte den Rest seines Vennogens in die Druck- 
 einrichtung verwendet, sie wusten, dass er sich ausser Stand befand, 
 die ihm vorgeschossenen Summen auf der Stelle zu ersetzen. Der 
 giinstigste Moment war eingetreten, den gehei'men Plan auszufiihren, 
 um sich den alleinigen Besitz der ganzen Druckerei zu verschafTen und 
 nicht allein Gutenberg daraus zu verdrangen, sondem ihn fiir die 
 Zukunft ganz unschadlich zu machen. . , . Ein Vorwand war bald 
 gefunden. Die Kosten der lateinischen Bibel tnussten ihn abgeben. . . 
 Fust war ein reicher mann und doch hatte er absichtlich daS Geld bei 
 Juden und Christen aufgenommen, um seinen vorgehabten Wucher zu 
 beschonigen und eine Aufforderung von sedhs Prozent durchzusetzen; 
 . . . Gutenberg wurde von Fust vor Gericht gelkden. . . . 
 Das gericht erkannte : (i) dass Gutenberg eine Rechnung stellen soUe 
 iiber alle Einnahmen und Ausgaben, welche er auf das Werk zu 
 beiderseitigem Nutzen gemacht habe ; (2) wenn sich daraus ergebe, 
 dass er mehr Geld empfangen als er ausgegeben und nicht in ihren 
 gemeinen Nutzen, sondem zu seinem eignen Profit gekommen, das 
 solle er an Fust herauszahlen ; (3) wUrde Fust durch einen Eid oder 
 rechtlichen Beweis — rechtliche Kundschaft — darthun, dass er das ange- 
 gebene Geld auf Zinsen genommen und nicht von seinem eignen 
 dargeliehen habe, so solle Gutenberg ihm solche Zinsen auch bezahlen, 
 nach Inhalt des Zettels. Das Helmasberger'sche Notariats Instrument 
 erwahnt mit Keinem Worte, ob Gutenberg die auferlegte Rechnung 
 gestelt habe. Da er aber antwortet, dass er wegen der weitem 800 fi. 
 Rechnung thun woUe, so lasst sich darauss schliessen, dass er sie auch ' 
 gestelt und iibergeben habe. Das Gericht erkannte Zinsen zu 6 vom 
 Hundert, nach einem Zinssfuss, der durch die damals bestandenen 
 weltlichen und geistlichen Gesetze proskribirt war, es erkannte sogar 
 auf Zinsen von Zinsen oder wie Gutenberg sie nennt, auf Wucherzin- 
 sen, welche zu nehmen verboten sind, es erkantte endlich auf eine voile 
 ZinsszahluHg von einem Kapital, dass doch nur nach und nach 
 geschossen worden," 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 67 
 
 Our old law-books do not go further back than 1550. It could 
 not have been any other tribunal but the secular court of this 
 place, which consisted of a treasurer (kammerer), justice of the 
 peace, and four judges. In 14SS, Johann Miinch of Rosen- 
 berg was treasurer ; Ditherich BiUung was justice of the peace ; 
 and the judges were Clas Schenkenberg, Endres Weyse, Degen- 
 hard von Cleberg, and Friedrich von Weyler. A judge of this 
 court was Niklas Fust (a brother of Johann Fust) from 1439 to 1442 or 
 1443. In the latter year he was transferred from this Court to the 
 Council of the town. The Fust family belonged to the richest and 
 most distinguished plebeian citizens of Mentz. Their members were in 
 the CouncU, and the goldsmith Jacob Fust, the brother of Johann 
 
 Fust, was, seven years afterwards, Burgomaster of the town 
 
 The Fusts belonged to the first corporate families of Mentz. Their 
 reputation and power were great and they were feared. The 
 honest Kohler already remarked 'that Faust knew well that the 
 Court had to connive at his proceedings ' (dass Faust wohl bekannt 
 gewesen, dass ihm dasGericht durch die Finger sehen miisse). Bergel, 
 who obtained the materials for his beautiful Latin poem from old and 
 honest Mentz citizens, calls the Court a forum pavidum, a timorous 
 tribunal, and thereby points unequivocally to the fear which it must 
 have felt for the powerful Fust family. Fust took the oath, which the 
 judgment required from him, on the 6th Nov., 1455, before the 
 Notary Ulrich Helmasberger, in the Refectorium of the Convent of 
 the bare-footed fnars, in the absence of Gutenberg, but in the presence 
 of several persons, and desired and obtained an act of the same. 
 After this taking of the necessary oath, Fust probably did not neglect 
 to present the copy which he obtained from the notary to the secular 
 tribunal, and to insist on possession on the pledge assigned to him in the 
 contract. That this possession followed, and Fust became proprietor 
 iiotpnly of the printing tools, but also of the sheets of the Bible already 
 printed ofi^ the parchment and paper In stock, is evident (i) from 
 the fact that Gutenberg possessed no printing-office after the law-suit, 
 and only with the money -of the Mentz Syndic, Dr. Humery, could he 
 procure another one, the possession of which was, however, reserved to 
 Dr. Humery (see bdow, document No. 23) ; (2) from the fact that the 
 tjrpes of the 42-line Bible are afterwards in the possession of Fust and 
 Schceffer, &c. &c. — Fust and Schoffer were -not satisfied with the 
 possession of Gutenberg's printing-office, but continued, their judiciary 
 persecutions against him and, even after his death, against his heirs, 
 probably because that which they found was not sufficient to pay the 
 amount awarded them by the verdict. The law-suit lasted for several 
 years, and had not come to an end about the middle of the i6th 
 century. This is proved by a letter which Peter Schceffer wrote on 
 the 22nd of July, 1485, from Frankfort, to his dear godfather Johann 
 Genszfleisch, secular judge of Mentz, in which he urgently asked him 
 for payment of his debt, with which he had had so much patience 
 [this letter was published by Kohler, Ehren-Rettung, 1741, p. 94, 
 from Lersner's Franckf. Chronicle, p. 438] ; and the long duration of 
 the law-suit is also referred to by Bergellanus, lines 261 and 262. 
 
 I am unable to say on what authority Schaab makes 
 the above statements; but, assuming that he represents 
 
68 Gutenberg: 
 
 the case correctly^ three of his points deserve attention: — 
 (i) The tribunal, -which, had to decide in the cause, stood 
 in fear of the Fust Family ; (zX' it awarded a rate of interest 
 which vias forbidtien both by the secular and ecclesiastical law ; 
 (3) there exist at present no Mentz Law-registers earlier than 
 the year TS50; hence we see (a) that the original piblic 
 Registers which would contain the official record of any 
 suit of the kind at Mentz are long since lost ; and {b) 
 that we are at present compelled 'to deal only with an 
 insulated document which, however authentically drawn 
 up as a Notarial Instrument, at once passed from public 
 custody into private hands. « 
 
 Our Notarial document relates the transactions which 
 took place at the taking of the oaths in the refectory of the 
 convent of the Minorites, or Franciscans, at Mentz, in the 
 street which is at present called Schustergasse. Schaab 
 (Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i, 170) explains that at that time 
 it was an old custom at Mentz to transact all judiciary 
 and even administrative public affairs in the churches and 
 monasteries or their surroundings. Fust caused Gutenberg 
 to be summoned to the conventual- room of the Minorite 
 convent, because this was situated opposite his own house. 
 The transaction had to take place in the refectory, as the 
 ecclesiastics were still in the conventual-room. Johann 
 Fust appeared with his brother Jacob in person, accom- 
 panied by three citizens, the notary: Ulrich Helmasperger, 
 and his two witnesses. Johann Gutenberg did not appear 
 in person, but sent Heinrich Chiinther (Giinther), pastoral 
 St. Christopher, Mentz, Heinrich KeflFer, and Bertolff (Bech- 
 tolf) von Hanau, his servant and workman, in order to 
 hear and see what was to happen in the matter. 
 
 The Notarial document was published for the first time^i^ 
 in 1734, by Senckenberg, Professor at Giessen, in his 
 Selector, Jur. et Hist. Anecdot. (Frankf. 1.734-1742,, 6 vols. 
 8vo.) tom. I. p. 269, with the heading: — - 
 
 " Laudum inter Jacobum & Joharihem Faustios ex una, & Johannem 
 Guttenberg ex altera parte, agens de pecunia in libronun impressionem 
 insumta. " 
 
 In the margin Sepckenberg prints : " 1455. Ex orig." 
 The document is Num. Jocxvii. of Senckenberg's 3rd part 
 of vol. i., which, on the top of the pages, bears the general 
 heading Diplomdtariiim Francofurt\ense\ Miscellum, while 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 69 
 
 at the commencement we x^aA'Manipulus dofiumentorum 
 res Francofurtenses et viciniam ilUistrariUum. 
 
 This third, part of vol, i. contains 40 documents, and 
 .Senckenberg,in his preface to the first volume (p. 47),declares 
 that they are 
 
 "partim ex ifsis, quae vocant, Originalihus, partim ex Authenticis, 
 partim etiam nudis copiis decerpta. Haec maximam partem nostra 
 penus (cabinet) servavit, pars eorum aliis debetur, queis hie publice 
 gratias agimus." 
 
 By the side of every document we find ex authentico, ex- 
 cept at Nos. 20, 36, 40, where only the dates 1336, 1430, 
 1484 are given, while at Nos. 26, 27, 28, 37 (our document), 
 38) 39) we find ex orig. and the respective dates of the 
 documents. 
 
 Senckenberg does not specify the, sources whence he 
 obtained his documents, but on p. 9 of his preface to 
 the first voliv, where he enumerates the persons who had 
 written on Frankfort and those whose coUections or works 
 he used, he says : — 
 
 "Advoco Johannis Frideiici Faustii ab Aschaffenburgo, Viri dili- 
 geiitissimi ColUctamtf, Francofurtensia, III Vpljiininum, in fol. parte I 
 res gesfas, duabus sequentibus Genealogias " faniiiliarum Nobilium 
 Francofurtensium & lapides sepulcrales percurrentium. Vastum hoc 
 opusj multum boni, nuUius fere pretii , plurinium sistit, a rerum cogui-- 
 tione & studio in patriamj caeterpqui laudem promeritum. Nescio 
 vero, an non huic Viro tribuendum sit, Corpus diplomaticum Franco- 
 furtense, in forma quarta, quod nonnullibi spectare contigit, certe 
 aliqua sunt, hunc auctorem olentia." 
 
 Let us now see lyhat happened Ifjefore a,nd after Sencken- 
 berg's time. 
 
 Polydore Vergil says^ -in 1499, that a certain Peter, a 
 German, had invented the art of printing, as he had heard 
 fi-om the latter's countrymen (Van der Linde, p. 288). 
 
 Johann SchcefFer, the son of Peter SchoefTer, and the 
 grandson of Johann Fust, represents himself in 1503 (in 
 the Mercurius Trismegistus) as one of the most distinguished 
 citizens of Mentz, descended from the most fortunate race, 
 who, favoured by fortune, invented tiie^aljrnost divine art of 
 printing (Van der Linde, p. 288). 
 
 In 1505, in the German translation of Livy, published 
 by the same Johann Schoeffer, the dedication to the Emperor 
 Maximilian (probably, says Van der ,Linde, from the hand 
 
yo Gutenberg : 
 
 of Ivo Wittig) mentions "Johan Giittenbergk as inventor 
 of printing (1450) and Johan Faust and Peter SchoflFer as 
 improvers of the art." * This work was reprinted six times 
 with the same dedication; yet in 1509 the Breviarium 
 Moguntinum says it (the Brev.) was printed " at the expense 
 and trouble of Johann Schoeffer, whose grandfather [i.e. 
 Johann Fust] was the first inventor and author of the art 
 of printing " (Van der Linde, p. 288). 
 
 In 1515 the same Joannes Schoeffer, the grandson of 
 Joannes Fust, pubUshed Joh. Tritheim's Compendium sive 
 Breviarium historic francorum, in the colophon of which 
 he says that — 
 
 "This Chronicle is printed and completed in the year IS IS, on the 
 eve of St. Margaret, in the town of Mentz, the first inventress of the 
 art of printing, by Johann Schoeffer, grandson of the late honourable 
 Johann Fust, a Mentz citizen, the first author of the said art, who, 
 finally, from his own genius, commenced to excogitate and to investi- 
 gate the art of printing in the year 1450, in the 13th indiction, under 
 the reign of the Roman Emperor Frederic III., and of the archbishop 
 and elector at Mentz, Theodoric Schenk von Erpach. But in the year 
 1452 he perfected it and brought it (under favour of the Divine grace) 
 to the work of printing ; with the assistance, however, and by means 
 of many necessaryadditional inventions of Peter Schoeffer von Gems- 
 heim, his servant and adopted son, to whom he also gave his daughter, 
 Christina Fust, in marriage, as a worthy remuneration of his labours 
 and many by-inventions. Both, however, Johann Fust and Peter 
 " Schoeffer kept this art secret, binding all their servants and domestics 
 by oath never in any manner to reveal it ; which art at last, in the 
 year 1462, was spread by the same domestics into divers countries and 
 increased not a little." t 
 
 * ..." In welicher stadt (Mentz) auch anfengklich die wunderbare 
 kunst der Triickerey, vm/ Im ersten von dera kunstreichen Johan 
 Giittenberglc, Do man» zalt nach Christi vnsers heren geburth 1450 
 Jare erfunden, \xad damach mit vleyss, kost vnd arbeyt Johan Fausten 
 vnd Peter Schbffers zu Mentz gebesserth, vnd bestendig gemacht ist 
 worden , . ." [A copy of this work is in the Brit. Mus., pressmark 
 1308. 1.] 
 
 + "Impressvm et completvm est presens chronicarum opus, anno 
 X)omivL\ MDX V in uigilia Margaretse uirginis. In nobUi famosaqz^ urbe 
 Moguntina, huius artis impressoriae inuentrice prima. Per loannem 
 Schbffer, nepoteff? quOKdaw honesti viri Joarmis fusth ciuis Moguntinz, 
 memorate artis primarij auctoris Qui tandem imprimendi arte»« 
 proprio ingenio excogitare speculariqiii? ccepit awno Aomitaca 
 natiuitatis MCCCCL. indictio«e XIII. Regnante illustrissimo Ro. 
 imperatore Frederico III. Prsesidente sanctje Moguntinae sedi 
 Reuerewdissimo in chrwto pafte domino Theoderico pincerna de 
 Erpach pri«cipe electore Anno aut^w MCCCCLII perfecit 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 71 
 
 On the 9th of December, 1518, the Emperor Maximilian 
 accords to Johann Schoeffer the privilege of printing the 
 I^i^ (1518-1519), and in this privilege says that — 
 
 "He has learned, and been advised on the faith of worthy testi- 
 monies, that the ingenious invention of chalcography was effected by 
 his grandfather." • 
 
 In 1S19 (cf. Meerman, Orig. typ. ii. 158) Joh. Thurmayer 
 Aventinus (who was bom in 1474, and died in 1534) 
 writes that — 
 
 "In 1450, Joannes Faustus, a German, a citizen of Mentz, conferred 
 a great and almost divine benefit on the, human race ; he invented a 
 new kind of writing, which people use to call chalcography (cutting, 
 printing), and completed it in two years . . . This Celestial work, kept 
 secret by Faustus and Peter Schoeffer de Garensheim, his son in law, 
 to whom he betrothed his only daughter Christina . . . was divulged 
 In Germany, ten years afterwards, by Faust's servant, Johannes 
 Guttenberger, a Strassburger. The latter's countrymen, Ulricus Han, 
 
 deduxitq«^ earn (diuina fauente gratia) in ©pus imprime«di (Opera 
 Xamta ac multis necessarijs adinuentionibus Petri Schoffer de Gems- 
 hei?« ministri suiq«« filij adoptiui) Cui etiam filiam suam Christinam 
 fiisthina m^ro digna laboruOT multaru»«q«« adinue«tionu»« remuneratio«e 
 nuptui dedit. Retinueru«t aniem hij duo iam prfenominati Joannes fusth 
 et Petrvs Schoffer ha»c artem in secreto (omwibus ministris ac familia- 
 ribus eorj«« ne illa/re quoq«omodo manifestarewt, iurejura«do astrictis) 
 Quo tandew de a«no domini MCCCCLXII per eosdem familiares i« 
 diuersas terrar«/» p;>ffuincias diuulgata baud parum sumpsit i«cre- 
 mentum . ■ . Cum gratia et privilegio Caesaree Maiestatis iussu & 
 i»2pensis honesti Joannis Haselperg ex Aia maiore Constantienwj 
 diocesis." A copy of this work is in the Brit. Mus., King's library 
 (Pressmark 183. c. l). The privilege of the Emperor Maximilian, 
 which is dated 10 Nov. 1514, is granted to Joannes Haselberg. 
 
 * Maximilianus . . . honesto nostro et sacri Imperii fidelino bis 
 dilecto Joanni Scheffer chalcographo Moguntino, gratiam nostram 
 Caesaream et omne bonura. Cum, sicut docti et moniti sumus fide 
 dignorum testimonio, ingeniosum chalcographiae, authore avo tuo, 
 inventum, felicibus incrementis in universum orbem promanaverit . . . 
 Proinde, volentes tibi turn ob avum tuum, omni vel ob hoc divinum 
 inventum favore et commendatione dignum, turn pro damni tui recu- 
 peratione . . . succurrere . . . omnibus . . . chalcographis & librorum 
 impressoribus . . . inhibemns . . ." This edition was edited by Nic. 
 Carbachiijs, who commences his letter to the reader thus : "Joannes 
 Scheffer Chalcographus, a cuius avo chalcographice in hac primum 
 urbe inventa, exercitaque est . . ." It also has a preface of Erasmus, 
 who says, "laudis praecipua portio debetur huius poene divini dixerim 
 opificij repertoribus, quorum princeps fuisse fertur, totius aevi memoria 
 celebrandus Joannes Faust, avus eius, cui [i.e. Joan. Scheffer] Livium 
 hunc . . . debemus." 
 
72 Gutenberg: 
 
 Xystus Reisius, brought it to Rome and Italy, &c." (Annal. Boior., 
 lib. vii.)* 
 
 In 1526 the German printer Cromberger published at 
 Sevilla Visiones deleitables por Don Alfonso de la Torre, in 
 which it is said that the art was invented in Germany, at 
 Mentz ; a noble, very rich citizen of this town, Peter Fust, 
 invented it ; it spread in the year of our Lord 1425 ; after- 
 wards, in 1 43 1, a dispute arose between two archbishops: 
 one took the town and killed nearly all the inhabitants, and 
 also that important man, Peter Fust, was killed. Cf. Meer- 
 man, Orig. typ. ii. 163. 
 
 In 1541 a Mentz press-corrector, J. Arnold (Bergel or) 
 Bergellanus (of Biirgel, near Frankfurt-a.-M.), published his 
 Encomion chalcographim, yiogunt.; Fr. Behem, 1541, 4to., in 
 which he is admitted on all hands to allude for the first 
 time to a law-Suit between' Fust and Gutenberg. He dedi- 
 cates his work to Albert, the Archbishop of Mentz, and tells 
 him : — 
 
 " I have seen the historical books of Johannes Tritheim of the past 
 century, and read his eulogy on chalcography and the invention 
 thereof, which he ascribes to a noble citizen of Mentz, Johan Guten- 
 berg, as the first author, with two icoadjutors, Johan 'Faust and Peter 
 Schoefer. I have heaird this confirmed in conversations with Mentz 
 citizens. Moreover, some old tools prepared for this work by.vthe 
 originators are still in existence, and have been seen by me. " + 
 
 * " Hoc anno magnum ac vera divinum beneficium Joannes Faustus 
 Germanus, ciyis Moguntinus,werieri humano contttlit, novum scribendi 
 genus haud dubie coelitus re-watum (quod chalcographiam excusoriam 
 impr^ssoriamque vocare Soleiit) invenit at biennio complevit . . . Hoi^ 
 coelastissimum munus a Fausto et Patro Schbeffer de Garensheim' 
 generO suo, cui unicam filiam Christinam desponderaf, inter secrata, 
 adactis omnibus sociis ad silentii fidem iurisiurandi religione, habitum, 
 decimo post anno Fausti hiinister, Johannes Guttenbeigar, Argenfora- 
 tensis, in Garmania vulgavit. Municipes hiiils UlricUs Han, hdc'est 
 Gallus, Xystus Reisiiis Romae ItaliaeqUe' intulare, ftc." [The' Ann. 
 Bdior. appeared in 1522 at Nuremberg undei* the" title : BayeHsch.es 
 Chronikon in Latein. I haVe only been able to consult the edition of 
 1554, published at Ingolstadt. J. H. H.] 
 
 + " Incidi in Joh. Trithemii proximi saeculi historicos libros, in 
 quibus elogium quoddam de Chakogr:aphia ajusque inventione depre- 
 hendi, qui Moguntinae urbis incolae, aquestris digilita;tis virtutisque 
 nobilissimo, Joanni Gutenbergo, primo auctori, ejusque coadjutoribus 
 Joanni Fdusto, Petroque Schaef&o, hujus admirabilis artificii, certis 
 formiilis libros excudendi, accaptam refart. Id quod at a nonnullis 
 Moguntiae civibus mihi postaa in familiari colloquio, cum ea da re 
 mentio inter alia incideret, carto cartius relatum est. Accedit et hoc 
 
Was he the Inventor of' Printing? ']i 
 
 In the poem itself Bergel says : — 
 
 "Johan Gutenberg invented the new art in 1450, atMentz, under the 
 reign of Frederic III. ; but being on the point of abanddning the work, 
 , his means being exhausted, he was assisted by Faust, who gave light 
 to tlie undertaldng and bore the costs. Afterwards Petrus, cognomine 
 Schseffer, came to their assistance ; he invented the matrices ; their 
 hope revived ; the work was carried on in secret places without wit- 
 nesses ; they published several little books. Afterwards, when they 
 saw the gain their work produced, they made a compact that the gain 
 and labour should be divided among them ; but, as is often the case, 
 the authors of this compact begin to quarrel ; they separate ; the 
 partnership is dissolved, and each was henceforth to work with his 
 Own press and to obtain profits. Gutenberg could not bear the unjust 
 quarrel ; he calls God to witness that the compact was broken ; the 
 cause was brought before a timorous tribunal, and a horrible process 
 was instituted; the matter was treated for' a long time in a wordy strife, 
 and is even now (1541) in the hands of the judge." * 
 
 quod et hodie vetustissima quaedam, in eum usum ab auctoribus com- 
 parata, quae vidi, instrumenta ibidem extant " (Jo! Christoph. Wolf. 
 Mon. typ. I. I ; Van der Linde, p. 278). 
 
 * . . . Sed cedat magno quicquid in orbe nitet ;|| Artis namque novae 
 natum est opus, arte magistra,|| Id quod divini numinis instar eritj! 
 Conflatis docuit libros quae cudere signis, || Et praeli deciles exprimit 
 apte typos. II . . . Hanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia muris|| . . . 
 Saecula bis septeni numerabant ordine fati|| Christigenae, hinc illis 
 lustra decemque dabant,|| Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,|| 
 . . . Clams jfohannes en Gutenbergius hie est,|| Aquo, ceu vivo flumine, 
 manst opus.ll Hie est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hie est,|| Qui referat 
 latices, quos pede fudit equus.|| Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce 
 notarunt,|| A puero fertur sustinuisse virum ; || Ilia sed huic civi largita 
 est munera grata, || Cui clarum nomen Mogus habere dedit.H Primi- 
 tias illic coepit formare laboris,|| Ast hie maturum proLuIit artis opus.^ 
 .... Annulus in digitis erat illi occasio prima,\\ . . . Ilium tentabat 
 " moUi committere cerae, || Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum. || 
 . , . Robora prospexit dehinc torcularia £acchi,\\ Et dixit, preli forma 
 sit ista novi.ll . . T Necque erat uUa dies Eoas vecta sub auras, || Qua 
 non sit vigili littera sculpta manu ; || Atque notas vocum finxit de duro 
 orichalco,\\ . . . Altera sed rebus succrescit cura renatis,|| Inventis uti 
 mens generosa nequit.|| Implorat placidos zephyros, et carbasa pandit. || 
 Haeret et in scopulis nescius auxilii.H Cumque illi starent caelata 
 toreumata magno,\\ Et labor angustas attenuabat opes,|| Artis nee 
 poterat certos extundere fines, || Inceptum statuit jamque relinquere 
 opus.ll Consiliis tandem Fausti persuasus amicis,\\ Viribus exhaustis qui 
 tulit auxilium,\\ Addidit ac operi liuem sumtumque laboris,\\ Faustus, 
 Germanis munera fausta ferens\ Exlevi ligno sculpunt hi grammaia 
 prima,\\ Quae poterat variis quisque referre modis.il Materiam bibulae 
 supponunt inde papyri, ||Aptam quam libris littore Nilus alit,|| Insuper 
 aptabant raittit quas sepia guttas,|| Reddebat pressas sculpta tabella 
 nptas.ll Sed quia non poterat propria de classe character || ToUi, nee 
 variis usibus aptus erat,|| Illis suceurrit Petrus cognomine Schaeffer,\\ 
 
 L 
 
74 Gutenberg . 
 
 We need not speak here of the manner in which Bergel- 
 lanus says the invention came about. 
 
 These few quotations, which show that John Fust became 
 in course of time to be regarded as the inventor, are suffi- 
 cient to explain the use which, as we shall see, was after- 
 wards made of the Notarial Instrument to establish a 
 genealogy. 
 
 Joh. Frider. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the father,, is 
 said " to have copied, about the year 1600, from the 
 original, which was at that time still in the possession of 
 the family, the instrument of the law-suit of the first 
 inventor of the art of printing, Junckher Johann Gutten- 
 bergk, of the family zum Jungen, with Johann Fausten, the 
 first publisher of the said printing-ofi&ce, about the costs 
 of publishing." This transcript of Joh. Frider. Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg, the father, is said to be, in 17 12, among 
 his manuscripts (suls lit. O., foL 159), and on the 3rd of 
 March of that year Joh. Ernest von Glauburg " copies it 
 diligently and correctly." 
 
 These two assertions were found written on a transcript 
 of the Notarial Instrument which was, i^ 1736, in the posses- 
 sion of Joh. Christoph. "SNoXi {Conspectus svpdlectilis epistolicae 
 et literariae manv exaratae quae exstat apud Jo. Christoph. 
 Wolfium, 8vo., Hamburg, 1736.) This Hamburg pastor 
 
 Quo vix caelando promptior alter erat.|| Ille sagax animi praedara 
 toreumata finxit, II Quae sanxit ffifl^m. nomine posteritas;|| YX primus 
 vocum fundebat in aere Jiguras,\\ Innumeris cogi quae potuere modis.jl 
 Hie nova spes oritur, redit in praecordia sanguis,|| Exultant animc, 
 pectoris inque sinu.|| Abdita teeta petunt, agitur res testibus absque, || 
 Ne fieret populo sordida praeda levi.|| . . . Hoc opus exegit sic quoque 
 sancta Trias. || IHo primus erat tune Gutenbergius in aIbo,.|| Alter erat 
 Faustus, tertius opilio.H . . . Hinc inter sese magnis hi viribus instinl,!! 
 Atque opus exercent nocte dieque novum. || Componunt certo certas 
 pars ordine voces, || Pars forti torquent prela sonora manu. || Emittunt 
 varios, cudunt quos aere, Iibellos,|| ... Hie dum eernebant raras proi 
 cedere merces,\\ Sanxerunt dextris foedera pacta jair.'ll Quae Deus, 
 aut fortana dabit, communia sunio,^ Acqualis nostrum sitque laboris 
 onus.W Foedera sed lucri raro concordia nutrit,|| Indiga sunt pacis, 
 dissidioque patent. || Sic postquam autores quaestus spes cepit habendi, || 
 Ad lites vertunt pectora capta leves.W In partes abetmt, sinceraque 
 pacta resolvunt,\\ Et promissa cadunt, irrita fitque fides ;|| Cuilibet ut 
 propriis serviret pergula prelis,\\ Et sibi multijugas quisque pararet 
 opes. II Non tulit injustas mens Gutenbergica rixas,\\ Testatur Superos 
 foedera rupta Deos.lj Caussa _/5iW tandem pavidi defertur ad ora;|| 
 Scribitur ac illis dica nefanda fori. || Tempore sed longo res est tractata 
 dicacii Lite, hodie pendet judicis inque sinu.\\ 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 75 
 
 describes in this volume a collection of manuscript letters 
 and other documents which he had bought from the heirs 
 of Zacharias Conrad von Uflfenbach, a distinguished magi- 
 strate and collector of literary treasures at Frankfurt, who 
 died in 1734. 
 
 This collection consisted of a) Epistolae manuscriptae, of 
 which Wolf describes 71 volumes in y^/w, and 62 volumes in 
 quizrto and b) Apparatus manuscriptus qvi historia liter aricz 
 <S^ libraries inservit, of which he describes 21 volumes in 
 Jolio and 29' volumes in quarto and octavo. Vol. XII. (in 
 fol.) of the second division contains, according to Wolf 
 (p. 278):- 
 
 " i) Catal. Msstoram Bibliothecae S. Martini Rev. Capituli Archi- 
 episcopalis Metropolis Moguntinensis, ... an. 1654 confectus; 
 2) Laur. Odhelii BiWiotheca Philologica Grseca et Latina ; 3) Cata- 
 logus MSS. Bibllothecae Carolina Tigurinae ; 4) Delineatio operis 
 cujusdam medici manu exarati . . . auctore Judseo, qui . . . scripsit 
 opus A.C. 1430 ; 5) Elias Hofmanni Consilium de tollendis nsevis at 
 mendis Scholae Francofurtanae, germanice scriptum." 
 
 Immediately upon this Wolf says : — 
 
 " Here follows, after some things placed between, the transcript of 
 an ancient vernacular instrument, from which we may leam the law-suit 
 between Joh. Guttenberg and Joh. Faust, decided in 1455. This 
 instrument has been transcribed by Jo. Em. von Glauburg, on the 
 3rd of March, 1712, froin a manuscript codex of Jo. Frid. Faust, who 
 in 1600 had brought together many authentic documents, respecting 
 this cause, which he had received from his ancestral inheritance. Its 
 title runs : — "Copia eines alten Instruments, den process des ersten 
 Erfinders der Buchdrucker-Kunst, Junckherm Johann Guttenbergk, 
 des Geschlechts derer zum Jungen, mit Johann Fausten, dem ersten 
 Verleger gemeldter Buchdruckerey, wegen der Verlags-Kosten betref- 
 fend, aus Joh. Frider. Fausten, der solche circa an. 1600 von deme 
 damablen bey der Familien annoch vorhanden gewesenen original 
 abgeschrieben, Manuscriptis ausgezogen, und sub lit. O. fol. 159 be- 
 findlich, von mir Joh. Ernst von Glauburg Anno 1712, den 3 Mart. 
 von gemeldten mit Lit. O. bezeichneten MSto J. F. Fausten fleissig 
 und richtig abgeschrieben." * 
 
 [IT I have examined this voL xii. at Hamburg, and can 
 say that it contains not one transcript, but two transcripts 
 
 * Sequitur, post interjecta alia, copia Instrumenti antiqvi, vemaculi, 
 ad cognoscendam litem, inter _/». Guttenbergium ct Jo. Faustum, an. 
 1455 disceptatam, pertinentis. Instrumentum illud ex codice MS. 
 Jo. Frider. Fausti, qvi an. 1600 authentica documenta multa, quae 
 ad hanc causam spectant, ex avita hsereditate accepta, congesserat, 
 descriptimi est h.Jo. Ernesto "von Glauburg sn, 1712. 3 Mart Titulus 
 iste est : Copia, &c. 
 
76 Gutenberg: 
 
 of the Instrument, both written by Von Glauburg on the 
 first same 3rd of March, 1 7 1 2, for Z. C. von Uffenbach. One 
 transcript is No. 9, the other No. 16 in the volume; they 
 differ from each other in small matters only. The " title " 
 Copia, &c., of which Wolf speaks is, of course, one made by 
 Von Glauburg. In the " title " of the second transcript Von 
 Glauburg seems to have considered it necessary to insert 
 above the word " Verleger" the two words "Erfinder und."] 
 
 In 1740, Joh. Christiany^o\i,\he. brother of Christopher, 
 published his Monumenta typographka (Hamburg, 1740), 
 and on p. 47 1 of Vol I. gave the Notarial document of the 
 Lawsuit as an Appendix to a Discourse on the Invention of 
 Printing, of which I shall speak presently. He printed the 
 document from the transcript which his brother Christopher 
 possessed as an Appendix to this Discourse, as we shall see 
 presently [p. 90]. In Christian's Monumenta we read after 
 the Discourse : — 
 
 "Here follows the copy of a judicial instrument from the auto^ 
 graphum (the document has been taken from the original word for 
 word), whence it appears that Johann Gutteuberg was in nowise the first 
 originator of this noble art, but furnished Johann Faust, by whom he 
 bad been taken into partnership, with money. " * 
 
 Christian Wolf makes it plain to us that he did not print 
 the Instrument from one of the two separate transcripts made 
 by Von Glauburg in 1 7 1 2, which were in the possession of his 
 brother Christopher (see above), because, not only does he 
 tell us that he had seen this transcript (qu. both ?), but also 
 gives its title (Copia eines alten, &c.) and the variants con- 
 tained in it. Moreover, as Christian Wolf also adds to his 
 text the variants found in Senckenberg's text, we are led to 
 believe that the transcripts made by Von Glauburg in 1712, 
 and the texts published by Senckenberg in 1734 and by 
 Christian Wolf in 1740 are totally independent of each 
 other, t 
 
 * Sequitur exemplum Instrumentl judicialis ex avtografho (Docu- 
 meutum hoc ex Originali de verbo ad verbum sumtum), unde apparet, 
 Johannem Guttenbergiuni nequaquam artis hujus nobilis primum auc- 
 torem esse, sed ^ Joh. Fausto in consortium adscitum, pecuniam ei 
 suppeditasse. 
 
 + Christian Wolf says: "Oculis usurpavi aliud hujus instrumentl 
 exemplum, quod inscribitur : Copia eines alten, &c. [see p. 75], Exstat 
 etiam illud typis expressum in V.C. Henr. Christiani Senckenbergii 
 Selectis Juris et Historiarum Tom. I. pag. 269-277 ubi inscribitur : 
 Laudum inter Jacobum et Joannem Faustios ex una, et Johannem 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 77 
 
 [IT A personal visit to Hamburg enables me to say that 
 Christian Wolf printed the text of the Instrument and of 
 the Discourse (of which I shall speak afterwards, see below, 
 p. 91) from the transcript made for Von Ufifenbach in 1715 
 from the apographum made by JoL Max. Zum Jungen 
 (ti649). Von Uffenbach had the whole copied in a codex, 
 and wrote on the first page: "Faust ab Aschaffenb. De 
 origine atque inventione artis Typographicae. Ex apographo 
 Viri lUustris Jo. Max. Zum Jungen quod generos. Dn. Jo. ' 
 Ernest, a Glauburg benevole concessit hanc sibi copiam 
 per amanuensem fieri jussit Z. C. ab Uffenbach Ffurti ad 
 Moenum. Mens. Jan. mdccxv."] 
 
 In 1 741 Joh. Dav. Kohler, Hist. P. Prof Ord. at Goet- 
 tingen firom 1735 to 1755, again published the Notarial 
 document on p. 54 of his Ehren-Rettung Johann Gutten- 
 bergs (4*0, Leipz., 1741). He prints it, line for line, and 
 states that he takes it 
 " from the original on parchment, in forma patente, in folio." * 
 
 After the text Kohler adds (on p. 57) a note, in which 
 he states : — 
 
 a) That Am. Bergellanus (see above, p. 72) was the first who 
 mentioned the lawsuit between Guttenberg and Faust ; b) that a more 
 detailed account of this lawsuit was given by Joh. Friedr. Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg in the Discourse on the Origin of Printing [of this I 
 speak below], to which was added, for the first time, the Instrument of 
 the Notary Helmasperger, though in a maimer of writing entirely 
 altered and modified according to modem usage ; c) that a copy of this 
 Discourse must have come into the hands of the Amberg Syndic, Hein- 
 rich Salmuth, as his De Tyfographiae sive Artis ImpressoriiB inventione 
 Tierissima historia, which appears as an Appendix to Tit. xii, de Typo- 
 graphia, in Guid. PanciroUiNwa reperta, is scarcely anything but a Latin 
 translation of the Discourse, in which he also refers to the Instrument in 
 question, and says of it, p. 312, ed. Francof. 1646 [it appears already in 
 an ed. Francof. 1631, p. 312 — ^J.H.H.] 'sicut ex archetypo Instrumenti, 
 quod etiamnum superest, & anno 1455' 6. Novembr. 4 Joh. Ulrico 
 Helmaspergero Notario ea de re confectum fuit, liquido demonstrari 
 potest ; ' d) that Philip. Ludov. Authaeus, in his Warhafftige Historia 
 von Erfindung der Btukdruckereykunst (An. 1681), which is an extract 
 from Faust's Discourse, and is of exactly the same import as Salmuth's 
 narrative, also refers to this Instrument; e) that, because Faust's 
 Discourse has always remained in writing, the said Instrument in forma 
 has never been seen in print until Senckenberg, Councillor and Professor 
 
 Guttenberg ex altera parte, agens de pecunia in libroram impressionem 
 insumta. Ex utroque varietates lectionis diligenter notavi." 
 
 * " Aus dem Original auf Pergament, in Forma patente, in folio." 
 
78 Gutenberg: 
 
 at Giessen, published it in 1 734 for the first time, in torn. I. of his Select. 
 Jur. &c. [see above, p. 68]. f ) that Prof. [jo. Christian] Wolf, at 
 Hamburg, published it again [in i740]inhislV[onum. Typogr., together 
 with a Latin translation of Faust's Discourse, to which, as has been 
 said before, it was attached, while be [Wolf] added, 'as far as was 
 necessary, ' variantes lectiones ' from the copy which Mr. /oh. Ernst 
 von Glauburg had diligently and correctly made, on the S^ of March, 
 An. 1 7 12, from the MSS. of Job. Friedr. Faust, who had copied it, 
 circ. An. 1600, from- the original, which at that time was still in exist- 
 ence in the family, while Wolf also collated the Senckenberg copy ; 
 g) thai, whereas he (Kohler) had also obtained an authentic copy written 
 on parchment in forma patente — of the correctness of which we could 
 doubt the less because in line 66 Johann Faust desires the Notary Ulrick 
 Helmasperger to prepare one or more open Instruments as many and as 
 often this would be necessary —he had thought it necessary to add this in 
 a new copy, regularly prepared by him according to the numbered lines, 
 with correct observation of all letters, syllables, abbreviations, and the 
 few interpunctions occurring in it. 
 
 If we did not know it from another quarter, it would be 
 clear from Kohler's statement b) that the Instrument to 
 which he alludes, as being annexed to the Discourse, was a 
 transcript, in nowise directly emanating from the Notary 
 Helmasperger. His statement e) seems to imply that 
 Senckenberg printed his text (said to be taken from the 
 original) from this transcript annexed to the Discourse. 
 
 Kohler does not say how and whence he obtained his 
 own copy, which he declares to be '■'■authentic, written on 
 parchment in forma patente." On p. 23 he speaks of " the 
 original, on parchment, as lying before him." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde naively says (p. h.), "V. Glauburg gave 
 also to Kohler an authentic (!) copy on parchment." If 
 Dr. Van der Liilde believed this to be a fact, the worthless- 
 ness of Kohler's copy should have been clear to him from 
 the circumstance that v. Glauburg himself declares in 1 7 1 2 
 that he makes his transcript merely from the transcript 
 made about 1600 by J. Fr. Faust v. Aschaffenburg, and that, 
 therefore, he (v. Glauburg) could not be expected to supply 
 any one with an authentic copy. 
 
 If Kohler really obtained his copy from v. Glauburg, it 
 could only have been a transcript, in which case his 
 reference to line 66 of the Instrument [see above Kohler's 
 statement g] would not only be absurd, but misleading, as 
 it cannot mean anything but that he declares his copy to be 
 an authentic one drawn up by the Notary Helmasperger him- 
 self, at the request of Fust. And yet — one can hardly avoid 
 the conclusion that von Glauburg was the man who sup- 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 79 
 
 plied Kohler with his copy of the Instrument; for the 
 latter, in the preface to his " Ehrenrettung," says : — 
 
 "I myself had, for a long while, been unable to extricate myself 
 from the many entangled accounts and contradictions concerning the 
 person, the genealogy, and social position of Johann Guttenberg, until, 
 in 1723, I had the honour and the pleasure to make the acquaintance 
 of the late Johann Ernst von Glauburg, of Nieder-Erlenbach. This 
 gentleman, possessing, much knowledge of History, Genealogy, and 
 Heraldry, and especi^y of affairs Gonceming Mentz, had the kindness, 
 in a very busy correspondence with me, to supply me, from the papers 
 of the noble and baronial Family Zum Jungen, of whom he was a 
 near relation, with a clue which fortunately enabled me to escape from 
 this labyrinth. Therefore, whatever substantial evidences concerning 
 Johann Guttenberg, extracted from contemporary documents, the reader 
 will find in this work, he owes them solely to the industry and friendly 
 communication of this obliging nobleman to whom he, together with me, 
 will render thanks for having set this obscure matter in such clear light, 
 in the same manner as Prof. Senckenberg [the italics are mine, J. 
 H. H,], in his preface to vol. I (pp. 41, 43), and vol. 2 (p. 31), 
 of his Select. Jur. & Histor., very much praises the assistance with 
 which [von Glauburg] enriched liis magnificent collections of old 
 documents. " IT 
 
 [I1 I have already explained on p.. 63 why I deemed it necessary 
 to have a little more security as to the origin of Kohler's text. The 
 only difficulty was where researches were to be made. All that' could 
 be gathered from the latest authors on the invention of printing 
 (Wetter, Van der Linde) was that the original of the Instrument and 
 of the Discourse (of which I shall speak presently) were thought to be 
 at Frankfurt on the Main, in a collection brought together by Z. C. 
 von UfTenbach (f lTi4),viho, it was said, had come into possession 
 of the MSS. and papers of Johan Ernst von Glauburg (+ 1733), 
 Johan Maximilian Zum JungSn (f 1 649), Johan Friedr. Faust von Aschaf- 
 fenburg (f 1621), &c. In June last I requested Dr. Haueisen, the 
 Librarian at Frankfort, to tell me whether these collections were still 
 there and. would be accessible to me, and this request was repeated 
 twice, but for. some reasons, which I must leave him to explain, he 
 never replied to any of the three letters. In my uncertainty I com- 
 menced, in Sept. 1880, my jesearches at Hamburg, where I knew for 
 certain that some of the Uffenbach MSS. were preserved, and afterwards 
 went to Frankfiirt on the Main. My difficulties at the two places were 
 considerable in spite of Dr. Isler's great kindness at Hamburg. To men- 
 tion but ««« incident; at Hamburg I found two folio volumes, which 
 were evidently indexes to a collection of letters written to, and by, Von 
 Uffenbach ft-om A. D. 1 706-1 732; but where were the letters themselves ? 
 A search of three days at Hamburg enabled me to say that they were 
 not there, and that they would probably be at Frankfurt. I therefore 
 copied from the indexes at Hamburg aU that I thought could help me 
 at Frankfurt, and I then went to the latter place, where I actually 
 found 1 6 volumes codtaining the letters and Uffenbach's replies. . 
 Among these were a great number written by Kohler, von Glauburg, 
 Senckenberg, Schelhom, Geo. Chr. Joannes, &c., all persons who 
 
8o Gutenberg : 
 
 In 1878 Dr. Van der Linde writes a life of Gutenberg-, 
 and reprints the Instrument, apparently from Kohler's text, 
 without having seen either an original or any of the tran- 
 scripts, and on p. 292, speaking of "an extremely solid 
 ground, the Mentz notarial instrument of 145 S," he actually 
 
 occupied themselves at.that time with the question. In many of these 
 letters allusion is made to the work which Kohler was preparing on 
 Gutenberg. E.g. Von Glauburg wrote to Von Uffenbach already on the 
 30th Nov. 1725, about " Vindiciae Guttenbergicae " which he himself 
 had long intended to bring out, and which they now expected from 
 Kohler's pen, to whom he (Von Glauburg) had transmitted some' docu- 
 ments bearing on the subject. Of the original of the Notarial Instrument 
 nothing was said in all these letters that could give me any light. From 
 a remark made to me by the Archivist of Frankfurt, Dr. Grotefend^ 
 I was led to go to Darmstadt. In the Archives there some of Kohler's 
 letters to Joh. EfUst von Glauburg are preserved, two of which made 
 it evident to me that he had really found an authentic copy of the In- 
 strument. But, in whose possession? On the 14th of April 1727 he 
 wrote to Von Glauburg that he had already asked for "an accurate 
 orthographic copy of the original of the Faust Instrument. " And on the 
 7th January following he writes to the same : " The original Instrument 
 ill the Guttenberg and Faust process, which your cousin in Frankfurt 
 has communicated to me, has fortunately enabled me to correct several 
 false readings and has served me greatly as regards the old ortho- 
 graphy." This phrase, "your cousin (Vetter) in Frankfurt," is thus 
 the sole clue we possess. 
 
 It is strange that Kohler, who is very particular in his " Ehrenret- 
 tung " in mentioning the sources of his other documents, is silent about 
 this, the most important of his whole collection. He mentions this rela- 
 tive of Von Glauburg's nowhere, and merely says the Instrument " had 
 come into his hands" (p. 58) and "it was lying before him" (p. 23). 
 This last statement is corroborated by Christian Gottl. Schwarz, who 
 says (Dissert, de origine typographiae, Altorf. 1740 j reprint. Norimb. 
 1793, p. 304) " he had seen with his own eyes the autographum 
 written on vellum, in Kohler's hands," but, curiously enough, he 
 suspected that Kohler had obtained it from Senckenberg ! It is fortu- 
 nate, however, that we have Kohler's own evidence for the authenticity 
 of his document, for Schwarz was possessed of rather strange eyes 
 and a strange memory. E.g., he declared in the same dissertation 
 (p. 314) that in 1728 he had seen in the Carthusian monastery at 
 Mentz a copy of the [36-line] Bible, of which he had read in the old 
 catalogues "of the monastery that this Bible had been presented to the 
 monastery by Johann Gutenberg and some others whose names he had 
 forgotten. Sehaab (I. 264) has demonstrated that Schwarz could not 
 have seen this Bible at Mentz, as the Carthusians had sold the copy 
 ten years prdviously, and that the old catalogues which Schwarz could 
 have seen merely speak of the Bible of 1462 as printed by Fust and 
 Schoeffer. See Madden, Lettres d'un bibliogr. iii. 57, who contradicts 
 Sehaab, but the latter seems to be correct. 
 
 Another strange circumstance is that Kohler worked at least 18 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 8i 
 
 refers his readers to the title (Copia eines alten, &c.) which 
 von Glauburg prefixed to the transcript which he made in 
 1 71 2 from a transcript said to have been made in 1600 by 
 Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg from the original ! 
 Cf. Dr. V. D. Linde's " Gutenberg," at the end, p. li., where 
 he also says that another copy, also on parchment and with 
 the notarial mark, is in the Mentz town-library — (No, says 
 he, on p. 524, it is not there). 
 
 Strange that Dr. Van der Linde should have been under 
 the impression that he was writing history ! 
 
 We may now turn to the Discourse mentioned before, 
 which is said to have been written by Joh. Friedr. Faust 
 von Aschaffenburg, Junior. But before we examine this 
 document, it will not be superfluous to examine some utter- 
 ances of the other Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, 
 mentioned before, who is said to have been his father. 
 
 Achill. Aug. von Lersner published, in 1706, Chronica 
 der Siadt Franckfurt-a.-M. (Franckf. 1706, fol.). In his 
 Preface he says that — 
 
 "the basis of his work is Gebhard Florian's Frankfurter Chronik, 
 published in 1664, and a second vol. by Geo. Fickwirth, ed. by Joh. 
 Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg [the son\, first published in 1660, 
 and reissued, with a new title-page, in 1664 as a continuation of 
 Florian s Chronicle. That, moreover, he made use of the ' many Col- 
 lectanea of the celebrated and laborious Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaf- 
 fenburg [the father\, which he, according to his own handwriting, 
 collected during a period of 25 years.' " 
 
 Lersner devotes Chapter XVIII. of the first volume to 
 the noble Families of the House Limpurg and on p. 299 
 he says : — 
 
 "The noble families here [Frankfurt] are famous for their inventions 
 of new sciences; and especially Mr. Zumjungen zu Gudenberg invents 
 printing, which Johannes Faust von Aschaffenburg (sicl) assists after- 
 wards in cultivating." * 
 
 years (1723-41) at his " Ehrenrettung Guttenbergs, " a book of not 
 more than 124 pages, and that in spite of his receiving great assistance 
 from Von Glauburg, Von Uffenbach and others. ' The former supplied 
 him with nearly all tlTe documents and accompanied them by notes 
 which Kbhler inserted in his work almost word for word, as may be 
 seen from the sketch which Von Glauburg Icept for himself and which 
 is still preserved in the Darmstadt Archives.] 
 
 * "In Erfindung neuer Wischenschafften seynd hiesige Adliche 
 Familien auch beriihmt ; und sonderlich Herrn Zumjungen zu Guden- 
 berg, erfindet die Druckerey, welche Johannes Faust von Aschaffen- 
 burg hilffet nachmahls excoliren." 
 
 M 
 
82 Gutenberg: 
 
 In Ch. XXVIII. he treats of the question of the inven- 
 tion of printing. He first quotes Phil. Lud. Authaeus' 
 Warhafftige Historia von Erfindung der Buchdruckerey- 
 Kunst i^-p^s Blasii Ilsneri, 1681), which is nothing but an 
 extract from the Discourse of which we are going to treat 
 As this ascribes the invention of printing to Faust, Lersner, 
 in refutation of this account, quotes Tentzel's Discurs von 
 der Buchdruckerey, where Gutenberg is said to be the 
 inventor, and adds (p. 437) : — 
 
 " Johann Friederich Faust von Aschaffenburg [the father], who pub- 
 lished the Liibeck and Franckenberg Chronica, as well as the Fasti 
 Limpurg, does not accept, in his manusc7-ipt, the invention of printing 
 for his Family, but attributes it equally to Gutenberg, of the Family 
 Zum Jungen, in these words : — ' The Fausts von Aschaffenburg are a 
 very old, honest, and distinguished family, who have always existed 
 on their income or have been in the employ of great lords and 
 towns. Where the first lived cannot be well indicated ; I deplore 
 the negligence of my ancestors in this respect, but it may be that 
 through the length of time the documents have been lost. I have to 
 regard Johann Faust, who died 1420, as the founder of the family ; 
 his son was joint-proprietor in the printing-office in the town of Mentz. 
 Sotiie would have and make htm, against his will, an inventor, though 
 he only helped with his means and good advice in the thing ; it seems (!) 
 that he had a daughter, named Christina, whom he gave to Mr. Peter 
 von & zu Gernszheim named Schaffer, as wife, on account of his 
 qualities, especially on account of facilitating the printing, and adopted 
 him as son ; these begat Johann von Gernsheim, whose son, of the same 
 name, the last of this name, died without heirs. '" * 
 
 * " Johann Friederich Faust von Aschaffenburg, welcher nebst der 
 Lubeckischen und Franckenbergischen Chronica auch die Fastos 
 Limpurg. durch den Druck der Welt hat mitgetheilet, lehnet die 
 Erfindung der Buchdruckerey in seinen MS. also von seiner Familia 
 ab, da er seine Familiam beschreibet, und eignet sie gleichfals dem 
 Gutenberg von der Familien derer Zumjungen zu, in diesen Worten. 
 Es seynd die Fausten von Aschaffenburg ein sehr altes, ehrliches 
 und vornehmes Geschlecht, so sich iederzeit ihren Renten und Zinsen 
 ernehret, oder in grosser Herren und Stadt Diensten sich gebrauchen 
 lassen. Wo der erst gelebt, ist nicht wohl anzuzeigen; Ich beklage 
 die Nachlassigkeit meiner Vor-Eltem in diesem Stiick. Zwar kan es 
 auch seyn, dass durch die Lange der Zeit die Documenta seynd verloh- 
 ren gangen. Johann Fausten, welcher I420 gestorben, muss ich vor 
 den Stammvater halten. Dessen John gleiches Nahmens, ist Mitver- 
 leger der Buchdruckerey in der Stadt Mentz, etliche wollen wider 
 seinen Dancli ihn zu einen Invcntorem haben and machen, so aber nur 
 mit seinen Vermbgcn und guten Rath in der That geholffen. Er 
 soil eine Tochter gehabt haben, Nahmens Christina, welche er Herrn 
 Peter von und zu Gernsheim, genannt Schaffer, zur Frauen gegeben, 
 wegen seiner Qualitaten, in specie wegen der facilitirung der Buch- 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 83 
 
 JSfothing is said here of the Instrument of the law-suit. 
 After this quotation from Faust's papers Lersner adds : — 
 
 " Maximilian Faust von Aschaffenburg [a son of Johan Friedr., born 
 2 Sept. 1593, died 5 June 1651] says in his Consilia pro JErario, Clas. 
 16, Ord. 1193, p. 694 (published at Francof. 1641), that he had the 
 Faust documents concerning this point in hand, and quoted many 
 authors who had written on the art . of printing, saying at the same 
 time that the first printing commenced in 1446 with the Officia 
 Ciceronis. The documents of both these families were put by Johann 
 Schaffer in his Roman history of Livy, and published March 6, 1505, 
 with the old Faust and Schaffer arms." 
 
 This Johann Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, ^z father, 
 ^who is said to have copied, about 1600, the Instrument of 
 the Law suit from the original, and who published a Chronick 
 von der Stadt Limpurg, at Heidelberg, in 16 17 and 161 9, 
 and a Franckenbergisch and Lubeckis'ch Chronick at the 
 same place in 1619), is said to have died at Franckfurt, 
 in 16 19 (cf. Lersner's Chron. der Stadt Franckfurt, I. 281 j 
 J. Christoph. Wolf, Mon. typ. I. 453 5 Van der Linde, 
 Gutenberg, 291), and Dr. Van der Linde says (p. 522) that 
 he had remained silent [about the origin of printing] be- 
 cause he was too sincere ! 
 
 Very well ; but let us see whether Dr. Van der Linde is 
 right. There is in the Brit. Mus. (Pressmark, 172, i. 3) : 
 
 "Lubeckische Chronick zusammen getragen 
 
 durch Hans Regkman an tag gegeben \ MSS. 
 
 Johann Friederichs Fausten von Aschaffenburg. . . . Ver- 
 legt durch Gotthard Vogelin [without place, but G. Vogelin 
 Uved at Heidelberg, J. H. H.]. Im Jahr 1619". After the title 
 follows a dedication to the Mayor and Council of Lubeck, 
 which is signed "Johann Friederich Faust, von Aschaffen- 
 burg ^'C. L\ubecensibus'\ M[fgistris] DD.", and it is dated 
 " from Nidercleen, situated in Tripoli Giessen, Wetzlar and 
 Butzbach, in the year 1620, the 20th day of April."* In 
 this dedication we find on the second page : — 
 
 " Meantime had He [i.e. God] prepared the way and given to the 
 whole world an unheard-of gift, namely, the noblest art of all 
 
 druckerey, und ihn in fihum adoptiret haben. Diese zeugen Johann 
 von Gemsheim ; dessen Sohn ejusdem nominis der letzte dieses 
 Nahmens stirbt ohne Erben." 
 
 * " Gestellt zu Nidercleen in Tripoli Giessen, Wetzlar vnd Butzbach 
 gelegen, im Jahr der Geburt unsers Erlosers Jesu Christi M.DC.xx 
 den zwantzigsten Tag Aprill." 
 
84 Gutenberg : 
 
 the arts, printing, out of the distinguished town of the Holy empire, 
 Mentz, through a distinguished citizen there, called Johan Faust, who 
 in the year 1450, brought this art to light, and through the assistance 
 of Peter Schaffer von Gernskeim, a clerk, his servant, afterwards the 
 husband of his daughter, improved it to such an extent that every one, 
 especially the Italians and French could not wonder enough about it, 
 and out of jealousy tried in vain to scratch out and destroy these 
 writings by means of lye and scratcliing-brushes. " * 
 
 After the dedication follows the privilege accorded to the 
 printer by Frederic, Pfaltzgraff bey Rhein, dated " Haidel- 
 berg, the 19th of July, 16 19." 
 
 Now, if Johann Friedrich the father died in 1619, as 
 it is asserted, then this dedication could not have been 
 dated by him. But I doubt whether the father did die 
 in 1619. In Lersner's Chronica (mentioned above), 
 p. 278, we find a "List of Frankfurt magistrates," and 
 it is to this List that J. Chr. Wolf refers (Monum. 
 typogr. i. 453) when he speaks of Faust's death as having 
 taken place in 16 19. The List commences with the year 
 1570, and in it we find it stated, indeed, that J. F. Faust 
 v. Aschafifenburg died in " 16 19," but it is clear that the 
 compiler of the List did not derive this year from any 
 authentic or sure source, as he does not say on what day 
 of the year Faust died, whereas this is done with a great 
 many other magistrates mentioned in the List. It is, 
 therefore, npt so certain that J. F. Faust, the father, was 
 no longer alive in 1620 ; and that it is the father and not 
 
 * "Inmittels aber hatt Er, zu einer bequemlichen Gelegenheit Weg 
 vnd Baan bereitet, vnd der gantzen Welt ein ohnerhbrte Gaben 
 geschenckt, nemlich die Edleste Kunst aller Kiinsten, die Buch- 
 druckerey, aus der damals noch des H. Reichs vomemen vnd genandten 
 Giildenstadt Meintz, durch einen vomemen Biirger daselbst, Johan 
 Faust genandt, welcher in Anno 1450 solche Kunst an tag gebracht, 
 vnd durch hilff Petri Schaffers von Gernsheim Clerici, seines Dieners, 
 hernach Tochtermans, dermassen verbessert, dass sich jederm'anlich, 
 vorab die Wahlen vnd Frantzosen, nit genug dariiber- verwundem 
 kbnnen, vnd aus vergunst, mit laugen vnd kratzbiirsten solche Schrifften 
 auszukratzcn vnd zu vemichtigen, vnd verruft zu machen, aber verge- 
 bens, vnderstanden. Die doch hernach, als Meintz von dem Reich in 
 Anno 1462. vnd also vmb diese vortrefliche gaben, die sie allein vor 
 sich behalten kbnnen vnd mogen, nit ohne sonderliche schickung 
 Gottes, kommen, vnd dahero die Burgerschaft ausgejagt vnd zerstbrt, 
 vnd also auch der Druckerey Diener ausgetrieben, vnd anderswohin 
 sich zu begeben verursacht worden, derselbigen am meisten gebrauchet 
 vnd ihren nutzen damit geschaft haben. " 
 
IVas he the Inventor of Printing? 85 
 
 the son who dated and signed the dedication, seems clear 
 when we find it said towards the end, by Faust, that he had 
 had the Chronicle in question "a long time among his 
 MSS." This could not have been said by the son in 1620, 
 if his father had died in i6ic). That the title-page of the 
 Lubeck Chronicle bears the year 1619, and the dedication 
 is dated 1620, is probably owing to the printing of the book 
 having been finished before the preface was written. 
 
 Strange to say, after the Chronicle follows an appendix 
 of 17 pp. on Wissmar affairs. Quite at the end of this 
 appendix, on p. 17, we read : — 
 
 "How long is it that the noble art of printing books or prenterey 
 was found? In the year 1440 after the birth of Christ the printing of 
 books arose under the Emperor Frederic by Johann Genssfleisch, at 
 Mentz, though several ascribe the invention of this art to Johan 
 Guttenberg, of and at Strassburg. Others say the art was invented and 
 raised by Johan Guttenberg, a knight at Mentz, Anno M.CCCC.L." * 
 
 Did this passage, perhaps, emanate from Hans Regkman, 
 the compiler of the Chronicle, who lived in the sixteenth 
 century ? 
 
 [IT A personal visit to the Hamburg Library enables me 
 to state that the Low German MS. from which Faust von , 
 Aschaffenburg edited the Chronicle in a High German 
 version is preserved there, and contains the passage quoted. 
 The MS. seems to have been continued by H. R. till 1537, 
 but was, in 1551, in the possession of one who calls himself 
 Reynier Cock. I cannot say how far and what the latter 
 added to the MS. vol., Ijut I found no later date in it than 
 1560, and the whole is of about the same period. J 
 
 It is plain that if the dedication is the father's dedi- 
 cation, he could scrjcely be the author also of the state- 
 ment about his Family published by Lersner from his MSS. ; 
 otherwise Faust v. Aschaffenburg would not have spoken 
 of his reputed ancestor, in one place, as not being the 
 inventor, and in another place as the inventor. 
 
 * Wie lang ist, dasz die Edle Kunst der Buchtruckerey oder Pren- 
 terey erfunden sey ? Nach Christi geburt 1440. jahr hat sich erreget 
 vnder Kayser Fridrich das Buchtrucken im Teutschland von Johan 
 Genszfleisch zu Mentz : wiewol etliche dieser Kunst erfindung zuschrei- 
 ben Johan Guttenberg von vnd zu Strassburg. Die dritten sagen die 
 Kunst sey erdacht vnd vf kommeh von Johan Guttenberg, eim Ritter 
 zu Mentz Anno MCCCC.L. 
 
86 Gutenberg . 
 
 An examination of the MS. vol. in which Faust v. 
 Aschaffenburg is said to have written the statement about 
 his Family, can alone satisfy us as to this note being written 
 by himself. IT 
 
 It is to be observed, however, that in neither of the 
 above statements, ascribed to the elder Faust v. A., do we 
 find any mention of the Instrument of the Law-suit of 1455. 
 
 And now as to the Discourse, which is a more detailed 
 account of the invention of printing considered to have 
 been written by the son, also called Johan Friedrich Faust 
 von Aschaffenburg. (Cf. Wolf, Mon. typ. I. 452 ; Van der 
 Linde, Gutenberg, 292.) It must have been written after 
 1620, at least after the publication of Chr. Besoldus' 
 Dissertatio de inventione typographic, which appeared in 1620 
 
 [U Dr. Grotefend, the Archivist at Frankfurt, kindly informed me 
 that Baron von Giinderrode, who resides at Frankfurt, but whose 
 ancestral seat is at Hbchst on the Nidder in Ober-Hessen, possessed 
 some MSS. of Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg. Having ob- 
 tained the permission of this nobleman to make researches in his 
 library at Hbchst, I went thither and found a great number of genealo- 
 gical tables all written by J. F. Faust v. Aschaffenburg himself. I 
 failed to find the passage quoted by Lersner. But I did find some lines 
 which make it supe;-fluous, I thicik, to look for Lersner's quotation any 
 fiirther. Tracing the genealogy of himself, J. F. Faust v. A. wrote : 
 
 Christina F. Peter 
 v. Gernsheim 
 zum Schofer . author 
 typographicae im- 
 pressurse &c. 
 
 Johann Faust 
 Typographiae author 
 vixit 1454 <^"™ fratre 
 Jaut vertrags, mit Jo- 
 han V. Gutenberg seins 
 Gemeins getroffen. 
 Christine. 
 
 In another table he says again : 
 
 Jacob Faust, 
 vixit 1454. 
 Johan F. 
 Typographiae 
 inventor, vixit 
 cum fratre 1454. 
 
 In the face of these statements no one will be anxious, I suppose, to 
 search for Lersner's quotation. If it is still in existence, it could not, 
 I think, have been written by the same man who wrote the tables in 
 Baron v. Giinderrode's possession. And I am positive that these are 
 in the handwriting of Joh. Friedr. Faust v. Aschaffenburg, senior, 
 because I have been able to study his writing from a letter of his 
 preserved at Hamburg, dated 14 April, 1617.] 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 87 
 
 at Tubingen, as this treatise is referred to in the Discourse. 
 The writer says : — 
 
 " Authors are uncertain as to the place and time of the invention 
 and the person of the inventor, and on that account I have thought 
 it necessary to narrate and to prove somewhat more in detail the \i\o\e. 
 course and commencement of this art, partly as I have accepted it from 
 trustworthy old testimonia and documents, as also from my blessed 
 father, and he from his parents and ancestors, quasi per aures et man us, 
 and partly as it has been vfritten down. First it is affirmed that 
 there lived at Mentz, a citizen of a respectable family, named Joh. 
 Faust, who, devoted to literature, comprehended that the scarcity of 
 books (for the writing of which a long time and immense costs are 
 required), which very few can bear, is often the cause of the most 
 superior intellects becoming dull, and being withdrawn from study. 
 He, therefore, laboured to devise a commodious way of multiplying 
 various useful books with less trouble, and of placing them within the 
 reach of many at a small and fair cost. God, favouring such benevo- 
 lent wishes and intentions, showed him the means and a model, so 
 that he first cut an alphabetical table with raised characters. He 
 bestowed much thought on the discovery of a peculiar ink, because 
 the common ink flo>vs together when put on letters cut of, and in, 
 wood, and confounds the characters. Lamp-black produced a tolera- 
 ble, but not a lasting impression, until a tenacious black and durable 
 ink was discovered. When, by means of this material, such tables 
 were printed with small presses, every one with great surprise, bought 
 them for a small sum, and admired them, and he [Faust] was thereby 
 induced to go on and to produce the Donatus. But as this was cut 
 on entire blocks and with unequal characters, and not many copies 
 could be printed of it, the inventor deemed it more commodious to 
 compose a book with single and separate letters, than to cut it with 
 entire columns and pages. He, therefore, cut the blocks asunder and 
 took from them all the characters, and in this manner commenced 
 composition, and replaced the worn-out characters by new ones. But 
 as this cduld only be effected by great labour and slowly, the inventor 
 met with p'eat obstacles in the new art, also on account of the presses. 
 Now, he employed several servants who printed for him and assisted 
 him diligently in other necessary things as preparing ink, composing, 
 &c. Among them was a certain Peter Schoffer, of Gimshelmb, who 
 learning his master's intentions and liking the work himself, by God's 
 favour invented the art of cutting letters into puncheons and casting 
 them, which enabled him to multiply them continually, and not to cut 
 each letter separately. This assistant secretly cut the puncheon for a 
 whole alphabet, and showed them with the matrices and the cast 
 letters to his master Johann Faust, who was so much pleased with 
 them that he promised him his daughter Christina in marriage, which 
 very soon took place. But the impression or casting of these charac- 
 ters gave as much trouble as the wooden ones, until some mixture was 
 found which could bear the pressure of the press for some length of 
 time. In order that such a noble gift of God might be kept secret, 
 the father-in-law and his son-in-law bound their assistants with an 
 oath to keep all the matters a secret, and the blocks, wooden types, 
 and other early instruments, they put together with some cord and 
 
88 Guienbefg: 
 
 showed them now and then to their friends. A MS. left to us* testifies 
 to my grandfather, Dr. Johann Faust, having seen these first begin- 
 nings, among which was the first part of ,a Donatus. God, however, 
 disposed that the art should not remain a secret. The next-door 
 neighbour of Johann Faust, called Johann von Guttenberg (it is alsor 
 thought that Johann Faust aiid Guttenberg lived together in one house 
 named Zum Jungen in Mentz, wherefore it afterwards obtained the 
 name of Printing-office), having learned that this noble art not only 
 created great glory in the whole world, but also produced good 
 and honest profits, behaved friendly towards the said Faust, and 
 offered his sei-vices with advances of the necessary money, which 
 was readily accepted by Faust, because the work which he 
 intended to print on parchment required considerable expenses. 
 They therefore agreed, and settled by a legal (aufgeschnitten = indented) 
 contract, the contents of which follow, that they would bear 
 together the costs and share the profits. But because Faust had 
 borrowed more money and the expenses ran higher than Guttenberg 
 had anticipated, the latter would not pay his half share, and they 
 therefore, came together before the secular court at Mentz, which 
 inquired into the matter ; and when Johann Faust declared on oath 
 that the money borrowed had been devoted to the work, Guttenberg' 
 was compelled to pay. To this sentence Johann Faust rendered satis- 
 faction in the refectory at Mentz in the Convent of the Barefoot 
 Friars, as may be seen profoundly and truly from the instrument which 
 is annexed herewith in copy. But Johann von Guttenberg was very 
 angry, and, therefore, did not come to hear the oaths taken, and very 
 soon went from Mentz to Strassburg, where he had probably his own 
 printing, and several men followed him, and a complete separation 
 happened, so that this glorious art was no longer kept secret, but 
 spread since the date of the said instrument, which was dated Ao. 1455. 
 And Hans von Petersheim, a servant of Johannes Faust and Peter 
 Schosffer, settled in 1459 at Frankfiirt; and others, especially when 
 Mentz was treacherously conquered in 1462, settled elsewhere, and 
 exercised, revealed, and made common the said art. Also this mis- 
 fortune happened that, when they had taken to Paris, in France, 
 an important law book, printed on parchment, the foreigners were 
 jealous of such art, and tried, but in vain, to put the book in lye and 
 to scratch out [the letters] with scratching-brushes. Thereupon all 
 copies were confiscated on the pretence that the printer had imported 
 into France strange goods without special permission of the king. But 
 he obtained indemnification from the Emperor Frederic III., and the 
 affair was at last settled by the mouarchs of both countries, and Peter 
 Schceffer obtained satisfaction. " 
 
 The last clause may be compared with the father's 
 narrative in the Dedication to the Lubeck Chronicle. 
 
 It should not be overlooked that the Author of this 
 Discourse himself says that he subjoins the Instrument to 
 his compilation in copy. 
 
 I am not aware that this manuscript has ever been traced. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 89 
 
 It is, as has been remarked above, uncertain when this 
 narrative was written, though it could not have been 
 before 1620; it was not published by the younger Faust, 
 its reputed author, when, in 1660, he himself published 
 a work, entitled Der Stadt Franckfurt Herkommen und 
 Aufnehmen. 
 
 The Discourse, however, must have been kpown in 
 1631, because in that year Henr. Salmuth, the syndic of 
 Amberg, published an edition of Guid. Pancirolli Rerum 
 Memorabilium recens inventanim pars post., Y\axicoi. 1631,* 
 4*» (in Br. Mus., Pressmark, 461, b. i), and there we find as 
 an Appendix to the 12 th chapter de Typographia, an 
 abridged Latin translation of the Discourse, but without 
 the name of the author j the Instrument of the law-suit is 
 thus referred to : — 
 
 " Sicut ex archetypo Instrumenti, quod etiamnum superest, et anno 
 i4S5i 6 Novembr. £ Joh. Ulrica Helmaspirgero Notario ea de re con- 
 fectum fait, liquido demonstrari potest." 
 
 In 1641 the papers and documents of the Faust family 
 were in the hands of Maximilian Faust von Aschafifenburg, 
 who, in that year, published Consilia ^rocerario civilii, QfC. 
 (Francof., 1641), of which Class 108, ord. 1193 is devoted 
 to a history of typography, and in which, enumerating some 
 authors on this subject, e. gr. Cardanus (lib. 17 de Subtil, 
 et de Variet. lib. 13 c. 64), Joh. Bodinus (in Methodo, 
 c. 7), Steph. Forcatuli (lib. 4 de Imp. et Phil. Gallor.), 
 Phil. Melanchthon (in Chron. lib. 5), he says the invention 
 is ascribed to Johan Faust, in the year 1440, adding " the 
 original documents about this point are in my hands." t 
 
 In 1650, Jacobus Mentelius in his De vera typographice 
 origine parcenesis, p. 54, refers to Salmuth's work, and calls 
 the Instrument " a forged and fictitious public instrument " 
 (ementitum fictumque Instrumentum publicum). But he 
 gives no reasons for his opinion j and it is well to bear in 
 mind that his work is an attempt to ascribe the honour of 
 the invention to his name-sake of Strassburg. 
 
 In 1681, Phil. Lud. Authaeus published : Warhafftige 
 Historia von Erfindung der Buckdruckerey-Kunst, ex MSS. 
 
 * Dr. Van der Linde only knows the ed. of 1646 as the earliest, a 
 date which he no doubt took from Kohler. 
 
 t " Inventum tribuitur, Anno 1440. Jbhanni Faustio de quo mihi 
 documenta originalia in manibus sunt." 
 
 N 
 
90 Gutenberg: 
 
 Phil. Lud. Authffii : Typis Blasii Ilsneri, MDCLXXXI. He 
 dedicated the work to two brothers, Joh. Hector and Frid. 
 Jacobus Faust von Aschaffenburg, and gave the Discourse 
 in German, without mentioning the name of the author. 
 In his work the reference to the law-suit is in these 
 words : — 
 
 " Solchem Rechts-Spruch hat Johann Fatist eiit Geniigen gethan vrie 
 auss einem noch in Archivis verhandenem Instrument Anno 14SS 
 griindlich und warhafftig zuerweisen.". 
 
 The original pamphlet of Authseus I have been unable to find 
 in any library, nor is it mentioned in Theoph. Georgii Bucher- 
 Lexicon (Leipz. 1742) or the Supplements, or in Jocher's ' 
 Gelehrten-Lexicon ; but it is teprinted, probably verbatim, 
 in Achill. Aug. von Lersner's Chronica der Stadt Franck- 
 furt (1706), p. 435 sqq., where we find also an extract from 
 Joh. (Aventinus) Turmaier (t 1534), in which also Johannes 
 Faust appears as inventor in 1450, having as servants Petnis 
 Schofer von Gernssheim and Johannes Gutenberg, a Strass- 
 burger, the latter revealing the art in J460 (see above p. 71). 
 In 1736 Joh. Christopher Wolf published, at Hamburg, 
 his Conspectus supellectilis epistolicae, which I have mentioned 
 above, p. 74. Vol. 2 (in quarto) of the second division of 
 this collection contains, according to Wolf (p. 284), a 
 
 "Commentatio ad investigaftdam aftis typographic^ originem, with 
 the Title : Discurs vom Ursprung der Druckerey, wer, atuh wann, und 
 an welchem Orte solche erstmahh erfunden, aus denen ad familiaTn 
 der Fausten von Aschaffenburg gehbngen documenten, commencing 
 with a Latin preface to the reader, which is followed by various 
 opinions and testimonies regarding the invention of the art of printing 
 and its first author, till p. 31. After this, till the end (p. 68), we read 
 an account of the beginnings of this art by Joh. Faust, a learned 
 citizen of Mentz, and Peter Schoeffer, of Gemsheim (first his servant, 
 and afterwards, on account of the increase which he caused to the art 
 invented by Faust), his son-in-law, accompanied by appropriate docu- 
 ments, among which the notarial instrument. ..." 
 
 Wolf, after a further analysis of the Instrument, pro- 
 ceeds : — 
 
 " This dissertation deserves to see the light. It was copied for Uffen- 
 bach from the transcript (ex apographo) of Joh. Maximil. zum Jungen, 
 which Jo. Ern. von Glauburg had allowed him to use. Of its author I 
 know nothing certain. At the commencement of the preface he says 
 that the inventor of the art was the brother of his paternal great-great- 
 great-grandfather, and, from what I have said while describing cod. 
 xii. in fol. No. 6 [see p. 75], I gather that his name was Jo. Frid. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 91 
 
 Faust, as he is said to have collected, about the year 1600, all the 
 documents which concern this matter, and to have transcribed from 
 them the notarial instrument which is added to this Discourse." I may 
 be allowed to add that Joh. Dav. Kohler, formerly Professor at Altorf, 
 and now at Goettingen, has long ago promised us a treatise, in which 
 he will show, from the most ancient Mentz monuments that Guten- 
 berg is the first inventor of this art, and that what Tritheim relates 
 about the lawsuit between him and Faust is not accurate." 
 
 This is the first time that we learn some particulars about 
 this interesting Discourse, added to which was a transcript 
 of the Notarial Instrument. It is to be observed, how- 
 ever, that we have here of both documents a transcript, 
 made for von Uffenbach, from the transcript of Jo. Maxim. 
 Zum Jungen (born at Frankfurt a.d. 1596 ; died there a.d. 
 1649), which latter was in the possession of von Glauburg. 
 All that we can gather from Joh. Christoph. Wolfs descrip- 
 tion of his collection of documents is that von Glauburg 
 had been in the possession of, or had access to, two tran- 
 scripts of the notarial instrument; one said to have been 
 made about 1600 by Joh. Fri/dr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, 
 senior, to serve as ah appendix to his autograph MS. of the 
 Discourse, and a second xosAq by Joh. Maximil. Zum Jungen, 
 which in like manner served as an appendix to his transcript. 
 of the Discourse. 
 
 [IT A personal visit to Hamburg and Frankfurt enables 
 me to state three things : (i) that the transcript of the Dis- 
 course made for Von Uffenbach in 1715, by an ordinary 
 scribe, from the apographum of Joh. Maxim. Zum Jungen, 
 at that time in the possession of Joh. Ernst von Glauburg, 
 is still preserved at Hamburg {s&t above, p. 77); (2) that 
 the apographum itself of Joh. Max. Zum Jungen I saw (in 
 October 1880) in the Archives at Frankfurt; but its proper 
 place is, I believe, the Frankfurt Town- Library. It is, if my 
 memory serves me right, the last article in a large thick folio 
 volume of transcripts, all made (I believe) by Zum Jungen 
 himself. (3) That I have been so far unable to ascertain 
 the whereabouts of the autograph MS. of Joh. Fr. Faust v. 
 AschaffenburgJ 
 
 In 1740, Joh. Christian Wolf, the brother of Christopher, 
 published, also at Hamburg, his Mon. typogr., and on 
 p. 452 of the first vol. inserted the Discourse in its entirety, 
 but translated into Latin. He evidently prints it firom the 
 transcript which Uffenbach had had made for him, and which 
 was then, as we have seen, in the possession of his brother 
 
92 Gutenberg: 
 
 Christopher Wolf. Christian Wolf quotes his brother's 
 explanation with regard to the Discourse, and adds : — 
 
 " To me it seems very probable that the son of Joh. Friedr. Faust 
 is the author of this account, first, because he declares himself ' to have 
 collected everything which his blessed father had accepted from his 
 parents and ancestors as it were by ears and hands, and had communi- 
 cated to himself, partly by word of mouth and partly consigned in 
 writing,' and adds in the margin, 'history of the invention by 
 J. F. F. V. A., from the account of his ancestors ' ; secondly, because 
 our author endeavours to show that Faust was the inventor of the 
 typographical art and Gutenberg, his associate, and supplied him with 
 money, while Authaeus, in Lersner's Chronik, p. 437, produces a 
 different account from the MS. of Joh. Friedr. Faust treating of his 
 Family ; thirdly, because our author quotes the Dissertation of Christ. 
 Besoldus, which was published at Tiibingen in 1620, while Joh. Friedr. 
 Faust died already in 1619." 
 
 Wolf thereupon refers to the List of Frankfurt Senators 
 in Lersner's Chronic, p. 281, of which I have spoken 
 before ; he further quotes the passage from Senckenberg's 
 preface : 4-dvoco, ^c. (see above, p. 69), and mentions 
 the three chronicles published by J. Fr. Faust von A. in 
 161 9, a,nd a,lso the passage found at the end — but, strange 
 to say, not that which is found, in the dedication — of the 
 Lubeck Chronicle (see above, p. 83). 
 
 In Wolf's text (on p. 471) we read after the Discourse : 
 "Sequitur exemplum, &c. (see note on p. 76), with the 
 note, Oculis usurpavi, &c,," which I have mentioned before 
 (p. 76). It is to be observed from these references that 
 Wolf adds to the confvisipn by calling the document which 
 he had before him an original, thpugh we know from his 
 brother's description that what he had actually before him 
 at Hamburg was professedly a transcript made from a 
 transcript- . 
 
 In 1741, Joh. Dav. Kohler (Ehrenrettung Guttenberg's, 
 p. 89), published againthe Discourse in German "ejcJ/lS'.ffe 
 Jo. Maximiliani zum . Jungen." ■. The note which Kohler 
 adds to his text, gives us no further particulars about the 
 Discourse. He does not say whether he obtained his copy 
 from the Uffenbach transcript preserved at Hamburg, which 
 was made from Zum Jungen's transcript, or directly from 
 the apographum of Zum Jungen, which is said to have been 
 purchased by the Frankfurt Library in 1690 (see Schaab 
 Geseh. Buchdruckerk. I. 467). One thing is certain: 
 Y^oW^x printed from a transcript. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 93 
 
 Wetter, in his Gesch. der Eriindung der Buchdrucker- 
 kunst (Mainz, 1836), speaking of the Discourse (p. 271), 
 said that — 
 
 "The original of this Discourse was contained in the Uffenbach 
 collection of MSS. brought together by Latomus, Joh. Max. Zum 
 Jungen, Ernst von Glauburg,'and others, at present preserved in the 
 Town-library at Frankfurt. In the second volunje of this collection 
 are found 155 pages containing the Notabilia . Fausti ex annalibus 
 Friedr. Faust ab Aschaffenburg. The 6th part contains the MSS. of 
 Joh. Max. Zum Jungen, after whose MS. Faust's narrative has been 
 printed in Kohler's Ehren-Rettung" 
 
 It is plain that Wetter, though he often visited the 
 Frankfurt Library (see V. D. Linde, p. 522), never saw this 
 Ufifenbach collection or made inquiries for it; for his 
 references to a "second volume" and a "6th part" show 
 that he speaks of the Uffenbach (collection preserved at 
 Hamburg (!), as may be seen from what has been said above 
 (p. 7s) with regard to that collection. Wetter printed his 
 text from Kohler.*ir ' 
 
 In 1878, Dr. Van der Linde was anirious to publish his 
 book on Gutenberg. He appears to have been perfectly 
 satisfied about the Notarial Instrument, though he only 
 refers us to atrtfnscript made from « transcript. As regards 
 the Discourse, however, he seems to have wished to see the 
 original. But he tells Us that he was ill. He therefore 
 requested Prof. J. Becker, at Frankfurt, to examine the 
 MS. volume pointed out by Wetter. Becker replied to Dr. 
 Van der Linde (p. 5 2 2) that "he had e^djanntdihe. Notabilia, 
 written on 224 pages (not 155, as Wetter said), but could 
 
 [H All that I have been able to find at Frankfurt is (i) a MS. vol. con- 
 taining, among'other things, a transcript of the Notabilia Fausti made for 
 Von Uffenbadi from I know not what MS.; it is No. 17 of the Frank- 
 furt Town- Library, and contains, nothing about printing. (2) A MS. 
 volume, in 4to, containing excerpts from the Collectanea of Joh, Friedr. 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg, made by Von Uffenbach himself in 1712, from 
 the vol. which in Faust's Collection was marked with Lit. O. The 
 title-page, written by Von Uffenbach, runs as follows: "Collectanea 
 Francofurtensia Joh. Frid. Faust ab Aschaffenburg. Vol. Litt. 0. notatum 
 (mihi vera Litt. B). Ex autographo Faustiano guod Dn. J. E. cL 
 Gfifuburg benevole secum communicavit hanc sibi copiam fecit Z. C. ab 
 Uffenbach, M-OCCXII mensejunio." The first page, commences thus : 
 "Excerpta ex celkctaneis Frid. Faust. ab Aschaff. k Maximil. Faust 
 coept. in ojdinem digeri i May 1625. Sub Litt. O." Von Xlffenbach 
 excerpted (on -f. 170), the Discourse, and.had the Notarial Instrument 
 copied, in this volume, by Joh. Ernst von Glauburg. This, therefore. 
 
94 Gutenberg: 
 
 not find anything German of this kind in it, and that there- 
 fore the German Discourse of Faust v. Aschaffenburg must 
 be concealed somewhere else among these papers, and that 
 these must have been accessible to Kohler." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde thereupon publishes his book of 
 700 pages large 8vo., professing to be based upon 15 docu- 
 ments, which he prints, the Latin ones in Roman type, the 
 German ones in the Gothic type, but of none of which 
 the author had ever seen, or ever attempted to see, the 
 original, not even the transcripts ! 
 
 All the above guesses and speculations as to the author 
 of the Discourse were written and in t)rpe, when, looking 
 by chance into the Appendix to Lersner's Chronica der Stadt 
 Franckfurt, all my doubts were removed at once by what 
 we there read on p. 218 : — 
 
 " 1569. Aug. 5. n[atus]. Joh. Frider. Faust von Aschaffenburg, a 
 son of Johann and Anna Bromm, married, 1592, Margaretha Jeckel, 
 died 1621, July 14, at Nieder-Kleen : he vfrote his own epitaph, as 
 foUows ..." 
 
 Lersner adds : — 
 
 " Of this Faust von Aschaffenburg I have already said in my Chronicle, 
 in my preface as vi'eU as in the 28tli chapter, that he was the author of 
 the second part of Florian's Short Chronicle of the City of Franckfurt 
 [this is a mistake of Lersner's], and published in 1619 the Fasti Lim- 
 burgenses, and the Lubeck and Franckenberg Chronicle." 
 
 I think this makes it clear enough that Joh. Friedr. Faust 
 v. Aschaffenburg, the elder, died in the middle of the year 
 1621, at Niedercleen, the very place from which he dates 
 the dedication to the Lubeck Chronicle. As the assertion 
 in this dedication harmonises with the assertions in the Dis- 
 course as to Faust being the inventor, there is no reason what- 
 ever to assert that the son [Joh. Friedr.] wrote the Discourse, 
 who does not even seem to have come into the possession 
 of his father's papers, as we have seen (p. 73) that Maxim. 
 Faust V. A. had them in 1641. Consequently, the Discourse 
 
 was the third transcript of the Instrument made by Von Glauburg for 
 Von Uffenbach (see for the two other transcripts above, pp. 74, 75). This 
 vol. is also in the Town-Library. (3) The transcript of the Discourse 
 and Instrument made by Joh. Max. Zum Jungen before 1649. This 
 transcript I saw (in Oct. 1880), in the Frankfurt Archives as above 
 stated.] 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 95 
 
 may be safely attributed to Johann Friedrich Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg, the Father, the same man who is said to 
 have copied, about 1600, the Notarial Instrument. But 
 when we do this, we have no choice but to say that the 
 extract from the father's manuscripts, printed in Lersner's 
 Chronica, in which he renounces the honour of the inven- 
 tion for his family, must be a forgery (!) perpetrated by 
 some one who had access to the Faust papers. H 
 
 As the foregoing history was written partly before I had 
 an opportunity of making researches in Germany and partly 
 after my return, and is, therefore, somewhat intricate, it 
 will not be superfluous to give a short chronological rdsum6 
 of what we now know to he facts with regard to the Notarial 
 Instrument of the Law-suit of 6 Nov. 1455, and the Dis- 
 course on the Invention of Printing, written by Joh. Friedr. 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg, the elder, between 1620 and 1621. 
 
 A-t). 1541. Bergel speaks, for the first time, of a law- 
 suit between Fust and Gutenberg, conducted [in the year?] 
 before a " timorous tribunal ;" this " horrible " process was 
 still [jn 1541] in the hands of the judge (see above, p. 73). 
 
 A.D. 1600. Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the 
 
 [IT At Frankfurt I learned, from papers written by Fichart and pre- 
 served in the City Archives, that the Joh. Fr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, 
 who published,' in 1660, the Frankfurt Chronick, was the son of 
 Maxim. Faust von Aschaffenburg, and we know that the latter was 
 the son of Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the author of the 
 Discourse, who died in 1621; consequently Joh. Fr. Faust von Aschaf- 
 fenburg, the elder, was the grandfather of Joji. Fr. Faust von Aschaffen- 
 burg, the younger. The latter seems to have enlisted in the Dutch 
 army and to have been killed in 1674 at the battle of Grave. 
 
 Meerman informs us (Orig. typ. 1765, II. 216) that "Henr. Christ. 
 Baron von Senckenberg had sent him a similar Discourse, which 
 Ad. Schrag had added with his ovim hand to his Dissertation von 
 erfindung der Buchdruckerey in Strasburg, Strassb. 1640, of which 
 Schrag declared that It had been communicated to him after the publi- 
 cation of his Essay and had been taken from the authentic documents 
 of the Faust Family preserved at Frankfurt on the Main. It varies 
 somewhat, especially in style, from [the one usually cited] ; nor is it 
 so fall as regards certain circumstances, though in substance it comes 
 to the same. Hence we may conclude that the descendants of Joh. 
 Faust altered and amplified it, and that Schrag had obtained an older, 
 Kohler a more recent, text. " 
 
 I have inquired of the Librarian at the Hague whether this copy of 
 Schrag's Dissertation had come into the Meerman Westreeneri Museum, 
 and have been informed that it is not there. It does not seem to have 
 been inserted in the Meerman Sale Catalogue of 1824.] 
 
96 Gutenberg: 
 
 elder, seems to have been occupied in collecting the papers 
 and documents of his ancestors. Among them is said to 
 have been the original of the "Helmasperger Instrument of 
 1455 ; and J. Fr. F. v. A. is alleged to have made a tran- 
 script of it on p. 159 of a volume, which, in 1712, is declared 
 to have been marked with Lit O and to be in the possession 
 of Joh. Ernst von Glauburg, at Niedgr-Erlenbach; near 
 Frankfurt. (See below, a.d. 1712, -and above, pp. 74, 75.) 
 
 A.D.' 16 19. In this year J. F. Faust von Aschaffenburg, 
 the elder, did not die, as is asserted by Wolf, Kohler, V. 
 d. Linde, &C. (see aboye, pp. 83-85), because — 
 
 A.D. 1620, April 20, he himself dedicated the Lubeckische 
 Chronick, edited by him from the compilations of Hans 
 Regkman, to the Magistrates of Lubeck, and in this dedi- 
 cation he himself gives a short account of the Invention of 
 Printing, asserting \h2Xjohan Faust invented it at Mentz, 
 in 1450, and improved it with the assistance of Peter 
 Schaffer von Gernsheim, a clerk, his servant, and afterwards 
 his son-in-law. (See above, p. 83.) 
 
 Not before a.d. 1620, but before July 14, 162 1, the same 
 Joh. Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the elder, compiles a 
 lengthy discourse on the Invention of Printing (see above, 
 p. 86), from the old testimonia and documents left to him 
 by his father and ancestors, in which he repeats his assertion 
 of April 20, 1620, thaX/olian Faust was the inventor. But this 
 time he adds : (i) That his grandfather. Dr. Johann Faust, 
 testifies, in a MS. left by him, to having seen the first begin- 
 nings of printing, among them the first part of a Donatus ; 
 (2) that Joh. vonGuttenberg, the next-door neighbour of Joh. 
 Faust, helped the inventor with money ; (3) that a quarrel 
 arose between them, and the secular court at Mentz con- 
 demned Guttenberg to pay ; (and 4) that he added to this 
 Discourse a transcript of the legal instrument, which was 
 dated a.d. 1455, and related the result of the law-suit. 
 This Discourse was never published by the author himself; 
 consequently the public knew, as yet, nothing of this 
 notarial instrument ; the Discourse was written, it seems, in 
 the codex, marked by Faust v. A. himself with the letter O. 
 (See above, A.D. 1600.) I am unable to say whether this 
 codex is still in existence. For extracts made from it see 
 below, A.D. 1631, 1681, 1706, 17 12. • 
 
 A.D. 1 62 1, July 14 (and not in 1619), Joh. Friedr. Faust 
 von Aschaffenburg, the elder, dies. (See above, p. 94.) 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 97 
 
 A.D. 1 63 1. Henr. Salmuth published an edition of Guid. 
 Pancirolli Res Memor., pars post., in which he gives, for 
 the first time, an abridged Latin translation of the Dis- 
 course, without mentioning its author's name. The Instru- 
 ment of the Law-suit is merely referred to as being then in 
 existence. (See above, p. 89.) 
 
 A.D. 1641. Maximilian Faust v. Aschaffenburg, the son 
 of J. Fr. F. V. A., the elder, says the original papers con- 
 cerning the points mentioned in the Discourse are in his 
 possession. (See above, p. 93.) 
 
 Before a.d. 1649, Jo^. Max. Zum Jungen* transcribes the 
 Discourse, including its appendix (the transcript of the 
 Instrument). This Zum Jungen transcript was, in 17 15, in 
 the possession of J. E. von Glauburg ; in Oct. 1880 I myself 
 saw it in the Archives at Frankfurt. (See above, p. 91.) 
 
 A.D. 1650.. Jacobus Mentelius declares the Instrument 
 of which Salmuth speaks (see a. d. 1631) to be " forged and 
 fictitious," but gives no grounds for his opinion, and had, 
 evidently, never seen it. (We must remember that he 
 would naturally object to anything derogatory to the claims 
 of his namesake of Strassburg.) (See above, p. 89.) 
 
 A,D. 1681. Phil. Lud. Authaeus publishes a short his- 
 tory of the Invention df Printing, and dedicates his little 
 work, which is nothing but an abridgment of the Discourse, 
 to two brothers, Joh. Hector and Frid. Jacobus Faust 
 v. Aschaffenburg. Authaeus neither mentions the name 
 of the author of the Discourse, nor prints the Instrument of 
 the Law-suit. (See above, p. 90.) 
 
 A.D. 1706. Lersner publishes " Chronick der Stadt 
 Frankfurt," and on p. 435 reprints Authaeus' work, but 
 refutes it, and professes to quote (see above, p. 82) from 
 the MSS. of J. Fr. Faust v. A. \the elder i] a passage in which 
 the latter appears as denying that Joh. Faust is the inventor 
 of printing. (See above, pp. 83, 86 where it is shown that 
 J. Fr. F. V. A. distinctly asserted, on more than one 
 occasion, that John Fust was the inventor of printing and 
 that he descended fi-om him.) 
 
 A. D. 1 7 1 2. Joh. Ernst von Glauburg makes two separate 
 transcripts of the Instrument of the Law-suit for Von Uffen- 
 bach, from the transcript which he (von Glauburg) says was 
 
 * The exact year of the Zum Jungen transcript cannot be given ; but 
 as he died in 1649, it must be put before that year. 
 
 O 
 
98 Gutenberg. 
 
 made (on fol. 159 of vol. O), about a.d. 1600 (see above) 
 by Job. Friedr. F. v. A. \the elder], from the origifial. (See 
 above, pp. 74, 75.) These two transcripts are now in the 
 Public Library at Hamburg. 
 
 A. D. 1 7 1 2. Von Uffenbach makes extracts from a vol. 
 marked with Lit. O, which contained Collectanea Franco- 
 furtensia Johannis Friderici Faust ab Aschaffenburg, and 
 was lent to him by Von Glauburg, the latter himself copy- 
 ing the instrument in Von Uffenbach's manuscript. This 
 Uffenbach MS. I myself saw (in Oct. 1880) in the Town 
 Library at Frankfurt. Von Uffenbach's extract from the 
 Discourse and Von Glauburg's transcript of the instrument 
 commence on p. 170. (See above, p. 93, note.) 
 
 A.D. 1715. Von Uffenbach had transcribed for him the 
 Discourse and the Instrument attached to it from the, 
 " apographum" of Joh. Max. Zum Jungen (see above, a.d. 
 1649), lent to him by Joh. Ernst von Glauburg. This Von 
 Uffenbach transcript was, in 1736, at Hamburg in the Wolf 
 Collection, and it was still there (in the Town Library) in 
 Sept. 1880. (See above, pp. 77, 91.) 
 
 A.D. 1734. ^tnc^Lenhexg publishes, for the first time, the 
 Instrument of the Law-suit, from (what he calls) the original. 
 He does not state whence he obtained it, and I am unable 
 to say whether what he used is still in existence ; I have a 
 strong suspicion that he printed from the transcript men- 
 tioned above (a.d. i6oo). (See above, p. 68.) 
 
 A.D. 1736. Joh. C^w/o/^ Wolf publishes a description 
 of the collection of MS. volumes, containing letters and 
 documents, which he had bought from Z. C. von Uffenbach. 
 This collection contained: (i) the two transcripts of the 
 instrument made in a.d. 1712 (see above) by Von Glauburg 
 for Von Uffenbach; {2) a transcript of the Discourse made 
 for Von Uffenbach in 1715, by some copyist, from the 
 transcript of Joh. Max. Zum Jungen (made before 1649), 
 lent to Von Uffenbach by Joh. Ernst von Glauburg. These 
 documents were, in Sept. 1880, still in the Public Library at 
 Hamburg. (See above, pp. 74, 75, 90, 91.) 
 
 A.D. 1740. Joh. Christian Wolf publishes his Monu- 
 menta Typographica, and in it gives, for the first time, the 
 whole of the Discourse, in a Latin translation, with the 
 Instrument attached to it in German, frotn the transcript 
 made for Von Uffenbach, in 17 15, from the transcript of 
 ' Joh. Max. Zum Jungen. (See above, pp. 76, 91.) 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 99 
 
 A.D. 1741. J oh. David Kohler publishes " Ehrenrettung 
 Guttenberg's," and in this work prints : (i) the Instrument 
 of the Law-suit, from what he calls " the original in formd, 
 patente," which he says he had obtained from a cousin of 
 Von Glauburg (see above, p. 63, note), not from the latter 
 himself, as Kohler's preface would lead us to suppose; but 
 I am unable to say whether this original from which 
 Kohler copied is still in existence; (2) the Discourse "ex 
 MS. Johannis Max. Zum Jungen," therefore (?), from the 
 transcript now preserved in the Frankfurt Archives. (See 
 above, p. 92.) 
 
 A.D. 1836. Wetter publishes a book on the Invention 
 of Printing, and, from taking no trouble to verify any of the 
 documents, is in great confusion as to the whereabouts of 
 the Discourse and the Notarial Instrument. (See above, 
 
 P- 93-) 
 
 A.D. 1878. Dr. Van der Linde publishes a book on 
 Gutenberg, and, from taking all his documents at second, 
 third, ot fourth hand, and rarely telling his readers on what 
 authority he himself prints any single document, and from not 
 investigating a single point in the whole question, his book 
 presents, as it could hardly fail to present, a more complete 
 chaos on the subject than any of its predecessors. (See his 
 book, p. 521 sqq.) 
 
 A.D. 1880, October. I am able to state that there are 
 still in existence in MS. — 
 
 (1) At Hamburg in the Town Library : 
 
 (a) (in vol. 28*, fol.) the two separate transcripts 
 of the Instrument made by Von Glauburg, from 
 a transcript in Vol. Lit. O, containing the Col- 
 lectanea, or Annals of Joh. Fr. Faust v. A. ; 
 
 (b) (in vol. 27, quarto) the Uffenbach transcript 
 of the Discourse with a transcript of the Instru- 
 ment attached to it, made in 1715 from the 
 " apographutn " of Joh. M. Zum Jungen. 
 
 (2) At Frankfurt on the Main, in the Archives: 
 
 (c) the Joh. M. Zum Jungen transcript of the Dis- 
 course (made from the autographumi), and of the 
 Notarial Instrument attached to it (made from 
 the " apographum," oi ]oh. Fr. Faust, v. A.); 
 
I oo Gutenberg . 
 
 (d) at Frankfurt, in the Town Library in an 
 Uffenbach vol. entitled : Collectanea Francofur- 
 tensia Joh. Frid. Faust ab Aschaffenburg : ex- 
 cerpts from the Discourse by Von Uffenbach 
 (from the Vol. Lit. O), with a transcript of the 
 Instrument attached to it, made by Von Glau- 
 burg (from the Vol. Lit. O). 
 
 (3) At Hochst on the Nidder, in Baron Von Gilnderrodds 
 library : 
 
 (e) several genealogical tables, written by Joh. 
 Friedr. Faust von Aschaffenburg, the elder, from 
 which it may be seen that he distinctly ascribes 
 the invention of printing to Johan Faust, his 
 reputed ancestor. (See above, p. 86.) 
 
 A search has yet to be made for 
 
 (1) the original Register of the Mentz Franciscans, 
 where the trial is said to have taken place in 
 1455 (see p. 68), and which must contain an 
 account of the proceedings. 
 
 (2) The authentic copy {or copies) of the Notarial In- 
 strument, of which we find three distinct traces 
 fromi6oo-i74i ; namely (a) that from which J. 
 Fr. Faust v. Aschaffenburg is said to have made 
 his transcript, in the VoL Lit. O ; {b) that from 
 which Senckenberg printed his text in 1734; 
 {c) that from which Kohler printed his text in 
 174,1, and which he elsewhere tells us belonged 
 to a Frankfurt cousin of Joh. Ernst von Glauburg. 
 
 (3) The original volume marked with Lit. O, in 
 which J. Fr. Faust v. Aschaffenburg wrote his Dis- 
 course and transcribed the Notarial Instrument.* 
 
 * Aug. Bernard says in his Origine de Vimprimerie, i. 193 (note) 
 that the Discourse was " published zX Frankfurt in 1620, in 12™°, under 
 
 the title : Jieiatio de origine typographies e docunientis ad 
 
 Faustoru?n de Aschaffenburg familiam pertinentibus hausta, etc. " I 
 can find no trace of such an edition, and it would be strange, if it had 
 existed so early in print, that so many transcripts have been made of 
 the Discourse. The title given by Bernard to the Discourse is identical 
 with that given to the transcript preserved at Hamburg, from which 
 the Discourse was published in Wolf's Monumenta typogr. i. 452, and 
 it is most probable that Bernard did not read Wolf's note carefully, 
 and understood Wolf to speak of a printed work, whereas he speaks of 
 nothing but the MS. preserved at Hamburg. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f i o i 
 
 (4) The MS. volume which contained the short 
 statement attributed by Lersner (see above, p. 82) 
 to J. Fr. Faust v. Aschaffenburg, the elder, and in 
 which he is said to reject the honour of the In- 
 vention for his ancestor Johan Faust, but which 
 I suspect could not have emanated from him, 
 as he has said the contrary over and over again. 
 (See above, pp. 83, 86.) 
 
 It will be seen that, at present, all originals are missing. 
 Under these circumstances I do not think it advisable to 
 reprint the Notarial Instrument from any of the transcripts. 
 Dr. Wyss, the Archivist of Darmstadt, expressed to me his 
 opinion, that some of the documents, which should be pre- 
 served at Mentz, must have found their way somehow to 
 Wiirtzburg or Munich. I visited Wiirtzburg last October, 
 for the purpose of examining two cartularies containing 
 transcripts of two Gutenberg documents (see below pp. 115, 
 120), but I had no opportunity to make further researches 
 there, and must leave this task, for the present, to others. 
 It will be seen below that Dr. Wyss has already commenced 
 his researches, and succeeded in finding at least some 
 valuable transcripts. It is not impossible that a proper 
 exploration of the German Archives and Libraries may 
 have unexpected results. But inquiries of this kind are 
 best made by persons residing in Germany, for they de- 
 mand time and an intimate knowledge of local institutions, 
 which it is not very easy to obtain except by persons living 
 in the country itself. 
 
 I conclude this history of the Instrument and the Dis- 
 course with a genealogy of both. 
 
I02 
 
 Gutenberg . 
 
 NOTARIAL INSTRUMENT of 1455. 
 
 Ulricus Helmasperger, if we were to take the expressions 
 of Senckenberg and Kohler separately, would seem to have 
 supplied Johan Fust with at least three authentic copies ; 
 but there is, as I have said before, a strong suspicion that 
 there never was more that one copy. 
 
 (Where now?) i. An original 
 which was ab. A.D. 
 1600 in the posses- 
 sion of Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg. 
 
 (Where now?) the transcript 
 made ab. A.D. 1600 
 by Faust V. Aschaff. 
 attached to his 
 Discourse. 
 
 2. An original 
 used by Sencken- 
 berg in 1734. 
 (Where now, or 
 = No. I ?) 
 
 3. An original 
 belonging to Von 
 Glauburg's cou- 
 sin and printed by 
 Kohler in 1 74 1. 
 (Where now, or 
 = No. I ?) 
 
 the text published 
 by Dr. Van der 
 Linde in 1878. 
 
 I I I 
 the three transcripts 
 made by von Glauburg 
 in 1712 for Von Uffen- 
 bach, of which two are 
 at Hamburg, and one 
 in the Frankfurt town- 
 Library in the vol. 
 marked B. by von Uf- 
 fenbach. 
 
 I 
 the transcript made be- 
 fore 1649 by J. M. Zum 
 Jungen, attached to the 
 Discourse, now in the 
 Frankfiurt Archives. 
 
 I 
 the transcript made by 
 Von Uffenbach's scribe, 
 with the Discourse at- 
 tached to it ; now at 
 Hamburg. 
 
 the text published by 
 Wolf in 1740 in his 
 Monum, typogr, 
 
 DISCOURSE of FAUST von ASCHAFFENBURG, 
 the elder. 
 
 The original written not before 1620, but before July 14, 
 
 1621, with a transcript of the Instrument attached to it. 
 
 (Where now ?) 
 
 I 
 the transcript made by Joh. Max. Zum Jungen before 
 1649 with the transcript of the Instrument annexed to 
 it, and seen, Oct. 1880, by me in the Frankfurt Archives. 
 
 the transcript made for Von Uffenbach by his scribe in 
 
 1715, with the transcript of the Instrument annexed to 
 
 it, and now preserved in the Hamburg Town Library. 
 
 the Latin translation published by Wolf in 1740 in his 
 Monum. typogr. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 103 
 
 15. (XI) An instrument of the notary Ulrich Hel- 
 masberger, dated 21st June, 1457, recording a sale of 
 the property of a certain Dielnhenne, an inhabitant of, 
 Bodenheim, to a purchaser called Johannes Gensfleisch 
 junior. Among the witnesses appears, according to 
 Schaab's text (Erfind. Buchdruckerk. ii. 270), Johannes 
 Gudenberg. 
 
 It was published, for the first time, by Steph. Alex. 
 Wiirdtwein (Bibliotheca Moguntina, Aug. Vindel., 1789, 
 4°, p. 229), but, according to Schaab (i. 29, ii. 270), with 
 such serious errors, that even the Christian name of Guten- 
 berg appears in his text as Petro, whereas the original has 
 (according to Schaab) Johe. Schaab (11. cc.) says that he 
 had seen a contemporary transcript of the document, but 
 transcribed his own text carefully from the original, which 
 formerly had belonged to the Victor-Chapter, but, from the 
 Bodmann Collection had come, and was then (1830), in the 
 Mentz Library. 
 
 Dr. Arthur Wyss, the Darmstadt Archivist, has kindly 
 made inquiries for me at Mentz, and wrote to me on the 
 9th of Jan. 1 88 1, that "the original instrument, which is 
 undoubtedly genuine, is preserved in the Mentz town- 
 library and had been very inaccurately printed by Schaab." 
 He himself intends to republish it shortly. 
 
 16. A copy of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory, printed 
 at Strasburg about 1470 by Henr. Eggestein, preserved at 
 Wilton House, in the Library of the Earl of Pembroke, 
 and having at the end a somewhat cleverly fabricated 
 imprint, intended to convey the impression that the book 
 was printed by "Johan Guttenberg, at Strassburg, in the 
 year 1458." 
 
 The first notice of this copy of the Dialogues and its 
 forged imprint appeared in Samuel Palmer's "General 
 history of printing from the first invention of it in . . . 
 Mentz ..." published in London, partly in 1732 and 
 partly in 1733. 
 
 In the Appendix (p. 299), Palmer writes that (when 
 the first part of his work was published) they («>. Palmer 
 and Lord Pembroke) had not the least ground to conjecture 
 that Gutenberg ever practised printing himself. 
 
 " But since then the noble lord unwilling to rest satisfy'd with con- 
 jectures, has spared no pains or cost to inform himself whether there 
 was any impression extant done by Guttenberg, and has at length pro- 
 
I04 Gutenberg: 
 
 cured this curious one, which his lordship has been pleased to com- 
 municate to me. " 
 
 As the present Earl of Pembroke kindly lent the book in 
 question to Mr. Bradshaw, I am able to give a description 
 of it. It is the edition of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory 
 indicated by Hain under No. *79S7, and by Brunet, vol. ii. 
 col. 1726. It is a folio of 58 leaves, printed in two 
 columns of 42 lines each, in the same type as the Ludolphus 
 (Meditationes vitae Jesu Christi) printed by Eggesteyn in 
 1474, and described by Hain under No. *io29o; by Brunet, 
 vol. iii. col. 1225. The work has no signatures, no catch- 
 words, no initial directors, no punctuation, except middle 
 and lower point ; it has double hyphens not extending 
 beyond the line, as water-mark the oxhead only. The 
 58 leaves are arranged in 6 quires : a b c d e'" f* . 
 fol. i" lines 1-2 blank ; 
 
 lines 3 & 4 : Vadam die nimijs quoru 
 
 dam seculariu tumultib} de 
 fol. S7"> li. 33 : 
 
 stia fuerimus. 
 
 (lines 34-35 blank) 
 Explicit liber quartus 
 Dyalagos (sic) gregorij. 
 (line 38 blank) 
 Presens hoc op' factum est per Johan. 
 Guttenbergium apud Argentinam 
 anno millessimo cccclviii. 
 line 42 blank, and leaf 58 (blank?) wanting. 
 From this description it will be seen that the book agrees 
 in every respect with the edition described by Hain, ex- 
 cepting, of course, the last three lines. 
 
 That these three lines (i.e. the fabricated imprint) in 
 Lord Pembroke's copy are printed in by hand, in letters 
 differing from the type of the book, is evident at first sight. 
 And it is also clear at first sight that they are the result of a 
 rather clever and yet clumsy forgery. The genuine type of 
 the book has been very well imitated, but the forger, who- 
 ever he may be, did not take or was unable to take account 
 of the old and blunted condition, and the exact size, of this 
 genuine type, and consequently manufactured a new and 
 slightly larger t)rpe than the old one. It is true, the size of 
 the forged letter is very slightly larger, but the difference of 
 the two sizes is yet perceptible. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 105 
 
 Schoepflin, whose " Vindiciae typographiae " appeared in 
 1760, mentioning Palmer's work, writes (p. 40) that he had 
 himself 
 
 "examined the Pembroke Library in 1728, five years before Palmer 
 published his work, and had, in the constant company of Maittaire, 
 several times inspected its chief books, but the Dialogues, printed, as 
 Palmer asserted, by Gutenberg, had escaped his eyes, though the Earl 
 and Maittaire would have pointed out such a book above all others to a 
 Strasburg scholar. Therefore, the book was probably already at that 
 time regarded as spurious, or if the Pembroke Library acquired it after 
 (1728) it is none the less spurious; to which an inexperienced impostor 
 added a rubric. " 
 
 In a note Schoepflin adds : 
 
 " Maittaire, who diligently mentions the rare books in the Pembroke 
 Library, why should he have omitted the rarest of them all ? " 
 
 As Lord Pembroke bought the book between 1732 and 
 1733 (before Jan. 1733), it is quite natural that Schoepflin 
 did not find it in 1728. 
 
 Bernard (Origine de I'imprimerie, i. 150) speaking of this 
 copy, says 
 
 "Palmer asserts that he saw in the Library of Lord Pembroke an 
 edition of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory, at the end of which the rubri- 
 cator had written in red (avait ecrit en rouge) : ' Presens hoc opus- 
 culum factum est per Johannem Gutenbergium, apud Argentinam, anno 
 millesimo cccclviii.' But Schoepflin declares that he never saw this 
 book, though he had, in the company of Maittaire, carefully explored 
 the Pembroke library, &c." 
 
 Bernard is not quite correct here. Palmer speaks 
 (p. 300) of " red letters," but says nothing of their being 
 written. Schoepflin (1. c.) uses the words "genuina siforet 
 epigraphe, calci ejus (}.e. the book) rubro colore adjecta his 
 verbis." 
 
 It must be observed that within a few months after the 
 purchase and printed description of the book, both the 
 Earl of Pembroke and Palmer died ; hence the break in the 
 history of this palpable forgery. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde, speaking, on p. 182, of this forgery, 
 and of another, also in Lord Pembroke's Library (see 
 Palmer's work, 3rd Book, 3rd chapter, Westminster), 
 attributes them to Palmer himself and calls him a deceiver 
 {betricger), but there is no foundation for such a charge 
 either in the one case or the other. 
 
 17. A document dated (an sand margreden dag der 
 
 V 
 
1 06 Gutenberg . 
 
 heiligeft Junckfrawen, i.e., on the day of St. Margaret, the 
 holy virgin, i.e.) July 20, 1459, made like letters patent, 
 with four seals, &c., appended to it (ausgefertigt in der 
 Urkundenform mit vier anhdngenden Insieglen, Schaab i. 
 29). It represents brothers, called Henne Genssfleisch von 
 Sulgeloch genannt Gudinberg, and Friele Genssfleisch, 
 as relinquishing, on St. Margaret's-day, 1459, at the advice 
 and with the consent of their relatives Henne, Friele, and 
 Pedirmanne, all claims to whatever their sister Hebele had 
 brought with her into the Convent Reichenklaren, and 
 Henne Genssfleisch in particular promises that the books 
 which he has given to the library of the convent shall 
 always belong to it, and that he will give to the same library 
 all the books which he, Henne, has caused to be printed, 
 and may print in future. 
 
 In 1830 Schaab (Erf. der Buchdr. i. 30) informs us that 
 Fischer (Beschreib. typogr. Seltenh., 1800, i., p. 42) was the 
 first who made this document known in the German language 
 of the original from a transcript which he had received 
 from Prof. Bodmann, who pretended to have discovered it in 
 the Archives of the University of Mentz. In 1801 Oberlin 
 gave a French translation of it (Essai d'annal. de la vie de 
 Gutenberg, 4), and only remarked (p. 3) that Bodmann 
 had discovered it. Fischer reprinted the German text in 
 his Essai sur les mon. typogr., 46, and added Oberlin's 
 translation. It was frequently reprinted by later authors 
 on Gutenberg, but Schaab (i. 34) declares it to be one of 
 Prof. Bodmann's forgeries, and Dr. Van der Linde (p. 1 9) 
 agrees with him. See for other forgeries of the same 
 Professor documents i, 13. 
 
 18. (XIII.) A letter, dated April 10, 1461, from the 
 Chapter of St. Thomas at Strassburg to the Secular Court at 
 Rottweil, by which they authorize Michel Rosemberg, the 
 procurator of that Court, to bring an action against " Johann 
 Guttemberg" for the money he owed them. 
 
 A copy of this letter was discovered in 1841 by Prof. 
 C. Schmidt, of Strassburg, in the Archives of the Chapter of 
 St. Thomas of that city, and published by him in the same 
 year (Nouv. d'eiails sur la vie de Gutenberg, tires des Ar- 
 chives de tanden Chapitre de St. Thomas d Strasbourg, 8vo., 
 Strasbourg, 1841). Compare what has been said under 
 document No. 10 (p. 60). 
 
 19. (XIV.) Some items in an account-book of the same 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 107 
 
 Chapter of 146 1, in which the expenses are specified which 
 the Chapter incurred through their action taken against 
 Martin Brechter and Gutenberg. The result of the proceed- 
 ings of the Chapter is not known. Prof. Schmidt says that 
 we should have to search for the documents in the Archives 
 of the Aulic Chamber, which was dissolved in 1787. In any 
 case the Chapter obtained nothing, either from Gutenberg 
 or from M. Brechter, because both appear from 1458-1474 
 as non-paying; commencing with 1468 vacat is found 
 after their names. In 1467 M. Brechter was arrested at 
 Hagenau at an additional cost to the Chapter of seven 
 shillings, and in 1474 the items were noticed as lost, though 
 the Chapter spent again one-and-eightpence in summoning 
 M. Brechter. But after this year they are no longer men- 
 tioned. Cf. C. Schmidt, Nouv. details sur la vie de Gutenberg, 
 &-C., and Ze Bibliographe Alsacien de 1869, Strasb., 8vo. 
 Compare what has been said under document No. 10. 
 
 20. A so-called rubric in a "Tractatus de celebratione 
 missarum secundum frequentiorem cursum diocesis ma- 
 guntinensis." 
 
 A copy of this work is said to have been transferred, in 
 1 78 1, from the Carthusian Monastery near Mentz to the 
 University I^ibrary of that towa Gotthelf Fischer, who 
 gives the title {Essai sur les monumens typogr. de Jean 
 Gutenberg, Mayence [1802], p. 81 ; and Typogr. SeltenL, 
 1803, iv. 18), asserts that in this library he discovered it 
 bound in one volume with a number of MS. tracts, and 
 that the rubricator had written on it with red ink : 
 
 Carthusia prope Maguntin possidet ex Iber 
 donacone Joanis dicti a bono monte opuscu 
 mira sua arte sc e Johannis Nummeister 
 cleric confectu. Anno din M" cccc° 
 LXiij xiij kal Jul (= 19 Juni 1463) 
 
 No one seems to have seen this Mentz copy after Fischer. 
 Bernard says {Orig. de Pimpr., i. 204), that the book could 
 not be found in 185 1 by the then librarian and that he wrote 
 to Fischer, who replied from Moscow (3-15 April, 1851) : 
 " Non-seulement j'ai vu de mes propres yeux I'inscription ; 
 mais I'ouvrage doit se trouver encore k la bibliothfeque [de 
 Mayence] ; il est rduni, dans un volume en 4°, k plusieurs 
 autres traitds." 
 
 Dr. Arthur Wyss, the Darmstadt Archivist, was so kind 
 
1 08 Gutenberg : 
 
 as to inquire for me at Mentz, and in Jan. 1881 wrote to 
 me that hitherto the Mentz Librarian had been unable 
 to find the Tractatus. Wyss has, however, on this occasion 
 discovered a copy of this work in the Darmstadt Hof 
 Library, but without any rubrics. 
 
 Fischer has given (Essai, p. 78) a facsimile of the two 
 types (i, church type, used for the rubrics ; 2, used for the 
 text) employed in the Tractatus. That used for the text 
 was employed for printing 6 other tracts, which have 
 since come to light from time to time. As one of these 
 tracts has the place of printing, namely Moguntia (Mentz), 
 in the imprint, we are enabled to ascribe them all to this 
 city, and as another (a Prognostication) is said to have 
 been printed for the year 1460, this would enable us to fix 
 the approximate date of the printer, whose productions we 
 may group in the following way : 
 
 i) A Prognostication or Kalendar said to be for the year 
 [Mccccjlx, therefore printed in 1459, described by Fischer 
 (Typogr. Seltenh.'vi. 69). According to Bernard (i. 206) 
 the six leaves remaining of this tract could not be found 
 in the Darmstadt Museum when he was writing his book 
 (1853), but it has since turned up as it is mentioned (as 
 "Calender von 1460") in Walther's Beitrage zurKenntniss 
 der Hofbibliothek zu Darmstadt. 8°. Darmstadt. 1867, 
 p. 88. 
 
 2) Hermanni de Saldis [Schildis] Speculum Sacerdotum. 
 16 leaves, 4°, 30 even lines on a page, with hyphens, no 
 printed initials, no initial directors, no signatures. It has 
 the imprint : Speculum pr^clarum ip^orum sacerdotuw? a 
 pa||tre Hermanno de saldis sacre theologie prrfes-||sore : 
 ordinis heremitaruw sancti AugKj//«/editum.|| maguntieqae 
 impr^ssum feliciter finit.|| 
 
 Fischer has described it in his T5rpogr. Seltenh. iv. 14. 
 A copy is in the Library at Munich, described by Hain, 
 No. * 1 45 1 9. A second copy is preserved in the Paris 
 Library; cf. "Notice des objets exposes," issued by the 
 Department of the printed books, Paris, 1878; p. 15, No. 
 48; Bernard, Orig. de I'impr. i. 209. A third copy is in 
 the possession of the Rev. John Fuller Russell, London. 
 
 3) Tractatus de celebratione missarum secundum fre- 
 quentiorem cursum diocesis maguntinensis. 
 
 The copy, which is said to contain the rubric of which 
 we treat, should be in the Mentz Library. Another 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 09 
 
 copy has now been found at Darmstadt, but without any 
 rubric. From this latter copy I have taken the following 
 description ; 
 
 It is composed of 30 leaves (a b c'°), with 28 even lines (of the small 
 type) on a page ; no signatures, with hyphens ; no space left for 
 initials (all printed). Types : I (rubrics) ; 2 (text), 
 leaf 1": In present! hbello otinentur aliqua pro 
 
 cebracone (sic) missaru scdm freqntiore cursii dios 
 
 cesis m^untin . directoria p pte ex registro 
 
 ordinario et p pte ex quibusda exptis psbi» 
 
 teris eiusde diocesis collecta et p nouellis et 
 
 ruralib3 dericis expientiam plenam eorvide3 
 
 non habentibus hie breuiter annotata. Sal 
 
 uis tamen cuiuscu<i eccie consuetudinibus. 
 leaf 30'' 11 24 : 
 
 ne viuit et regnat. Amen. 
 
 4) A work in German, treating of the necessity of 
 councils and the manner of holding them. It is composed 
 of 24 (abc*') leaves, 4°, 31 mostly even lines on a page, 
 with hyphens, with initials printed in (except the I on the 
 first page), no signatures, no imprint. It is mentioned by 
 Van Praet in his Catalogue in folio (18 13), p. 34. Bernard 
 (Orig. de I'imprimerie, i. 209) avowed that he was unable to 
 see the book (in 1853), as it could not be found in the Paris 
 Library. Dr. Van der Linde also says that it could not be 
 found. But it is now mentioned in the " Notice des 
 objets exposes," Paris, 1878, p. 15, No. 47, and I myself 
 examined it on the 13th July, 1881. The first line runs : 
 [I]S ist noit das dicke vnd vil Co^^cilia werden||. 
 
 5) Dyalogus inter Hugonem, Cathonem et Oliverium 
 super libertate ecclesiastica. Described by Fischer (Typogr. 
 Seltenh. vi. 74). A copy of it is preserved in the Darm- 
 stadt Grand-ducal Library (see Walther's Beitrage, p. 88) ; 
 another in the Munich Library (see Hain, No. *6i4o). A 
 third has recently been acquired by the Paris National 
 Library (Acquisition, No. 84697). It is composed of 20 
 leaves (a b"; first and last blank), 4°, 30-32 even lines on 
 a page; initials printed in, except on first page; with 
 hyphens; no signatures. 
 
 6) Sifridus de Arena, Episcop. Cirens. Determinatio 
 duarum quaestionum. 26 leaves (a" b c^). 4°. 
 
 Copies of it are preserved i) in the Munich Library, 
 described by Hain, *i4723 ; 2) in the University Library 
 of Cambridge; 3) in the Brit. Mus., Press-mark 690. d. 33, 
 No. I (see next tide); 4) in the Wolfenbiittel Library (Press- 
 
no Gutenberg: 
 
 mark 177. i. Th.); 5) in the possession of the Rev. John 
 Fuller Russell, London. 
 
 7) Sifridus de Arena, &c. Responsio ad quatuor 
 quaestiones sibi propositas. 10 (a'") leaves. 4°. 
 
 A copy of this tract is preserved in the Munich Library 
 and described by Hain *i4724 ; another in the University 
 Library of Cambridge, which is bound up together with a 
 copy of the preceding tract ; a third copy is in the Brit. Mus. 
 (pressm. 6go.d. 33, No. 2), which also is bound up with a copy 
 of the preceding tract. The Brit. Mus. copy has, moreover, a 
 year written in in three places, namely (i) 1456 on the top of 
 the first page in a modern hand ; (2) apparently 1465 under 
 the imprint of the Determinatio, where also Isenburg is 
 written in red with a hand of the 15th cent. ; (3) at the 
 endx)f the second tract either 1446 or 1456 j but in all 
 three instances the date has been tampered with, and 
 the numerals 14 alone are plainly visible. K fourth copy is 
 in the Wolfenbiittel Library (Pressmark 177. i. Th), bound 
 up with a copy of the preceding tract. The copy of the 
 preceding tract of the Rev. John Fuller Russell, London, 
 has not the Responsiones. 
 
 As regards the printer of these tracts nothing certain is 
 known. The so-called rubrication in the " Tractatus " has 
 been variously interpreted by those who believed in it. 
 Bernard would read (i. 204) scientia etiam for sc e and 
 translate : " La Chartreuse prfes de Mayence tient de la 
 liberality de Jean Gutenberg ce livre, produit de son art et 
 de la science de Jean Nummeister, clerc." Van Praet 
 (CataL, in fol. p. 33) prints (according to Bernard, i. 204) 
 " Mira sua arte p." {i.e. per), which would ascribe the 
 printing to Nummeister alone ; but Van Praet evidently 
 altered Fischer's rubric, merely to make it suit a plausible 
 interpretation. Others would read scilicet et, though e for 
 et is not usual. 
 
 Hain, describing the Tractatus (4833) added : " Mogun- 
 tiae Joh. Nummeister cleric, a. 1463. 13 Kal. Jul. Sic 
 docet subscriptio cuidam ej^emplo calamo apposita, at valde 
 dubia." 
 
 To Helbig {Bulletin du Bibliophile Beige, tom. xviii. (1862) 
 2" S^rie, tom. ix, p. 41, 42) the rubrication appeared more 
 than suspicious. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde remarks (p, 56) : 
 
 "The authenticity of [the above] note is highly suspicious : (l) the 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 1 1 1 
 
 Latinizing of Gutenberg's name does not occur anywhere so early. 
 (2) The date agrees ill with the catastrophe of 1462. (3) The dis- 
 coverer was, alas ! a friend of Bodmann. (4) Fischer says (iv. 20, 
 vi. 69) : I have caused this important inscription to be engraved ; it 
 will contribute not a little to the completion of a second edition of my 
 ' Essai.' This second edition never appeared, and though Fischer 
 published afterwards two parts of his Seltenheiten with facsimiles, he 
 made, alas! no use of this 'important inscription,' and only remarks 
 (vi. 75) that no one who had examined these objects (the printed 
 colophon in the Speculum Sacerdotum : impressumque Maguntie — 
 and the MS. note in the Celebratio missarum of 1463) would pre- 
 tend that they are false. — It remains always bad that this pretended 
 donation reminds us at once of the donation of 1459 to the Con- 
 vent of S. Clara, which was also invented by Bodmaim." 
 
 In spite of Dr. Van der Linde's suspicion, he ascribes 
 this group of books to Gutenberg, and even prints the 
 colophon of the Speculum in very neat Gothic type, pro- 
 bably to make it look all the more impressive. 
 
 IT After having recorded everything of importance said 
 on the above rubric, I wish to say something myself. On 
 the 3rd October 1881 I visited Darmstadt, for the purpose 
 of describing, for the present work, the Prognostication or 
 Kalendar, which is said to have the printed date [Mccccjlx. 
 I found only four leaves, not six as Bernard, following 
 Fischer (i. 206), says, and it is evident from Fischer's de- 
 scnption (Typogr. Selt. vi. 69) that he never had more 
 tha.n four printed leaves before him, though he speaks of 
 six leaves. Fischer declares that Herr Podozzi, a dealer 
 in works of art, discovered the leaves in the binding of a 
 book and forwarded them to him for inspection. The tract 
 is printed in the two types figured by Fischer in his Essai 
 sur les monumens typogr. de Jean Gutenberg. 
 
 I copied, without any suspicion, the first four lines as 
 follows : 
 
 Particula prima de diio ani et significatis eius ad 
 que humana ratio ptingere potest. 
 Consideratis singulis planetarum di 
 gnitatibus in figura reuolucois ani Ix 
 
 So far all was in accordance with Fischer's description. 
 But a mere child could see that after the Ix, in the fourth 
 line, there were more numerals, which had been rather 
 carelessly scratched out. With my naked eye I could 
 discern Ixx-ii. What there was between the second x and 
 the units (here represented by -) I could not decipher at 
 once. In this uncertainty it occurred to me to read the 
 
I 12 
 
 Gutenberg : 
 
 text, because, I thought, a Prognostication is likely to con- 
 tain some allusion to an event or person, which might give 
 me some clue to the date. I was not disappointed. The 
 last two lines of the verso of the second leaf run as follows : 
 
 Papa Sixtus quartus hoc anno graues anxieta 
 
 tes sentiet Incomoda etia nature pacietur. Jupit 
 
 I asked for a book which could give me the reigns of 
 the popes. Potthast was brought to me. Eh bien ! Pope 
 Sixtus IV. was elected Aug. 9, 1471; consecrated Aug. 25 
 following ; he died Aug. 1 2, 1484. 
 
 I now examined the spot where the scratching had taken 
 place once more, and read without hesitation Ixxxii. 
 After the date something more, which concludes the line, 
 has been scratched out, and again one or two letters at the 
 commencement of the 5th line, but I am unable to say 
 what it is. 
 
 Is this plain enough ? I think it is. 
 
 This discovery makes it clear : 1) that the so-called 
 Prognostication for 1460 is, in reality, a Prognostication for 
 1482 and has, consequently, been printed in 1481 ; — 2) 
 that the rubrication in the " Tractatus " must be a forgery, 
 if it ever has existed at all.* 
 
 That Fischer asserted, in 1804, that the Kalendar 
 (= Prognostication) had the printed date (14)60, may now 
 be passed over without comment; but that Dr. Walther, 
 the Librarian of Darmstadt, could describe it, in 1867, in 
 his Beitrdge zur ndheren Kenntniss der Hofbibliothek zu 
 Darmstadt (p. 88), as the "Calender von 1460" is rather 
 too bad. The numerals have so clumsily been scratched 
 out that the detection of the fraud did not require ex- 
 perience or strong eyes. 
 
 The Vfio forgeries, in connexion with this group of books, 
 cannot this time be ascribed to Bodmann. Fischer says that 
 he himself discovered the Tractatus with the rubrication ; 
 and the Prognostication was, at all events, sent to him for 
 inspection. 
 
 * I have said above that a copy of the "Tractatus" was lately 
 found at Darmstadt, without a rubric. Could this be the very copy 
 which Fischer had before him ? Fischer's Library was transferred to 
 the Darmstadt Library, and it is just possible that he intended to 
 fabricate the rubrication, and with this idea in his mind published it in 
 advance. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 113 
 
 I need not add that henceforth the seven books described 
 above can no longer be mentioned in connexion with 
 Gutenberg, as they must be grouped round the true date 
 (1481) of the Prognostication. 
 
 Before leaving this subject I may mention that I have 
 found in the Library at Mentz an eighth work, printed in 
 the same types, and therefore belonging to the same set of 
 books. It is a folio book of 236 leaves (collation : sP b 
 cdefghi klmnopqistuxyzABc^Di^ESF*), in 
 2 columns of 41 (not always) even lines. It has double 
 hyphens, but no signatures, and all initials are printed in, 
 except the A with which the text commences. Types : 
 I (rubrics); 2 (text). 
 
 Leaf I" blank ; leaf I* : Nach dem vnd ein yglich mensch dem 
 gesetze vnterdanig||sein soil als geschrieben steet. ff. dele, et seuatus 
 con. 1. ij. vnder||(&c. 17 lines in all); leaf 2": Hemach volgen die 
 Titellldis' buchs in rechter ordenugH ; leaf 7''% line 25 : vrteyl gebe 
 hat. . Ccxxviij.ll; lines 26-41 and leaf 7'''' blank; leaf S"* (in the large 
 type) : [A] Ctio de hijs q in frau||dem creditorum.||wan der schuldenerll 
 in vntrewe seins cre=|| etc. ; leaf 235'''' line 7 : passis et restitutis T;c.|| ; 
 lines 8-10 blank ; li. 11 : Hie enden sich die clagen||vnd nutzliche lere 
 dis' siider=||lichen buchs aus' gemeyuen|| beschriebenen rechten der 
 keyllserlichen gesetz vfi den haubtil buchem originalib' in latein|| 
 Pandectaru. if. C. vnd instit'.Ugezogen. so vil vnd der zuli&c, &c.; 
 leaf 236 blank. 
 
 The work has no name of author ; no printer's name, no 
 place of printing, no date. The place of printing must, of 
 course, be Mentz. Hain has described this edition under No. 
 *3727 J its title is : Sebastian Brant, Richterlicher Klagspiegel 
 or Neu geteutscht Rechtbuch. Hain mentions no less than 
 five editions of this work printed before 1500, of which the 
 British Museum has (a) No. *37 26, without date (pressmark : 
 5510. ee) ; (b) No. *3729 (pressmark : 5310. dd), printed at 
 Augsburg, 1497 ; (c) No. *3730 (pressmark : 5207. f), printed 
 at Augsburg, 1500. Panzer (Annalen der altern deutschen 
 Litteratur, p. 33), points out that, in 1516, Brant published 
 the work again, recast and corrected, under the title : Der 
 Richterlich Clagspiegel ; this work he mentions on p. 389. 
 The British Museum (pressmark : 708. h. 19) has an 
 edition published under this title at Strassburg, 1536. The 
 particular edition described by Panzer I have not been 
 able to find. 
 
 The above Mentz edition appears to me to be the editio 
 princeps, but even if we give it this place of honour, the 
 
 Q 
 
114 Gutenberg: 
 
 date of its printing cannot be far from 1490, as Sebast. 
 Brandt was born at Strassburg in 1458. Therefore this 
 book alone would demolish the Gutenberg story with regard 
 to this group of books. All the circumstances connected 
 with this rubrication and the Prognostication show how 
 little the Germans have hitherto done in the Gutenberg 
 case. It seems to suit them to reprint the old documents, 
 and to repeat old stories without even looking at things 
 which they have ready at their elbow. 
 
 A copy of the book in question may be seen in the British 
 Museum (King's Library, Pressmark : C. 8. i. 4) in as good 
 a preservation as that which I saw at Mentz. The Museum 
 copy seems to have been in the possession of Alex. Horn ; the 
 lettering on the back has : " Moguntiae per Jo. Guttenberg," 
 but the British Museum Catalogue has, by accident,* the 
 approximately right date [1490 ?]. 
 
 21 (XV). A decree of the Elector Adolf II., dated 
 18 Jan., 1465, by which he appoints " Johann Gudenberg, 
 on account of his grateful and willing service, his servant 
 and courtier (dhiener und koffgesind) for life, promising to 
 supply him with clothing, and each year 20 malter Korns 
 and 2 fuder wins." 
 
 This decree was published by Geo. Chr. Joannis, Scriptt. 
 rer. Mogunt. (1727), iii. p. 424, without saying a word as 
 to whence he obtained this document. Joh. Dav. Kohler, 
 Ehren-Rettung (1741), p. 100, published it again without 
 telling us whence he obtained it, not even mentioning 
 Joannis. Later authors republished it, quoting Joannis as 
 their source. Dr. Van der Linde mentions (p. 526) 
 Joannis and Kohler, but prints his text apparently from 
 Joannis. Cf. Schaab, Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. 48, 
 60, 472. 
 
 When I was at Hamburg in September, 1881, I found 
 
 * WTien the British Museum catalogue is correct with respect to the 
 Incunabula, it is a mere accident. In the present instance Strasburg 
 -is given in the Catalogue as the place of printing, and the following 
 note has been appended to the rather elaborate description of the title 
 of the book : ' ' Without register, pagination, or catchwords, printed in 
 double columns with type resembling (sic) that of the Speculum Sacer- 
 dotum of Hermannus de Sails (sic) and of the Tractatus de celebratione 
 missarum said to be printed by Gutenberg." 
 
 This is a bad note ! Every one seems to lose his head when dealing 
 with Gutenberg. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 115 
 
 r~ ~ — _ 
 
 in one of the MS. Volumes of the Uffenbach collection 
 (No. xxxvii Uifenbach = jcxvi Wolf), preserved in the 
 Town Library, a transcript of the decree made by Uffen- 
 bach's amanuensis in this volume, to which Uffenbach 
 himself wrote the title : " CI. Virorum Epistolae variae quas 
 ex autographis ab amicis benevole concessis per amanu- 
 enses describi fecit Z. t. ab Uffenbach MDCCXVII seq. 
 annis." The transcript of the decree is No. 74 in the MS. 
 volume, and it agrees with the text published by Joannis, 
 Kohler, and Van der Linde, except that it has after : 
 Hoffgesind Kleyden the additional words: "werden, zu 
 iglichen Zyten, glich unsern Edelen Kleyden,^' which had 
 probably been omitted by Joannis, and consequently by 
 Kohler, &c 
 
 I am unable to say whence Uffenbach procured his 
 transcript. It is immediately followed by a transcript of 
 document No. 24 (q.v.), under which is written in this 
 same volume " Ex Lib. ii. Adolf AEp. p. 85." 
 
 Dr. Arthur Wyss, the Darmstadt Archivist, informed me 
 on the 9th Feb. 1881 that he had traced a contemporary 
 transcript of this document and of No. 24 (below) in a 
 Mentz-Aschaffenburg Copial-Buch, at present preserved in 
 the Archives at Wiirzburg. He told me that the texts 
 published by Joannis and Kohler were derived from the 
 same source, but are not correct and that he will publish 
 them anew. 
 
 On the nth Oct. 1881 I visited Wiirzburg for the pur- 
 pose of examining this volume to which Dr. Wyss had 
 called my attention. It is a large folio Cartulary, of 415 
 vellum leaves, which seems to have been compiled in the 
 chancery of the Mentz Archbishop Adolf. On the back 
 of the binding (which is quite recent) it bears the title 
 (equally recent) : 
 
 " Ingrossatur-Buch Adolfhi II, vol. 30. Kgl. Archiv Wiirzburg 
 IH[amzer'] Ingrossatur-Buch No. 30. 
 
 The date of the documents entered (not always in strictly 
 chronological order) in this volume range from 1463 till 
 1468. They are all apparently written consecutively by the 
 same scribe, the Cartulary must, therefore, have been com- 
 menced after the last-named year ; the headings or rubrics 
 of most of the documents have been added by another hand. 
 It seems that, before the copyist commenced, he had num- 
 
1 1 6 Gutenberg : 
 
 bered quires ready for his use, but other leaves have been in- 
 serted, so that the new numbering (which is of recent date) 
 differs considerably from the old, which does not appear 
 to go further than cccxiiij. Documents with the date 1465 
 begin to occur on fol. 169, and the transcript of the Decree 
 of which we treats is found on fol. 172 (new numbering) or 
 fol. cxxv (old numbering). The index to the vol. was 
 written at the end of the 17 th or beginning of the i8th 
 century. I have found no grounds to suspect the genuine- 
 ness of the cartulary in which this transcript is preserved. 
 
 Dr. Arthur Wyss has explained to me the reason why 
 these Cartularies are at present preserved at Wiirzburg. 
 When the Mentz Electorate, to the Archives of which the 
 volumes belonged, was abolished, the Cartularies had been 
 already transferred, for greater security, to Aschaffenburg. 
 When the latter place was annexed to Bavaria, this kingdom 
 also appropriated the Mentz Archivalia. The earUer docu- 
 ments were transferred to the Munich Archives ; the Acts 
 and Cartularies to the Archives at Wiirzburg. 
 
 22 (XVI). An entry in anAnniversarium of ihe. Dominican 
 Church at Mayence, at the 2nd of Feb. [1468] which, after 
 expansion of the contractions, runs thus: "Obiit dominus 
 Johannes zum Ginsefleis cum duabus candelis super lapidem 
 prwpe cadedram predicantis habens arma Ginsefleis." 
 
 Val. Ferd. Gudenus, Cod. diplom. (1747), ii. p. 524, in a 
 Syllabus veterum Moguntiae Curiarum sive Aedium, records 
 the following entry : 
 
 "Anniv. D. Johannis zum Gensfleisch, cum duabis candelis super 
 lapidem prope catbedram . ., habens arma Gensfleisch. M. Sept. 
 Aimiv. Dne Kittergin ; filia' Johannis Berwolfi, uxor Johannis Gens- 
 fleisch . . que iacet sub . . pedibus . . Ruppels zum Cleman. Et 
 habet . . duas imagines sculptas & 2 clipeos, scil. comua & Schotten." 
 
 This entry had never been applied to Gutenberg until 
 Bockenheimer published his "Gutenberg's Grabstatte (Mainz, 
 1876)." He had on the Saturday before Whitsuntide, 1876, 
 discovered the Anniversarium, from which Gudenus evi- 
 dently had copied his entry. According to Bockenheimer 
 (p. 11), the Anniversarium must have been commenced 
 in the four first decades of the isth century (on p. 18 
 he specifies between the years 1430-1440), as he found 
 that previous deaths were briefly entered by one hand 
 and thence onward till the middle of the i8th century all 
 events are properly noticed by a later hand. It was con- 
 
TVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 117 
 
 eluded from this entry that Gutenberg was not buried in 
 the Franciscan,* but Dominican Church, under the chancel. 
 The latter convent was burnt down in July, 1793. On its 
 site was erected a fruit-hall, which also was burnt down in 
 1875. This latter event, says Dr. Van der Linde (p. 76), 
 would probably enable us to find out the spot where " the 
 mortal remains of the immortal master rest." 
 
 It has now been shown by Dr. Schenk zu Schweinsberg, 
 the chief Archivist of Darmstadt, that the entry in the 
 Anniversarium, as read by Gudenus and Bockenheimer, 
 has no connexion whatever with Joh. Gutenberg. In an 
 Essay published in the "Archiv des histor. Vereins fiir 
 das Grossh. Hessen" (vol. 15, pp. 337-357), Dr. Schenk 
 gives the result of his examination of the original Anni- 
 versarium, which is preserved in the Registry of the 
 " Deputation fiir die Armen- und Krankenpflege " at Mentz. 
 The above entry, he says, is 
 
 "actually found on the leaf numbered ix, written by a scribe who 
 also wrote two other entries with the dates i6 Febr. and i6 Oct. 1473, 
 and a third, of Jan. 28, 1462 ; but it is merely a repetition of an entry 
 which may be seen immediately above it on the same day, and which, 
 having partly been rubbed out, is perhaps not quite legible to inex- 
 perienced eyes." 
 
 This original entry Dr. Schenk was able to read with his 
 naked eyes, but he took the precaution of using some 
 reagent, and read as follows : — 
 
 " Obiit Dominus Johannes zum Ginsefleis, cum duabus candelis et 
 quatuor luminibus, de cujus ex parte conventus debet habere I marcham, 
 adhuc non habemus." 
 
 Another entry at the 27th of Sept. runs : — 
 
 " Doraine Kettergin, filia Johannis Berwolffi, uxor Johannis Ginss- 
 fleisch, cum quatuor luminibus et duabus candelis, que iacet sub lapide 
 jacenti sub pedibus lapidis Ruppels czum Cleman, et primus lapis 
 tangit cum pedibus sedes sub ymagine virginis gloriose et habet eciam 
 duas ymagines sculptas et duos clippeos, scilicet comua et Schotten." 
 
 So far the entries had been made, says Dr. Schenk, in a 
 broad, distinct hand, which, when the Necrologium was 
 commenced, wrote out all the anniversaries which were still 
 to be celebrated. But after the last-mentioned entry, a later 
 
 * As was hitherto supposed on the strength of the inscription on the 
 memorial slab said to have been erected by Adam Gelthus to Gutenberg. 
 
1 1 8 Gutenberg : 
 
 hand of the 15th century wrote " Require numero ix. sub 
 litera e." These words, not mentioned by Bockenheimer, 
 are of the utmost importance, because when we refer to the 
 page indicated we find, before the feast of Feb. 2, the 
 dominical letter E, and the first and only entry under this 
 day is the original entry about Johannes zum Gensfleisch, 
 which has been partly rubbed out. 
 
 Dr. Schenk explains that the first hand of the Necrolo- 
 gium, i.e. the person who commenced it, and transferred to 
 it from some earlier Necrologium those anniversaries which 
 were still to be celebrated, continued his work till 1418, or 
 till 1421, or perhaps till 1423, at which year the next hand 
 seems to be already at work. As the first scribe also wrote 
 the two original entries quoted above, it is clear that these 
 refer to persons who were dead before his time at least and 
 could have nothing to do with Gutenberg. The Johannes 
 Gensfleisch mentioned in the Necrologium is. Dr. Schenk 
 says, most likely the grand-uncle of Gutenberg, who occurs 
 in charters from 1385-1405. 
 
 It would seem clear that Dr. Schenk has proved his 
 point, and that Gutenberg was not buried in the Dominican 
 church. There remains, therefore, the assumption that he 
 was buried in the Franciscan church at Mentz. Dr. Schenk 
 is of opinion that this assumption rests " on good grounds." 
 But here we meet with another difficulty. An epitaph on 
 Gutenberg, apparently composed by a kinsman of his, 
 Adam Gelthus, was published in 1499 at Heidelberg, at 
 the end of a little work issued by the Heidelberg pro- 
 fessors in memory of Prof. MarsiHus de Inghen, the founder 
 of their University. In this epitaph the " artis impressorie 
 repertor," or " inventor," is called " Joannis Genszfleisch," 
 and it is said that " ossa eius in ecclesia divi Francisci 
 Maguntina fceliciter cubant." The reason why this epitaph 
 should have been published at the end of this work, 
 which has no connexion with printing or with Gutenberg, is 
 not quite clear. But as it is followed by the well-known 
 epigram " Foelix ansicare, &c." of Jac. Wimpfeling in 
 honour of John Gensfleisch, it becomes probable that this 
 scholar, who wrote occasionally on the invention of printing, 
 was the editor of the Heidelberg professors, and added, by 
 way of amusement, the epitaph of Adam Gelthus and his 
 own epigram. 
 
 Now, Bockenheimer, who was anxious to prove his case 
 
Was he the Invenfor of Printing ? 119 
 
 with regard to the Dominican church, not unnaturally 
 writes against the Franciscan church. He points out that it 
 is assumed on all hands that the epitaph in question could 
 never have been placed on a memorial slab ; at least, not 
 on one which covered the remains of Gutenberg, as it 
 would, in such a case, not have been necessary to say where 
 his bones were (cf. also Bodmann, Rheing. Alterth. i. 137). 
 He even goes so far as to suggest that Adam Gelthus was 
 not the author of the epitaph at all, but Wimpfeling himself 
 (see above, p. 15). He also points out that the addition in 
 the MS. " Sagen von alten dingen, &c., where the same 
 statement with regard to the " ossa " is made (see above, 
 p. 16) is of no value, as being of a much later date. And 
 finally, Bockenheimer points out that Gutenberg could 
 not possibly have been buried in the Franciscan church ; 
 (i) because in the war of 1462, between Adolf of Nassau 
 and Diether of Isenburg, the Franciscans had adhered to 
 the latter, and were, on that account, banished by the 
 victorious Adolf, while their church was converted into a 
 stable ; (2) a document of r473 (Gudenus, Cod. Diplom. 
 V. 107 1, sqq.) makes it evident that in that year they had 
 not regained Adolfs favour, and that their convent did 
 no longer exist at Mentz ; indeed, it had been transferred to 
 other hands even in 1469 (Schaab, Erfind. der Buchd. i. 465). 
 For these reasons Bockenheimer contends that the relatives 
 of Gutenberg, who is said to have died c. r468, could not 
 have thought of burying him in a church, and under the 
 care, of an order which was so disliked by the prince whose 
 courtier he had been. 
 
 If, then, Bockenheimer has proved his point against the 
 Franciscan church, and Dr. Schenk has proved his point 
 against the Dominican church, the question arises. Where 
 was Gutenberg buried ? No one knows. Dr. Schenk says 
 that F. W. E. Roth in Geschichtsquellen des Niederrheingaus 
 (i. p. 264, note, and iii. 237), on the authority of a MS. of 
 a certain Kremer, pronounces in favour of Eltvil, but 
 Dr. Schenk does not appear to believe in it. 
 
 23 (XVII). A Letter of obligation of Dr. Homery, dated 
 {ufffrytag nach Sant Mathys dag, i.e.) Friday after Feb. 24, 
 1468, by which he acknowledges to have received from 
 Adolf, the Archbishop of Mentz, several forms, letters, 
 instruments, implements, and other things belonging to the 
 work of printing which Johann Guttemberg had left after 
 
1 20 Gutenberg : 
 
 his death, and which had, and still belonged to him (Dr. 
 Homery) ; — he, on his part, undertaking to use them, but 
 in no other town than Mentz, nor to sell them to any 
 person but a citizen of Mentz, even if a stranger should 
 offer him a higher price for the things. 
 
 This document was published (i) by Geo. Chr. Joannis 
 (Scriptt. Hist. Mogunt., iom. novus (1727), p. 424), without 
 a word as to whence he obtained it ; (2) by Kohler (Ehren- 
 Rettung, 1741, p. loi), the latter adding, "ex libro Archi- 
 episcopi Adolfi, p. 80, in Archive Moguntino." Cf Schaab, 
 Erfind. der Buchdruckerkunst, i. 60, 325 (where some parti- 
 culars about Humery may be found). Dr. Van der Linde, 
 p. xxxvii, publishes it again, without doing more than men- 
 tioning Joannis and Kohler, not even repeating where 
 Kohler says he obtained it. Under document No. 22 I 
 have already pointed out that I found a transcript of this 
 Letter at Hamburg, and that another transcript has turned 
 up- at Wiirzburg. 
 
 On the nth Oct. 1881 I visited Wiirzburg for the pur- 
 pose of examining the volume in which this transcript is 
 found. It is a folio paper Cartulary of 158 leaves, arranged 
 in quires as follows: a^* b c d e f g^^ h'^ i k (leaf 12 cut 
 away) 1 m'^; the index (12 leaves) is of later date. The 
 leaves are numbered 1-156, because leaf 134 is cut away 
 and on leaf 103 the number 102 is wrongly repeated. After 
 leaf 156 another, more recent, quire has been added, of 
 which only the first leaf has been written upon. On the 
 back of the binding (which is quite recent) it bears the title 
 (equally recent): Ingrossatur-Buch Adol. II. lib. II. 31. 
 Kgl. Archiv Wiirzburg M\ainzer\ Ingrossatur buck No. 
 31. The date of the documents entered (not always strictly 
 chronologically) in this volume range from 1463 to 1473. 
 They have evidently been transcribed by different contem- 
 porary scribes, though the volume could not have been 
 commenced before 1470, as a document of this date 
 occurs on fol. 3. The quires seem to have been taken one 
 after another whenever material was necessary for new 
 documents.- 
 
 The transcript of Homery's Letter is found on the recto 
 of fol. 85, which commences with the end (five lines) of a 
 document of 1467. The scribe who copied it wrote also 
 the two preceding documents, both of 1467, and occupying 
 fol. 83 verso, second half, fol. 84 recto and verso and the 
 
T4^as he the Inventor of Printing ? 121 
 
 five first lines of fol. 85 recto ; on the verso of 85 another 
 hand commences. 
 
 The Letter runs thus : 
 
 eynen v^rphlichtunges brieff 
 Doctor Homerij 
 Ich Conradt Homery doctor Bekennen mit diesem brieff so als der 
 Hockwirdigell furste myn gnedig^r lieber Her Her Adolff Ertzbischoff 
 zu Mentz mir etlichellformen buchstaben Instrument gezauwe vnd 
 anders zu dem truckwerckUgehorende dass Johann Gutemberg nach 
 sinem tode gelaissen halt vnd mynllgewest vnd noch ist gnediglich 
 folgen layszen hait. Dass Ich dargegen synen||gnaden zu eren vnd zu 
 gefallen mich verphlichtiget ban vnd v«rphUchtige||mit diesem brieff 
 Also weres dass Ich soliche formen vnd gezuge zuHtrucken gebruchen 
 worde nii oder hemach dass Ich dass thun will vnd||sall bynnen der 
 Stat Mentz vnd nyrgent anderswoe dessglichen ob Ich siell verkeuffen 
 vnd myr eyn burger dauor souiel geben wolte als eyn fromder|| So vpill 
 vnd sail Ich dasz dem Ingesesszen^w Burger zu Mentz vor allen|| 
 fromden gonnen vnd folgen layssen vnd han des alles zu vrkunde myn|| 
 Secret zu ende dieser schrifft getruckt der geben ist des Jars alsman|| 
 schrieyb nach der geburt xpi vnsers hrn Mcccc vnd Ixviij Jare vffllfrytag 
 nach Sant Mathys dag — 1| 
 
 I have found no grounds to suspect the authenticity of 
 the Cartulary in which this transcript is preserved. 
 
 As this Letter of Dr. Homery has given rise to much 
 speculation and some unfounded stories, it will be worth 
 while to see what can be said about it. 
 
 Schaab (Erfind. der Buchdruckerk. i. 179) tells us that 
 
 in former times (sonst) several wooden characters [types] were pre- 
 served at Mentz. They were found, in the first years of the 17th 
 century, in the house zum Sewleffel in the Kirschgarten, which appears 
 to have been inhabited formerly (sonst) by the printer Friedrich 
 Haumaun, born at Nuremberg, the same who bought, in 1508, Guten- 
 berg's printing apparatus from the Mergenthaler Kogelherrn [also 
 called Fratres mice communis]. The printer Albinus showed them 
 about 1604, in the same house, to the Mentz historian Serarius (Mog. 
 rer., 1604, lib. I., p. 159).* A hundred years later they appear to have 
 been seen at Mentz by Faulus Pater (Dissert, de Germanise Miraculo 
 Optimo Maximo, Lips. 1710, 10). 
 
 Further particulars about wooden types may be found in 
 Schaab (1. c), Van der Linde (p. 551). 
 
 Schaab does not here tell us when the Fratres vitse com- 
 munis came into possession of Gutenberg's printing appa- 
 ratus, nor on what authority it is asserted that Friedr. 
 
 i * Serarius speaks of "primi artis hujus modioli." 
 R 
 
12 2 Gutenberg : 
 
 Haumann bought this same apparatus from the Fratres. 
 But Schaab is more explicit with respect to the second ques- 
 tion, on p. 553, where he enumerates some books printed 
 by Haumann or Heumann. He there says that this printer 
 is the same to whom Bodmann asserted (Rheing. Alterth. 
 i. 138, read 136) that the Fratres vitae communis of 
 Marienthal had sold Gutenberg's printing apparatus, which 
 had been transferred to them by the heirs of Hanns 
 Bechtermiintze. 
 
 Schaab returns to Bodmann's statement in his third 
 volume (p. 423), where he says : — 
 
 "Friedrich Heumann (Haumann, Hewmann), of Nuremberg, an- 
 nounced the sixth printing-office (at Mentz) in 1509 by the publication 
 of five works, after which wehear nothing more of him.* It is said (!) 
 that in 1508, when the Kogelherrn at Marienthal ceased to print, they 
 sold to him the new Gutenberg printing-office which they had obtained 
 from the Bechtermiintz heirs. (Bodmann, Rheing. Alterth. i. 136). 
 It is said (!) that his (Heumann's) printing-house was the house zum 
 Saulofel (zum Sewlefel) in the Kirschgarten. In this house the printer 
 Albinus showed, in the year 1604, to the Jesuit Serarius, the wooden 
 types of Gutenberg. "•)• 
 
 Let US now turn to Bodmann, Rheingauische Alter- 
 thiimer (2 vols. 4to., Mainz, 1819), vol. i. pp. 128 and 
 134. There we read : — 
 
 "Eltvril was the home of several learned men, who either were born 
 in it or inhabited it, and the Gudenberg printing-office, — transferred 
 thither by the assistants of Henchin Genszfleisch called Gudenberg, 
 
 * See below (p. 127) where I show that Heumann was still flourishing 
 and printing in 15 12. 
 
 t When I was at Strassburg, last Sept., I was told that a certain 
 bookseller lived in the house where Mentelin had bad his printing- 
 office. Of course, I called on the gentleman, who told me that this 
 was not the fact, but that it was a tradition that he descended 
 (abstammte) from Mentelin. I asked whether he meant that he was a 
 descendant of Mentelin. No, he replied, but there was a tradition 
 that his business v/as a continuation of Mentelin's. I answered that 
 this was precisely what I had been told, but, I asked, how can you 
 explain your business to be a continuation of Mentelin's if, as you state 
 yourself, he did not live in this particular house? No, he replied, but 
 we have his old marks and types (!). My astonishment was on the 
 increase. Could I see them ? A bundle of papers was exhibited to 
 me, as fresh as if tliey had been printed the previous day ; all woodcuts 
 and figures belonging to the 1 6th century, if not later; Mentelin's 
 types, of course, were not among them. It is not unlikely that 
 Serarius and Paulus Pater were told and shown something similar 
 at Mentz and believed in it. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 123 
 
 named Heinrich Bechtermiinze, his brother Niclas Bechtelmiinz [gic], 
 and Wigand Spiesz von Ortenberg, from which several works issued, — 
 gave it a claim to glory and esteem." (p. 134.) "Heinrich Bechter- 
 miinz [Bechtelmonze], a pupil and assistant of Henchin Genszfleisch, 
 genannt Gudenberg, also a patrician and related to Genszfleisch, 
 erected a printing-office at Eltvill during the lifetime of the inventor, 
 and indeed with the latter's own types and printing tools, which had 
 been transferred to him (Bechtermiinz), not as property, but to make 
 use of them. He died, however, before our Genszfleisch, in the year 
 1467, and his brother Niclas finished, with the help of Wigand Spies, 
 the Vocabularium latino-teutonicum, 1467, in small 4°, which Heinrich 
 had commenced. Niclas published in 1469 a new edition of this work, 
 with the same types which he had obtained after the death of Henchin 
 from the Mentz town Syndic, Dr. Conrad Homery." 
 
 On p. 136 Bodmann continues : — 
 
 "Niclas Bechtermiinz was sheriff of the court at Hechtsheim, 
 with Wigand Spies, and appears in this quality often in old (leihbriefen). 
 As he died without male heirs, his considerable property came into the 
 possession of his brother's children, as is evidenced by the detailed 
 document of the division of 1476.* After the death of Hans Bech- 
 termiinz \i.e. Heinrich's sonf], the heirs sold the printing apparatus 
 (Druckerzeug) to the Kogelherrn congregated at Marienthal, and when 
 these ceased to print they transferred it to "Friderich Hauman von 
 Norembergk, dem Buchdrucker im Kirsgarten zu Menz ( Ungedr. Urk. 
 1508)." It was probably there that it perished entirely.''^ 
 
 * This document I cannot find anywhere, and I may remark that 
 Nicholaus was still publishing books in 1477- — ^J- H. H. 
 
 t He died the Sth of August, 1483; see Bodmann, i. 135. 
 
 X Sie [Eltvil] war die Heimath mehrerer gelehrten Manner, die 
 theils aus ihr hervorgiengen, theils solche bewohnten ; und die 
 von Henchins Gensfleisch, genannt Gudenberg Gehiilfen, Namens 
 Heinrich Bechtermiinze, seinem Bruder Niclas Bechtelmiinz, und 
 Wigand Spiesz von Ortenberg, dorthin versetzte Gudenbergische 
 Buchdruckerey, woraus verschiedene Werke zu Tag gefordert 
 wurden, gab ihr auf Ruhm und Achtung gerechten Anspruch. . . . 
 Heinrich Bechtermiinz [Bechtelmonze] ein Schiiler und Gehiilfe 
 Henchin's Genszfleisch, genarmt Gudenberg, gleichfaUs Patrizier, 
 und mit Genszfleisch verwandt, errichtete zu Eltvill noch bey 
 des Erfinders Lebzeiten, und zwar mit dessen eigener, ihm jedoch 
 nicht zum Eigenthum, sondern nur nutzniesslich iiberlassenen Typen 
 und Druckzeuge, eine Buchdruckerey ; er starb aber schon vor 
 unserm Genszfleisch im Jahr 1467, und sein Bruder Niclas voUendete 
 das von ihm angefangene, nun ausserst seltene Werk : Vocabularium 
 latino-teutonicum, 1467, in kl. 4. mit Hiilfe Wigands Spies v. Orten- 
 berg. Eben dieser fertigte 1469 eine neue Auflage davon mit den 
 namlichen Typen, die er nach Henchins Tode, vom Mainzer Stadt- 
 . syndikus (Kanzler) Dr. Conrad Homery .... erhalten hatte .... 
 Niclas Bechtermiinz war mit Wigand Spies Schoffe des Gerichts zu 
 Hechtsheim, und kbmmt in alten Leihbriefen haufig in dieser Eigen- 
 schaft vor. Da er ohne mannliche Leibeserben starb, so fiel seine 
 
124 Gutenberg. 
 
 Bodmann did not publish this unprinted deed of con- 
 veyance of 1508, nor do I find it among the 380 docu- 
 ments which Schaab either mentions or prints in his second 
 volume. If such a document existed in Bodmann's 
 collection it must have come into Schaab's possession, and 
 he could not have failed to see its great importance. In 
 fact, from what Schaab says, it is clear that he did not 
 believe in the existence of such a document. 
 
 Authors who ascribe the Catholicon of 1460 to Gutenberg, 
 do not omit to notice that the types with which this work 
 was printed could scarcely be in the possession of Humery 
 in Feb. 1468, as on the 4th of Nov. 1467, the Vocabu- 
 larium ex qtio, printed with these very t)fpes, was published 
 by Nye. Bechtermiincze and Wygand Spyess, at Eltville, 
 near Mentz, who declare in the colophon that the book 
 was commenced by Henr. Bechtermuncze, the brother 
 of Nicolaus. Schaab (Erfind. der Buchdruckerk., i. 454) 
 endeavours to explain this difficulty in this way : 
 
 As the Elector Adolf II. did not trust the Mentz citizens, whom he 
 persecuted, he took up his residence at Eltville among his beloved 
 Rheingau subjects, and Gutenberg was compelled, on account of his 
 court-service, to follow him thither. Thither Gutenberg also trans- 
 ferred his whole printing-office, and, as Eltville was not more than 
 three hours distance from Mentz on the right bank of the Rhine, the 
 transport of the printing apparatus could easily be effected and without 
 any great cost. At Eltville there lived at that time two noble patri- 
 cians, the brothers Heinrich and Niclas Bechtermiintze. There 
 existed a close connexion between Gutenberg's relatives and the 
 Bechtermiintzes ; when the former came to Eltville, he was old and 
 either could not or would not, on account of his court-service, occupy 
 himself with printing. He, therefore, instructed the Bechtermiintzes 
 in this art and gave them his printing-apparatus, but only for temporary 
 use, as the materials did not belong to Gutenberg but to Dr. Humery. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linda (p. 68) tells us that 
 
 "About 1465 Gutenberg's typographical apparatus was transferred to 
 Eltville, at that time the residence of the Archbishop of Mentz. Two 
 brothers, Heinrich and Niklaus Bechtermiinze, belonging to the Mentz 
 
 betrachtliche Verlassenschaft auf seines Bruders Kinder, wie die 
 weitlauftige Theilungs-Urkunde vom Jahr 1476 (!) bewahret. — Nach 
 Hansen Bechtermiinz Tode verkauften die Erben das Druckerzeug an 
 die zu Marienthal versammelte Kogelherrn, und, als diese zu drucken 
 aufhorten, iiberliessen sie solches an ' ' Friderich Hauman von Norem- 
 bergk, dem Buchdrucker im Kirsgarten zu Menz." (Ungedr. Urk. 
 1508.) Dort war es wahrscheinlich, wo es ganz zu Grande gieng. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 125 
 
 nobility and related to Gutenberg, learned the new art from the inventor 
 himself (!), who even handed his types over to them for temporaiyuse. 
 When Henry died, another patrician, Wigand Spyess von Ortenberg, 
 took his place, and Nicl. Bechtermiinze and he published in 14^7 the 
 Vocabularium ex quo, and a new edition on the 1 5th [read 5th] of June, 
 1469, both with the types of the Catholicon. The later editions of the 
 same work of 12th March, 1472, and 19 [read 2l] Dec. 1477, were 
 printed with a quite similar [sic\ type." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde proceeds : 
 
 "After the death of Nicl. Bechtermiinze, his heirs transferred their 
 material to the Fraternity of the Common Life (Fratres vitse communis) 
 of Mariental in the Rheingau, near Eltville." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde does not deem it necessary to remark 
 that the Fratres are not known to have ever published a 
 book in Gutenberg's or Bechtermiinze's types ; but, with 
 that vagueness and want of research which pervades his 
 whole book, proceeds (in Gothic type) : 
 
 "they (i.e. the Fratres) printed e.g., in 1474, Psalterium et Bre- 
 viarium Moguntiense. In domo fratrum clericorum communis vite 
 Vallis Sancti Marie in Ringkauia." 
 
 as if this book were printed with Bechtermiinze's type. 
 
 He further tells us (p. 69), evidently quoting Schaab, 
 that in 1508 the Fratres vitae communis sold the Bech- 
 termiinze material [he could only mean the Gutenberg 
 material] to Friedrich Hewmann, of Nuremberg, printer in 
 the Kirschgarten at Mentz. But, unlike Schaab, Dr. Van 
 der Linde thinks it quite superfluous to tell us that this 
 double transfer of printing materials was an assertion of 
 Bodmann, which he never substantiated by the publication 
 of the document. Dr. Van der Linde, however, treats us 
 (p. 69) to another particular, which it was Schaab's mis- 
 fortune not to be acquainted with, and which would, if 
 based on fact, enable us to dispense with Bodmann's 
 unpvhlished deed of conveyance. 
 
 This particular is as follows : Friedr. Hewmann published 
 on the 29th of August, 1509, Gabr. Biel, Passionis dominice 
 sermo historialis. It is in this book of 1509 that Helbig 
 made in 1855, what Dr. Van der Linde calls " a most 
 important discovery for the history of typography," and in 
 order not to deprive Helbig of the credit of this discovery 
 he quoted Helbig's own words. 
 
 Helbig described his so-called discovery in these words : 
 "To his astonishment, perhaps to his joy, he found 
 
126 Gutenberg. 
 
 in Biel's work, published in 1509, not the types of the 
 Catholicon, which had been used in the books published at 
 Eltville, but, indeed, the types used in the Letters of In- 
 dulgence of 1454 and 1455, in the Appeal against the Turks 
 of 1455, the Calendar of 1457, the Bible of 36 lines — in a 
 word, he recognized the oldest types of Gutenberg ! " He 
 describes six other works, seven in all, printed by the same 
 printer in the same ancient types of Gutenberg (anciens 
 caractferes de Gutenberg). 
 These works are according to Helbig : 
 
 1 . De fide concubinarum in sacerdotes, questio accessoria causa ioci 
 et urbanitatis in Quodlibeto Heidelbergensi determinata . . . (with 
 colophon): Impressum Maguntie per Fridericum Hewmann. (s. a.) 4" 
 10 leaves with a woodcut (a copy at Paris). 
 
 2. Dial (Florentius) Grammatica initialis valde resoluta . . . (with 
 coloph.) Moguntiae, Frid. Hewmann, 17 Jul. 1509. Small 4". 
 
 This book has also been seen by M. Deschamps ; see his Dictionnaire 
 de Geographie, art. Mogontiacum, col. 854, where he says that ' ' the 
 summaries and commencements of the chapters are incontestably (sic) 
 printed with the types of the 36-line Bible." 
 
 3. Biel (Gabr.) Passionis dominice sermo historialis . . . (with col.) 
 Moguntiae per Frid. Hewman A.D. 1509 d. 29 mens. Augusti. in 8". 
 
 4. Zabern (Jac.) Arsbene cantandi coralem cantum in multitudine 
 personarum laudem Dei resonantium . . . (with col.) Mogunt. per 
 Frider. Hewman, 3 nov. (s. a.) in 12°. 
 
 5. Regimen Sanitatis. Wie man sich durch alle monath des ganzen 
 jares mit essen und trinken haltensoll . . . (with col.) Frid. Hewman 
 imprimebat Moguntie A.D. 1509.104°. 
 
 6. Directorium missae de novo perspectum et emendatum. (with 
 col.) Impressum Maguntie per Frid. Hewman Anno domini Millesimo 
 quingentesimo none. 18II. in 4°. A copy in the Darmstadt Library. 
 
 7. Brant (Sebast.) Liber Moreti docens mores Juvenum in supple- 
 mentum illorum qui a Cathone erant omissi : in vulgare noviter trans- 
 latus (with col. ) Impressus Moguntie per Frid. Hewman, A. virginei 
 partus, 1509. 10 leaves in 4". 
 
 To this number I may add : 
 
 8. De Fide meretricum in suos amatores. Questio . . . deter- 
 minata a magistro Jacobo Hartleib. (with colophon) Impressum 
 Maguntie per Fridericum Hewmann. (s. a.) 10 11. 4°. with a woodcut. 
 (A copy at Paris). 
 
 9. Corvini (Laurentii) Latinum Idioma. Moguntiae, per F. Hewmann 
 (s. a.). A copy mentioned in the Sale-Catalogue (No. 109) of Sotheby, 
 7 Feb. 1870 (Culemann's Library). 
 
 10. Publii Virgilii Maronis Mantuani bucolicum decem seglogarum 
 opus. Maguncie in Eedibus Friderici Hewman. 4°. (s. a.). A copy in 
 the Darmstadt Library. The title only is printed with the Missal-type 
 in question. 
 
 11. Donati Romani editio minor reformata ex vetustissimis ; with 
 
Was he the Inventor' df Printing? 127 
 
 the colophon : Donati Romani editio minor reformata ex vetustissimis. 
 Impressa Mogimtie, per Fridericum Hewman. Explicit. Anno Domini 
 Millesimoquingentesimoduodecimo {i. e. 1512). 32 leaves small 4°. 
 
 I saw a copy of this work, on the 13th Oct. 1881, in the Library of 
 Herr Frid. Culemann at Hanover. The book is entirely printed in the 
 type in question, with the exception of the heading and colophon. 
 
 I think it necessary to translate a few pieces of Helbig's 
 article on this discovery, which he pubHshed in the Bulletin 
 du Bibliophile Beige, torn, xi, Bruxelles, 1855, p. 18. 
 
 " Sometime ago I had the fortune to make a little discovery (una 
 petite decouverte) which is not without importance to clear up several 
 obscure points relative to the history of typographical origines .... 
 My little find (ma petite trouvaille) such as it is, presents, I dare to 
 repeat it, an importance sufficiently great. You will be able to judge 
 of it. — It is well known (11 est bien connu) that when Gutenberg, 
 the illustrious inventor of typography, was appointed gentilhomme of 
 the house of Adolf II. of Nassau, the archbishop and elector of Mentz, 
 he ceded his printing-office to his relative Henri Bechtermiinz, who 
 commenced, at Eltville on the Rhine, near Mentz, his famous edition 
 of the Vocabularius ex quo, finished in 1467. Henri Bechtermiinz 
 dying during the impression of this book, the printing-office was con- 
 tinued by his brother Nicholas, who was joined by Wigand Spies 
 d'Ortenberg. When Nicholas Bechtermiinz died, his heirs ceded the 
 material of the printing-office to the Brothers of the Common Life, at 
 Marienthal in Rheingau, near Eltvill. — The learned Bodmann in his 
 Rheingauische Alterthiimer (Mainz, 1819) torn. i. p. 136, quotes an 
 extract from a deed of conveyance (jiute de vente) of the year 1508, 
 according to which this antique printing-office was sold the same year 
 by the Brothers of the Common Life to Frederic Hewman or Hauman 
 of Nuremberg, printer at Mentz in the Kirschgarten. Schaab (Annales 
 de la Societe d'Histoire du pays de Nassau, p. 64 ; and in his Erfind. 
 der Buchdruckerk. i. 553) reminds us of this passage of Bodmann, but 
 does not seem to believe in it [!]., — Now, one day re-reading this interest- 
 ing passage [of Bodmann], it occurred to me to examine with attention 
 a certain book [namely, Gabr. Biel, Passionis dominicse sermo his- 
 torialis] printed by this Fred. Hauman, which was lying in a neglected 
 comer of my library. I took it up without expecting to discover any- 
 thing in it. I knew that the last productions of the presses of Nic. 
 Bechtermiinz are printed with other types than those of Gutenberg, 
 and that among the known impressions of the Brothers of the Common 
 Life there is not one [!] executed with these characters. Judge of my 
 astonishment, of my joy perhaps, when I recognised in this old book, 
 lately so scorned, not* the types of the Catholicon of 1460, the only ones 
 proceeding from Gutenberg which have been employed in the books 
 issued from the presses at Eltville, but indeed* the characters used in 
 the Letters of Indulgence of 1454 and 1455, '" t^^ Appeal against the 
 Turks of 1455, the Kalendar of 1457 described by Fischer, the 36-line 
 Bible, and all the impressions of Albrecht Pfister — in one word, I 
 discovered the oldest types of Gutenberg ! " 
 
 * The italics are mine. — ^J. H. H. 
 
128 Gutenberg: 
 
 I must give the last sentence in Helbig's own words : 
 " Que Ton juge de men ^tonnement, de ma joie peut-etre, 
 lorsque je reconnus dans le bouquin nagufere si dedaign^ 
 non pas les types du Catholicon de 1460, les seuls pro- 
 venants de Gutenberg qui aient 'et'e employis dans les livres 
 sortis des presses d'Eltvill, mais Men les caractferes mis en 
 usage dans les lettres d'indulgence de 1454 et 1455, dans 
 I'appel contre les Turcs de 1455," &c. 
 
 It is quite natural that Helbig goes on to argue that 
 his discovery would revolutionise the whole history of 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 Let us now see what becomes of Helbig's discovery in 
 the mouth of Theo. L. de Vinne, who published: The In- 
 vention of Printing, in 1877 (Lend, and New York). 
 
 On p. 443 he translates Helbig's last sentence thus : 
 
 " But judge of my astonishment, of my joy, perhaps, when I recog- 
 nized in the neglected book not only* the types of the Catholicon of 
 1460, the only ones appertaining to Gutenberg that could have been 
 employed * in the books that proceeded from the presses of Eltvill, 
 hut also * the types that had been used in the Letters of Indulgence of 
 1454 and 145s, in the Appeal against the Turks of 145S," &c. 
 
 Is this not a pretty translation from the French ? Here 
 Helbig is represented as having discovered two types of 
 Gutenberg, even the types of the Catholicon, in a book 
 printed in 1509. 
 
 It is not going out of my way to tell the reader that Mr. De 
 Vinne is Dr. Van derLinde's pet author. The terrible Dr. Van 
 der Linde, who roars like a lion against any one who does 
 not share his opinions, and who has scarcely one kind word 
 to say of anybody, becomes affectionate and meek and even 
 humble when he mentions De Vinne. On p. 40 he says : 
 " When I quote now and then the transatlantic author {i.e. 
 De Vinne) then I am at the same time grateful and modest, 
 for his book is really an elaborated, improved and illustrated 
 edition of the English translation of my Costerlegend." It 
 is only fair to add that Dr. Van der Linde is sometimes 
 severe on De Vinne also. On p. 114 he points out a 
 curious mistake in De Vinne's book (p. 91), where the 
 latter deals with a German name, and addresses him thus : 
 " You don't understand German, old boy." I think it 
 
 * The italics are mine, and correspond to the words which I have 
 italicised in the French quotation from Helbig. — ^J. H. H.] 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 129 
 
 appears that this transatlantic old boy is somewhat (!) 
 deficient in French too ! When I add that this same De 
 Vinne says on p. 441 of his work that " the Vocabularium 
 ex quo was reprinted by Nicholas Bechtermiintz, in the 
 same(!) types and in the same form, in the years 1469, 
 1472 (!), and 1477 (!)" — and that on p. 36 he makes the stoic 
 Balbus in Cicero's I)e Natura Deorum, ii. 20, speak of "a 
 number of solid and invisible \sic I should be indivisible] 
 bodies," every one will be surprised at Dr. Van der Linde's 
 humility in saying that De Vinne's book is an improved 
 edition of his Haarlem Legend. I for one have a better 
 opinion of Dr. Van der Linde's work on the Haarlem 
 Costerlegend. 
 
 It will be seen from what has been said above that in 
 the course of time four statements have been made which 
 more or less bear on the document of Humery, dated 
 24 Febr. 1468. 
 
 "Vae. first (m. point of time the last) statement is that of 
 Helbig, that seven (eleven) books, printed by Fred. Heu- 
 mann or Haumann, at Mentz, from 1506 till 1509 (should 
 be 1512), contain the type of the 36-line Bible. As Helbig, 
 in common with many others, ascribed this Bible to Guten- 
 berg, his discovery, if founded on fact, would establish the 
 existence of Gutenberg's type as late as 151 2. Helbig 
 made this statement after having read Bodmann's assertion 
 referred to above (see p. 123), and after having examined 
 Gabr. Bid's Passionis dominice sermo, printed by Heumann ; 
 and Dr. Van derLinde, on the strength of Helbig's discovery, 
 established a Gutenberg-school as existing till 1509. Had 
 he known the Donatus, which I saw at Hanover, he would, 
 of course, have made the school last till 15 12. 
 
 I have been able to examine the very book which Helbig 
 had before him, namely Biel's Passionis dominice sermo, 
 printed by Heumann in 1509, of which a copy is in the 
 Brit Museum (pressmark 845. h. 4). I have also examined 
 five other books (preserved in the Paris, Darmstadt, and 
 Culemann Libraries), printed by the same Heumann, 
 in the sa'me type; two mentioned by Helbig (De fide 
 concubinarum in sacerdotes ^uestio, and the Directorium), 
 the others {De fide mereiricum in suos amatores questio, 
 Virgil, Donatus') not. At the first glance at the type, used 
 for the headings or rubrics (in the case of the Donatus for 
 the whole book) in these books, every one accustomed to 
 
 s 
 
130 Gutenberg: 
 
 a minute examination of type must see that it is a typm 
 indeed, in some respects, very much like that of the 36-line 
 Bible, but yet materially smaller, and consequently totally dif- 
 ferent. Some of the capitals are entirely different ; but even if 
 Helbig had carefully examined ihtform of those capitals and 
 some of the small letters, which resemble most those of the 
 Bible, he would not have spoken of an identity between the 
 two types. Nor does Fischer speak of any identity between 
 Heumann's type and that of the 36-line Bible, though 
 he minutely describes (Tyfo^r. Seltenh. i. 66) the Questio 
 defide concubinarum, and mentions (ib. p. 86) the Regimen 
 Sanitatis, and Biel's Sermo. 
 
 As Helbig's so-called discovery of the 36-line Bible 
 type in Heumann's productions is disproved by the 
 very book in which he imagined that he had made it, it 
 is not likely to be verified by the five other works of Heu- 
 mann mentioned by Helbig, which, indeed, I have not seen, 
 but which Helbig does not appear to have seen either. It 
 is true, Heumann may have produced other books, not yet 
 divulged as works of his, but — neither Helbig nor Bodmann 
 professes to know anything about such works. As far, there- 
 fore, as Helbig's discovery is concerned, I feel inclined to 
 regard Bodmann's unpublished deed, of sale of 1508 — which, 
 as far as I know, has never yet been found — as one of those 
 fabrications with which he is known to have amused his 
 bibliographical friends. 
 
 One thing is certain : the two types used by Heumann 
 in the above enumerated books, are of the kind usual at 
 the beginning of the XVI. century, and can have no con- 
 nexion whatever with those usually ascribed to Gutenberg. 
 In Heumann's time, and even much later, it seems to 
 have been the fashion to imitate the types of the early 
 Bibles. For instance, in a Diredorium Misse secundum 
 frequentiorem cursum diocesis Moguntinensis (Brit. Mus. 
 846. k. 16), which was evidently printed at Mentz about 
 this period, the headings of the chapters are printed in 
 a type just as closely resembling that of* the 42-line Bible, 
 as Heumann's type does that of the 36-line Bible. But 
 yet the difference is as visible in the one case as in the other. 
 At Mentz I saw a " Psalterium Spirense ad usum orandi " 
 printed in 15 15, with the same type as Heumann's. In 
 Mr. Culemann's collection I saw a quire of a Missal, which 
 had the colophon : " Impressum Moguntie per Petrum 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 13: 
 
 Scheffer el finitum primo Idus Maij. Anno supra Millesimum 
 Quingentesimo decimooctauo {i.e. 1518)." This Missal 
 (at least the quire I saw) is printed in exactly the same 
 type as Heumann's. Here is material for Dr. Van der 
 Linde for a longer duration and much greater extension of 
 the Gutenberg-school ! 
 
 The second statement is that of Bodmann, that the types 
 which the said Heumann used at Mentz were transferred 
 to him by the Fratres communis vitae of Marienthal near 
 Eltville (see above, p. 123). This statement, which, if 
 proved, would establish the existence of Guteoberg's type 
 from c. 1468-1508, was made by Bodmann on the strength 
 of the deed of sale, as referred to above, which he said 
 was unpublished. 
 
 I have taken the trouble to search for works published 
 by the Fratres communis vitae of Marienthal. Their 
 activity in printing is as yet but little known or even sus- 
 pected. I give, therefore, a list of such of their works as 
 were known or have been discovered by me. They 
 employed two types, the one a little smaller than the other, 
 and with these types published : — 
 
 i). Copia indulgentiarum de institutione festi presenta- 
 tionis beatae Mariae per .... Adolphum, archiepiscopum 
 Moguntinum concessarum. Datum in civitate nostra 
 Moguntina, die penultima mensis Augusti 1468. 
 
 Type I (large). It has no printer's name, no place, no date. The 
 copy in the Paris Library, which is imperfect, has 12 leaves, in one 
 quire of 6 sheets, small folio, with 40 lines on a full page. Cf. 
 Fischer, Seltenheiten, vi. 126 ; Bernard, Orig. de I'impr. ii. 17. Not 
 mentioned by Hain. 
 
 11). Gerson (Joh.) Opusculum tripartitum de praeceptis 
 decalogi, de confessione et de arte moriendi. 
 
 36 leaves (a b c^°), 4°, with 25 uneven lines, no signatures, no place, 
 no printer's name, no date. It is wholly printed in one (the large) 
 type, and Bernard {Orig. de Pimp. ii. 18) is in error in saying that the 
 Gerson is printed with the two types of the Psalter. The late Mr. 
 Alfred J. Horwood, of the Middle Temple, possessed a copy, which 
 I have been able to examine, and from which I append the description. 
 
 Leaf I blank ; 2' : [CjRistianitati suus qualiscuqjilzelator. psperum 
 ad virtutesll ; 35" line 16 : Explicit opusculu triptitum de preceptisH 
 decalogi De confessione T; de arte morie-||di. p eximiii sacre theologie 
 pfessore Ma-||gist5 iohanem de Jersona alme vniuersi-||tatis pisiens' 
 CanceUariii.il ; 35'' and 36 blank. 
 
 I saw another copy, agreeing with this, in the Darmstadt Library. 
 
132 Gutenberg: 
 
 Cf. also Fischer, Seltenh., vi. 128 ; Hain, (7654 not seen) mentions 
 an edition which differs from this. 
 
 III). Psalterium Breviariumque Maguntinense. 
 
 Hain (3862) and Brunet (I. col. 1237) mention this work, 
 but in a vague way. Hain, who has not seen the book, 
 speaks of 2 volumes : I. (341 leaves), H. (380 leaves) ; so 
 does Brunet. They both speak of two varieties, and this is, 
 as far as I know, the extent to which every writer has gone. 
 I have examined all the volumes of this work, preserved at 
 Darmstadt, Mentz, and Frankfurt a/M., which enables me 
 to say that there are several editions, of certain portions at 
 least, of the work. The following bibliographical descrip- 
 tion — the absolute accuracy of which I cannot guarantee, 
 as I made the collation in the hurry of a journey, and 
 without anticipating in the one place that I should find 
 fresh varieties in the next place — will, I hope, be found 
 useful towards a future, more complete and exhaustive, 
 description. 
 
 It seems strange that both Hain and Brunet should 
 think that the work was printed by Peter Schoefer. 
 
 At Mentz ; Volume A* (Pars hiemalis) : 
 i) Kalendar ; a quire of 8 leaves : 
 
 Leaf I": 
 
 [S]ubiectu volumen psalterij breuiarij% ma-||giitinens'. im- 
 pssorie artis idustria pfectu. tllfelicit osumatO e. in domo 
 fratru dericoJUcoTs vita valhs see marie eiusde dioces' in 
 Ringka-lluia. Anno diii. M.cccc.lxxiiij. sabb'o post Remisce. 
 Il&c. ; l'" line I : Sequuntur bndictiones in matutinis.H; 2"- 7'' 
 Kalendar ; 8* and 8'' Litera dominicalis ; Aureus numerus 
 and Indictio. By the side of these on 8» : Hee tres tabule 
 Incipiiit. An-||no diii Millesimo quadringe-||tesimo septua- 
 gesimo qfto. Et||&c. ; 8'" (by the side of the continuation of 
 the Litera demin. &c.): Septuagesima at%||interuallum alicui^ 
 ii^c. 
 
 The copy at Paris (Biblioth. nat. B 2442, reserve) agrees with this 
 description, according to information received from Prof. Paul Meyer, 
 who kindly collated it for me. 
 
 * There are four volumes at Mentz. As I did not notice that they 
 bore any press-mark, I name them A, B, C, D for convenience of 
 reference and identification. 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing ? 133 
 
 2) Psalteriu77t 
 
 Collation :abcdefgh i'°, go leaves ; no signatures, with 
 hyphens. Types : I (large) and 2 (small). 
 
 Leaf I* line I (in small type) : Diiicis noctib} du de tjie o65ciu 
 d'r Inuit. ab octalsll ; line 20 (large type) : [B]eat^ vir qui no 
 abijt inll ; leaf 89'' Greek text ; 90 blank. 
 
 The copy at Paris agrees with this description. 
 
 3) Temporale 
 
 Collation: aa'^ (registrum aduentus), leaves 1-12; abcdef 
 g h i k 1 m>" n o"p q"'rs''( + 9) 173 leaves ; leaves 13-185 Tem- 
 porale. 
 
 Leaf I" line I ; Incipit registrum aduentus. li[S]i A fuerit If a 
 diiicalis. Aduetus diii celebratH ; li', last line (28) : dib} ij. ferie 
 post diiica iiij. Cetera vt in breuiario.H ; 12 blank ; 13' line i : 
 Dominica prima aduentus in primis vespis. Ai;.||[H]Ora est 
 iam nos de somno sur-||&c.; iSs' line 22 : auconis de quo satis 
 dictu est in loco suo.|| 
 
 The Paris popy agrees with this description. 
 
 4) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b" c'» d<, 36 leaves. 
 
 Leaf I" line l : [I]ncipit omune scoj. Primo de apl'is. 
 In vigilllia apl'o^ Ad ix Aii. In paciecia vfa Cap et|| ; 33'' 
 last line (24) : dragesima. vt notat diiica prima post trinitatis. || ; 
 34-36 blank ; (36 is cut away). 
 
 The Paris copy agrees with this description. 
 
 At Mentz ; Volume B (Pars estivalis) : 
 i) Kalendar, 8 leaves, same as in vol. A 
 
 2) Psalterium 
 
 Collation : a b c d e f g h i^", 90 leaves. 
 
 Leaf 1° line i (in small type) : Diiicis noctib} dii de tpe ofliciii 
 d'r. Inuitatoriu ab|| ; line 21 (in large type) : [B]eatus vir 
 qui non abijt|| 
 
 3) Temporale 
 
 Collation : a b c d'" e* f g h i k'° I", 106 leaves. No signatures. 
 
 Leaf I" li. i : [I]N die sco pasce Ad matutinas. prius % 
 dicatll ; line 3 : Lapidem exclusiue. Gl'a pri. Kyriel'. Xpeel'. 
 Kyriel'. Pr|| 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b c d e f g h'» i k", 104 leaves. No signatures. 
 This edition ends leaf 104'' line 20 : ibidem. Cetera de festo 
 dedicaconis. 
 
134 Gutenberg: 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b'" c" ( + 12), 33 leaves. 
 
 Leaf I line I : [I]ncipit omune sancto^. Primo de apl'is.|[; 
 17' line 1 : no timuit. Fundatus eni erat supra firma petra. v|| 
 
 At Mentz : Volume C (Pars hiemalis) : 
 i) Kalendar = A^. 
 
 2) Psalterium = A^ 
 
 3 ) Temporale = A^ 
 
 4) Commune Sanctorum = A* 
 
 At Mentz : Volume D (Pars estivalis) : 
 
 i) Kalendar (imperfect, only two last leaves) ^ Mentz A' 
 
 2) Psalterium 
 
 CoUation : a b c'" d e f g h' i k'°, 90 leaves. 
 
 Leaf I is wanting ; I am therefore unable to identify the 
 particular edition. It is, I believe, =Psalter of Darmst. 5610 
 
 3) Temporale 
 
 Collation : a b c d e f ' g'" h i k 1 m n°, io5 leaves. No 
 signatures. 
 
 Leaf I' line I : [I]N die sco pasce Ad matutinas. prius ^ 
 dicatll ; line 3 : vsu. lapide exclusiue. Gl'a. Kyriel'. Xpeel'. 
 Kyriel'. Pr|| 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a'° b c d e f ' g h i'" k 1 m n o p q' r', 142 leaves. 
 No signatures. 
 
 Leaf 104'' line 20 : cantet ibidem. Cetera de festo dedi- 
 caconisll. After this the volume goes on, without any break, 
 with the histories of some Saints : Boniface, Gregory, &c. This 
 is explained on the recto of last leaf : Notandum quod huic 
 breuiario supifraddite su«t ali||que historic speciales que no» 
 sunt de registro. ser||uantur tamea in maiori ecclesia Magun- 
 tinensi. Videlicet d^Hsanctis pr« parte estiuali, &c. 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b c° d'", 34 leaves. 
 
 Leaf I" line i : [I]ncipit omune sanctoj. Primo de apl'is.H ; 
 1 7» line I : no timuit. Fundatus eni erat supra 6rma petra. v|| 
 
 U The Library at Mentz possesses two w//»ot fragments of some part 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 135 
 
 of the Breviary, but my time did not allow me to ascertain which part 
 they belonged to. (See also below, Darmstadt, W 5610). 
 
 At Darmstadt: pressmark W 5608 (Pars estivalis) : 
 i) Kalendar {^z.vi)xa%y) 
 
 2) Psalterium 
 
 Collation : abcdefgh i'", 90 leaves. No signatures ; with 
 hyphens. Leaf l» line I (in small type) : Diiicis noctib} du de 
 tpe officiu d'r. Inuit. ab octaisH ; line 20 (large type) : 
 [B]eat^ vir qui no abijt in|| ; leaf 90 (blank) wanting. 
 
 3) Temporale = Mentz B^ 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum = Mentz B* 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b'" c'" ( + c 12), 33 leaves. No signatures. 
 Leaf 1°: [I]ncipit omune scoj. Primo de apl'is. In vigi|| 
 
 At Darmstadt : pressmark W 5609 (Pars estivalis) : 
 i) Kalendar {wsxitoigf) 
 
 2) Psalterium 
 
 Collation : a b c'° d e f g h' i k'°, 90 leaves. No signatures, 
 but the quires are signed in writing b — 1 ; the kalendar is, I 
 believe, wanting in the volume. 
 
 Leaf I" line i (small type) : Diiicis noctib^ dum de tpe 
 officiu d'r. Inuitatoriiill ; line 21 (large type) : [B]Eat^ vir qui 
 non abijt in osill 
 
 3) Temporale 
 
 Collation : a b c d e f^ g'" h i k 1 m n', io6 leaves. No sig- 
 natures. 
 
 Leaf I" line 3 : vsu. lapide exclusiue. Gl'a. Kyriel'. Xpeel', 
 Kyriel'. P?|| 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum 
 
 As far as I was able to see, this part = Mentz D' ; but there 
 may be some difference in some part of the volume. 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b c' d'", 34 leaves. No signatures. 
 
 Leaf I" : [I]ncipit comune sancto^. Primo de apl'isH ; J7" 
 line I : no timuit. Fundatus enl erat supra firma petram. v|| ; 
 leaf 34 blank. 
 
1 36 Gutenberg . 
 
 At Darmstadt : pressmark W 5610 (Pars estivalis). 
 i) Kalendar, 8 leaves (perhaps = Frankfurt Kal.) 
 Leaf i« blank ; i*- - 8» Kalendar ; 8" blank. 
 
 2) Psalterium 
 
 Collation : a b c'° d e f g h' i k'", 90 leaves. No printed 
 signatures, but the quires are signed in writing a — 1, which 
 includes the kalendar. 
 
 Leaf 1" line i (in small type) : Diiicis noctib^ dtt de tpe 
 officii! d'r. InuitatoriuH ; line 21 (large type) : [B]Eat^ vir 
 qui no abijt in cosi|| 
 
 The Library at Mentz possesses of this edition the first quire only. 
 
 3) Temporale = Mentz D' 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum = Mentz D* 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum 
 
 Collation : a b c" d'", 34 leaves. No signatures. 
 
 Leaf I" : [I]ncipit comune sancto^. Prime de apl'isU ; leaf 17 
 line I : no timuit. Fundatus eni erat supra firma petra. v|| ; 
 leaf 34 blank. 
 
 At Frankfurt a/M : pressmark 315 (Pars estivalis) : 
 i) Kalendar = Mentz A^ 
 
 2) Psalterium = Darmstadt W 5608 
 
 3) Temporale = Mentz B^ 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum = Mentz B* 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum = Darmstadt W 5608 
 
 At Frankfurt a/M : pressmark 317 (Pars estivalis) : 
 i) Kalendar, 8 leaves. 
 
 Leaf I" blank ; l'' line I : Secunt bndictiones in matutinisH ; 
 I*" line 31 : Ferijs tercijs. qntis. et sabbato de scd'o noctumo|| ; 
 2« — 7I' Kalendar ; 8 (blank ?) wanting. 
 
 2) Psalterium = Darmstadt W 5610 
 
 3) Temporale = Mentz D' 
 
 4) Proprium Sanctorum = Mentz D* 
 
 5) Commune Sanctorum = Mentz D^ 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 137 
 
 o 
 
 '%.■ 
 
 •d 
 o 
 
 VI 
 
 <u 
 13 
 
 > 
 .0 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 ^c3 
 
 6 a B a s e 
 sssee g 
 
 000000 
 cl d 2 g d d 
 
 • C4 CQ n Rl Co tQ 
 
 (/3 [/3 M c/3 en U3 
 
 a a a a a a 
 
 3 3 3 3 3 3 
 
 •C-C'C-C-C'C 
 
 'Tl CU CI4 PU D4 CU Oi 
 
 2? o o o o o o 
 
 •r! fi< p-1 (ii PH fc Cm 
 
 a. 
 
 4-* Ui 
 
 - § 
 
 ^t3 o 
 
 ■o >■ 
 
 ^ CI 
 
 s ^ 
 
 to 'p 
 
 llslp. ii 
 
 O 5 S ^ *" '"^ "^ '" ••> "*t< H 
 
 gStJ C owH aW fiW aB 
 "m'^ "rS^-^ o^ o^ u-n n 
 
 
 »t3 .>j 
 
 O^ 
 C! -^ 
 oi tao 
 
 -a ^ 
 
 w O 
 
 fi CI 
 
 O l-H 
 <U 
 
 }H 
 
 a a 
 
 (3 V 
 
 ...-a -a 
 a 3 s 3 a K-a 
 
 tncn 3 en 3 CO g 
 
 oPm 
 
 S 
 
 <u 
 
 CO coco 
 
 a a 
 
 3 3 
 
 m « 
 
 PhPh 
 
 a a 
 
 a a 1 a K B H 
 a a^ a"^ a^ 
 
 o o,-^ O'- 0-;=; 
 tj U cou cojj CO 
 
 "2 '2 •-'2 —"3 
 9 SEd 6H 9 
 
 P-l rM ri 
 
 a a u a " a I 
 
 ;5J S o S o S « 
 -1-1^ cu*^ cu-*-* s 
 
 "3 « a'3 a'<« m 
 
 P^ 
 
 a, 
 <u 
 .a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 •a " rt •» 
 
 ri !3 S » ca ra ,2^ _»• 
 
 .3 £2 
 
 S S "TD T3 'U ^ 
 S S 3 3 3 K 
 
 ^'^^'^ M '^'^ M W l-l NN II ;^ 
 
 ■ • -CO ON O 
 
 o o "i ■ • - 
 
 VO lO vO 
 
 < MO 
 
 - R H « a a ,55 
 
 a 5 Is a 5 B 
 
 Cll 
 
 ■6 
 
 73 
 
 c 
 o 
 o 
 
 (U 
 
 8 
 
 
 "§MQ 
 
 
 ■^11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rh 
 
 
 i 
 
 00 giO 
 
 "vj ■* « « 
 
 mwiio 
 
 Co ^ M N 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ d l=i C TIJ 1 
 
 g U 0) t 
 
 ClI 
 
 gsss 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 00 ^o 
 
 o o >-« 
 
 \0 'O ^ 
 
 ?: 3 cj 'O 
 
 k a >s a c3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 •g 
 
 
 CL, 
 
 c^ 
 
 ar. 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 3 ^^ 
 
 ■3< 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 |pi; 
 
 !^ 
 
 S 
 
138 Gutenberg: 
 
 ' iv) Letters of Indulgence with printed date 1484. 
 Broadside folio sheet, 33 uneven lines in the large type, 
 IS lines in the small type. 
 
 See a notice of this Indulgence in ArcMvfiir Hess. Gesch., vol. x. 
 p. 186, by H. Sahl, who discovered it in the binding of a work (Newe 
 Reformation der Stadt Nurmberg von 1479) printed at Niimberg 
 (Koberger) 1484. It is printed with the two types of the Psal- 
 terium, and is preserved in the Darmstadt Hofbibliothek (see Ph. 
 A. F. Walther, Hofbibliothek zu Darmstadt, p. 90), where I examined 
 it on Oct. 3rd, 1881. The copy has not been issued, as the blanks 
 for the name, month, and day of the month are not filled in. 
 
 v) Nic. de Lyra Postilla in 4 Evangelia, without date. 
 
 y\x\%ffth work is mentioned by Bodmann (Rheing. Alterth. i. 218) 
 as having been printed by the Fratres, and he says that he saw a copy 
 of it in the hands of Ritter v. Horn at Frankfurt a/M. I havfe seen 
 a copy (perhaps the very one Bodmann had before him) in the Town 
 Library of Frankfurt a/M. on the loth Oct. 1881. It is a large folio of 
 300 leaves (collation : a b c(i2-i-)de fghiklmnopqrstuxyz 
 AB""), with 42 not always even lines; no printed signatures; no initial 
 directors ; with hyphens. WhoUy printed in the large type (i). 
 
 Leaf I is wanting. 
 
 Leaf 2 li. i : irascitur fratri suo. reus erit iudicio. et eode modo dicit 
 In alijs p — II 
 
 Leaf 300* li. 35 : nro ih'u cristo. Qui ciSpre et spii sco viuit t 
 regt i sed'a secl'oj. Ame || 
 
 lines 36 and 37 blank. 
 
 li. 38 : Explicit postilla super Johanem Nicolai de lyra.jl 
 
 Leaf 300'' blank. 
 
 This edition does not appear to be mentioned by Hain, 
 nor in any other catalogue. 
 
 I can further describe as productions of the Marienthal 
 press : 
 
 vi) Cerimoniae nigrorum monachorum ordinis S. Bene- 
 dict! de obseruancia Bursfeldensi. The date of printing 
 may perhaps be placed after 1474. See note below. 
 
 Collation : a b c d e f g h i k'" 1'°, 112 leaves, 26 uneven lines, with 
 hyphens ; no initials ; no initial directors ; no printed signatures ; wholly 
 printed in the large type (i). 
 
 Leaf I* : Prologus cerimoniarii nigroru mona- 1| chorii ordinis sancti 
 Bndicti de ohseruan- 1| cia Bursfeldensi. || [Q]uonia apl'i pauli de solli- 1| ; 
 3" : Tabula capl'of prime distinctois. || De electione noui abbatis. C . . 
 i. II ; 4'' li. 13 : ExpUciut tabule capl'oj. olm distictionu. || De electione 
 noui abbatis. || ; 112'' line 23 : ageret.a' al's put sibi visii ftie'it expe- 
 dire. || ; line 24 blank ; line 25 : Expliciut cerimonie nigro^ mochoj. || 
 ordis scl biidci de obs'uacia bursfeld'. II 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 139 
 
 I found two copies of this work in the Mentz Library. It is 
 mentioned by Hain 4883 (not from eyesight), who adds, between 
 parentheses, Forte Mogunt. Petrus Schoffer, which I can say is not the 
 fact. There is also a copy in the British Museum (pressmark 854. g. 3). 
 In the Catalogue of that Institution the work is ascribed to the printer 
 J. Veldener, of Cologne (!). » 
 
 vii) Ordinarius Divinorum Monachorum Ord. S. Bene- 
 dict! de obseruancia Bursfeldensi (After 1474?) 
 
 Collation : abcdefgh i'°, 90 leaves, 26 uneven lines, with 
 hyphens ; no initials ; no initial directors ; no printed signatures ; wholly 
 printed in the large type (l). 
 
 Leaf I" : Prolog^ ordinarij d'inoij. nigroj. m5cho^ || ordis sci biidicti 
 de obs'uacia Bursfeldesi. || [Q]uia pphetico oraculo diim 1 ty- 1| ; 2" li. 16 : 
 ppellatur. Explicit plogus. || Sequitur tabula. || ; 90" li. 20 : subsequi 
 debent. Amen. ||; lines 21 and 22 blank ; line 23 : Explicit ordinarius 
 diuino^ nigro^ || monachof de obs'uacia Bursfeldensi. || ; lines 25 and 26 
 and go*" blank. 
 
 This work I found also in the Mentz Library. It is 
 mentioned by Hain 12059 (not from eyesight), who re- 
 marks : (Mogunt., P. Schoffer. Cohaerei fortasse c. n. 4883). 
 It is certainly printed in the Marienthal larger type (i)* 
 There is a copy in the British Museum (pressmark 845. i. i). 
 In the new (printed) Catalogue of that Institution the book 
 is ascribed to the priiiter, P. Schoeffer, at Mentz (!). 
 
 viii) Decor mariane vallis in Ringauia, 8vo. 32 pp. 
 Bodmann (Rheing. Alterth. i. 217), speaks of this work 
 as containing the history of Marienthal, and as having 
 been printed in the XVth cent, probably in the Marienthal 
 press. I have been unable to trace this book anywhere. 
 
 * Herr Culemann at Hannover has a leaf of this work which he told 
 me he had found together with another blank leaf on which is written: 
 " Anno Christi — 1435 — durante adhuc Sacro concilio Basiliensi ordinis 
 S.jBenedicti Reformatio ac Vnio Bursfeldina, per vtramque Germaniam 
 inierit in nionasterio Clusensi, Ducatus Brunsuicensis, ac Diocsesis 
 
 Hildesheimensis. Anno — 1440 — ■ Moguntiss ab ingeniosissimo 
 
 quodam Johanne Gutenbergo, fuit omnium primo inuenta, ac temporis 
 progressu magis magisque aucta et illustrata, vtUissima ilia Ars typo- 
 
 graphica sive impressoria. Anno — 1474 — In Recessu annalis Capi- 
 
 tuli praefatae sacrae Vnionis Bursfeldensis decretum fuit a Patribus quod 
 assumptarum et Apostolice confirmatarum Caerimoniarum ac diuino- 
 rum Liber, hucusque manuscriptus, debeat Moguntiae imprimi ; 
 
 Putoque inde prodisse hoc Exemplar primorum typorum. Anno — 
 
 1530 — Iterum fuerunt Moguntiae typis pulchrioribus conjunctim excusa, 
 in folio quarto Martyrologium, Regula, Caerimoniae, ac Ordinarius 
 diuinorum . Qui codex etiam habetur in Camera domini Abbatis in 
 Marien Munster. Oretur pro beneuolo Scriptore fr, Jod. R." 
 
140 Gutenberg: 
 
 Of the above eight works, printed from 1468 till 1484, 
 Bodmann knew Nos. i, 11, in, and v. He mentions them 
 himself (Rheing. Alterth. i. 218) as having been printed 
 at Marienthal by the Fratres communis vitae, and if he 
 was acquainted with tlie works printed by Heumann, he 
 must have seen that there is absolute difference between 
 the types of the two oflfices. At any rate, we know now 
 that there is no question of identity between them. We 
 also know that hitherto no other types have been found 
 which can be said to have belonged to the Fratres. 
 
 What then could the Fratres have transferred to Heu- 
 mann by that unpublished deed of sale of which Bodmann 
 speaks ? 
 
 The third statement is again one of Bodmann {Rheing. 
 Alterth. i. 136), that the Fratres communis vitae, of 
 Marienthal, had bought [after Aug. 5, 1483?] type (namely 
 Gutenberg's type) from the heirs of Hans Bechtermuncze 
 (the son of Heinrich) of Eltville. 
 
 Now, it will be admitted on all hands that the Fratres of 
 Marienthal used, till 1484 at least, two types in the works 
 which are enumerated above, which in design and peculiarity 
 stand separate from all other types used in the 15th century. 
 Schaab (Erfind. Buchdr. i. 509) already said, "in their form 
 they have something peculiar, characteristic, which we find 
 neither in Gutenberg's nor in Schoeffer's oifice." Fischer 
 {Seltenh. vi. 130) tells us: "manner, character, even the 
 black (colour of the ink) indicate a particular printer." 
 Consequently, it will be admitted on all hands that there is no 
 identity of types either between those of the Fratres of 
 Marienthal and the Bechtermunczes of Eltville on the one 
 hand, or of the Fratres and Heumann on the other. Schaab 
 (1. c.) speaks of " a close connexion ( Verbindung) between 
 the press of the Fratres of Marienthal and that of Guten- 
 berg at Eltville," but he does not state what the nature of 
 the connexion can have been, nor can I find that Bodmann 
 gives any authority for his assertion that the Fratres had 
 bought their type from the heirs of the Bechtermunczes. 
 We know for certain that the Eltville press or presses pro- 
 duced, from 1467 till 1477, at least four works or rather 
 four editions of one work, of which I shall speak when 
 treating of the fourth statement. As I am equally certain 
 that these are not printed in the types which we find in the 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 141 
 
 books of the Fratres, it may be here said that if the types, 
 which we at present know to have been used by the 
 Eltville press or presses, by the Fratres of Marienthal, and 
 by Fried. Heumann at Mentz, are the only ones they ever 
 did use, then there can have been no connexion whatever 
 between their several printing-offices, at least not in the 
 way of a transfer of types. Consequently the theory of a 
 continuance of a Gutenberg, or any other printing, school, 
 through the Fratres or Heumann, cannot, under the present 
 circumstances, be accepted. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that Bodmann, when treating of 
 Marienthal, does not speak of any transfer of type what- 
 ever, and merely says (i. p. 212) that "the Fratres erected 
 their own press in 1462, when Mentz was destroyed." 
 
 The fourth statement is that the Bechtermunczes were 
 printing, in 1467, at Eltville, with the type of the Catho- 
 licon of 1460, and had obtained this type, in the first 
 instance, from Johann Gutenberg, not as property, but by 
 way of loan, when his dignity, as a member of the court of 
 the Archbishop of Mentz, prevented him from printing 
 himself j while, after 1468, they bought this very same 
 type from the Syndic Homery, who was, according to the 
 document of 26 Febr. 1468, the owner of Gutenberg's 
 printing-office. 
 
 With regard to this fourth statement I can speak less de- 
 cisively than with respect to the three others. But I will 
 give what I have found. 
 
 On the 4th Nov. 1467, a Latin-German Vocabulary, 
 known as the Vocabularius Ex quo, was published at Eltville 
 (Altavilla) near Mentz, with the following colophon on leaf 
 lee"" (line 24) : — 
 
 Presens hoc opusculu no stili aut penne suf- 1| fragio sj noua 
 artificiosaij inuencone qua- || dam ad eusebiam dei industrie per 
 henricum || bechtermuncse pie memorie in altanilla est || inchoa- 
 tum. et demii sub anno diii M.cccc. || Ixvij. ipo die leonardi con- 
 fessoris qui fuit || quarta die mensis nouembris pnycolaum 1| 
 bechtennuC3e fratrem dicti henrici et wy- || gandu spyes3 de 
 orthenberg e consummatii 1 1 Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cu 
 flamie sacro || Laus et honor diio trino tribuatur et vno || Qui 
 laudare pia semp no linque mariam. 
 
 Collation : a^^ b c d e f g h i kl m n" o p' q" r=, l66 leaves, 
 4°, 35 uneven lines to a page ; no printed signatures, with 
 hyphens, no initials, no initial directors. Leaf I (blank?) 
 wanting; leaf 2'(line i): [E]xquo vocabularij varij autetici 
 
142 Gutenberg: 
 
 videlic3 || hugwicp katholico breuileg^ papyas || alij que codices 
 sut 1 5pac6ne pciosi in || coUectoe plixi et itellcoe obscuri et 
 in II numeo multi ita paupes scholaes eosde de facili 1 1| ; etc. 
 
 The unique copy of tiiis edition in the Paris National Library 
 wants the first leaf (probably blank), is otherwise in perfect 
 condition, and has still at the foot of the leaves the signatures 
 written in by hand. 
 
 The book was republished on the 5th June, 1469, with 
 the following colophon on leaf \(>(^ (line 24) : — 
 
 Presens hoc opusculu no stili aut penne suf- || fragio S3 
 noua artificiosaij inuencoe qua^ || dam ad eusebiam dei Indus- 
 trie per nicolaii || bechtermutje In Eltuil est Ssumatu Sub || 
 anno domini M.cccc. Ixix ipe (sic) die sci boni || facij quj fuit 
 quinta die mens'_Iunij || Hinc tibi sancte nato cu flamine sacro || 
 Laus et honor dno trino tribuatur et vno || Qui laudare pia semp 
 no linque mariam. 
 
 Collation : a''^ b c d e f g h i k 1 m n'" o p= q" i«, 166 leaves, 
 4°, 35 uneven lines to a page, no printed signatures (the quires 
 of the Paris copy are signed by the rubricator i-xvi, the last 
 quire not signed), vrith hyphens, no printed initials, no initial 
 directors. 
 
 Leaf I blank ; 2' : [E]xquo vocabularij varij autetici videlicz || 
 hugwico katholico breuilegS' papyas || alij que codices sut 1 
 9pac5ne pciosi in coUectoe plixi et i tellectoe obscuri t i || 
 numeo multi ita paupes scholaes eosde defacili 1 1| etc. 
 
 Both editions are printed in one and the same type, 
 which is said to be the identical type with which the 
 Catholicon of 1460, and some other smaller works have 
 been printed. 
 
 I have carefully compared these two Eltville editions of the 
 Vocabulary, both preserved in the Paris National Library, 
 with the Catholicon, and do not feel at liberty to deny that the 
 types are identical. At one time I thought the Vocabulary 
 type was thicker, but more closely placed, and therefore not 
 taking more room than that of the Catholicon. But this 
 idea I abandoned again. In fact the letters are so minute 
 that I do not know how any difference, suppose it 
 existed, could be detected. I found, however,' certain 
 additions in the type of the Vocabularies, which are not in 
 the Catholicon, such as (i) a somewhat long sign for us 
 (^) projecting above the line*; (2) a contraction for et (T;), 
 
 * The Catholicon has such a contraction too, even two different ones ; 
 one small, for which see the words Akstis, Accio, Adulatorculm, Alers, 
 Aniilaris, Benigniis, Bcrbex, Castcllanus, penitus (in vol. 2 leaf l'") ; 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 143 
 
 which, in the Catholicon, is always expressed in full(^/). This 
 sign for et (T;) is the same as that which appears in the type 
 of the Vocabularius Ex quo of 1472 ; see below (p. 148) ; 
 (3) a contraction for tis (tf). The edition of 1469 has all 
 these additions, but here also a new s* makes its appearance 
 by the side of the former s, which I find neither in the 
 Catholicon nor in the Vocabularius of 1467, and which 
 clearly belongs to the type of the edition of 1472, where 
 I observed two kinds of s. 
 
 Authors, who ascribe the Catholicon of 1460 to Guten- 
 berg, argue, not unreasonably, that Gutenberg must have 
 granted the use of his types to the Eltville printers with the 
 consent of Homery, whose property they were, when he 
 himself became attached to the court of Archbishop Adolf 
 (cf Schaab, i. 473, sq.). As in the Vocabularius of 1469 
 Nicolaus Bechtermuntze alone is mentioned as printer, 
 Schaab concludes that, his brother Henry having left heirs, 
 Nicolaus must have obtained possession of the Catholicon 
 type after Gutenberg's death, by a special agreement with 
 Homery, who must have made him proprietor, with the 
 exclusion of Henry's heirs and Wigand Spiess. 
 
 It may be observed that a loan of the Catholicon type by 
 Gutenberg to Bechtermuncze before 1467, seems to accord 
 ill with the fact that in 1468 the Archbishop of Mentz 
 handed t5rpes, said to have been Gutenberg's, to Homery, 
 its real proprietor. In fact, if we admit the Homery docu- 
 ment to refer to the Catholicon type, and admit also that 
 the Eltville Vocabularies are printed in this type, then 
 the migrations of the Catholicon type have been rather 
 strange : in 1460 (and perhaps in 146 1) it is at Mentz ; in 
 1467 at Eltville in the hands of Henr. and Nicol. Bechter- 
 muncze ; in 1468 in the hands of the Archbishop of Mentz 
 
 another larger, for which see Athomus, Bachius, Biplex, Bito, Bitu- 
 men, Bovinus, Buris, Cachinnor, Caluo, Candela, Candidarius, Cano- 
 peum, etc., etc. This larger one seems to have been occasionally used 
 also for con-, see Accio, Bobino, Matesis. But in no instance do they 
 resemble the long, thin sign which appears in the Vocabularies of 1467, 
 1469. ^ 
 
 * There is no difficulty in distinguishing the new s from the 
 old : see for an example the words Abarim (where the s of mons is the 
 old, the s of moyses the new s), Abdias (where the new s occurs at the 
 end of the words legatus, missus, and gentes, whereas Abdias and 
 seruus have the old). 
 
144 Gutenberg: 
 
 at Eltville, who in the same year handed it over to Homery 
 at Mentz, the latter promising not to sell it outside the 
 walls of Mentz; yet he must have transferred it very 
 quickly again to Nic. Bechtermuncze at Eltville, as the 
 latter already completed the new edition of the Vocabu- 
 lary on the 5th of June, 1469. 
 
 It is possible that the Archbishop disposed of Guten- 
 berg's type in his "Capacity of supreme ecclesiastical authority 
 of the diocese, and would have acted in this capacity, even 
 if Gutenberg had not been attached to his court, and need 
 not necessarily have had Gutenberg's goods in his hands. 
 It is also possible that the Homery document stands in 
 connexion with Henry Bechtermuncze's death which had 
 taken place before Nov. 4, 1467, and which may have 
 necessitated some settlement in the Eltville printing-oiiice. 
 But if the transaction between the Archbishop and 
 Homery has been a purely administrative one, and referred 
 to the Catholicon type, it seems strange that it should have 
 been expressed in such vague terms, that no mention 
 should have been made of the Bechtermunczes, and that 
 Homery should have made such a promise as is contained 
 in the document of 1468, without stating the condition of 
 affairs as we now presume it to have been. 
 
 Again, why should not Gutenberg have attempted to 
 come to some arrangerhent with Homery regarding the 
 latter's property when he' himself ceased to make use of it, 
 and transferred it to other persons? Above all, why 
 should the two Bechtermunczes, and a third nobleman, 
 have printed books, and published their name in them, 
 with tools and type which were handed to them by a 
 person who owed the money for them to another party ? 
 I confess I cannot myself suggest any satisfactory reply to 
 these questions. 
 
 It is known that Bernard (Grig, de I'imprimerie, ii. 6 sqq.), 
 seeing the difficulty involved in these extraordinary circum- 
 stances, contended that Henry Bechtermuncze (and not 
 Gutenberg) was the printer of the Catholicon, and had 
 established himself at least as early as 1458 at Mentz, 
 whence he transferred his press afterwards to Eltville. 
 Even Panzer had already some difficulty in explaining the 
 use of the Catholicon .type in 1467 by Bechtermuncze, if 
 Homery had the type in his possession in 1468 (see his 
 Annales, vol. ii. p. 119). 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 145 
 
 In the present state of our knowledge I do not pretend to 
 decide one way or the other. The only thing I can say with 
 certainty is that if the type of the Vocabulai-ies of 1467 and 
 1469 is really identical with that of the Catholicon, and 
 Gutenberg the printer of the latter work, the additions 
 which we find in [467, or perhaps as early as 146 1, enable 
 us to distinguish two, if not three, stages in this press. 
 
 My researches of the last few months, though not enabling 
 me to decide any questions, yet enable me to advance 
 our knowledge of the Eltville press or presses a little 
 further. 
 
 It is known that the Vocahularius Ex quo was reprinted at 
 Eltville, in 1472 and 1477. The 1472 edition has the 
 following imprint on leaf 166'' (li. 22) : 
 
 Presens hoc opusculu no stili aut pene suf= || fragio S3 noua ar- 
 tificiosaq, inuencone qua II dam ad eusebiam dei Industrie. In 
 Eltuil est II cSsumatu. Sub ano dnj Mcccc Ixxij ipo die || Gregorij 
 pape et doctoris || Sit bndictus ho deus et de virgine natus || Nota 
 ignota quj volt teutunica verba || Legatur (*) opus presens et re- 
 tinre (sic) velit || Maxima de mimis ex ptibus accipe totii || Inue- 
 nias quod amas si studiosus eris || Ecce Iliii xpe claudo pietate 
 iibellum || Leticie cupiens celestis habere locellum || Sea redep- 
 toris genitrix q virgo pudoris || Libri pressoris alma tege veste 
 decoris tc || - 
 
 Collation: a" be def g hi k Ira n'" o p' q'°r=, 166 leaves, 
 4to, 35 uneven lines to a page, no printed signatures, with 
 hyphens, no printed initials, no initial directors. 
 
 Leaf J (blank) wanting ; 2a : [E]xquo vocabularij varij aute- 
 tici videlicj || huguicio katholico breuileg^ papyas || alij (j codices 
 sut in opac5ne pciose in || coUectoe plixi . et itellectoe obscuri . 
 et in II numeo multi ita ^ pauses scholaes eosde de fa || &c. 
 
 I have seen copies of it 1) in the Paris National Library ; 
 2) in Herr Culemann's Library, who has, besides, the single 
 leaf which begins with Amphorisma, and the lower portion 
 of the last leaf which contains the imprint j 3) in the 
 Hamburg Town-Library. 
 
 Hitherto bibliographers have contented themselves with 
 saying that this edition and that of 1477 are printed with 
 a different type (cf Schaab, i. 497) ; Dr. Van der Linde 
 (p; 69) states they are printed with a type similar (!) to that 
 of the Catholicon. No facsimile has, as far as I know, 
 
 (**) In the Hamburg copy the "ur" have been scratched out. 
 U 
 
146 Gutenberg: 
 
 ever been published of either edition. On my examining, 
 a few months ago, the Paris copy of the edition of 1472, it 
 seemed to me that its type was identical with the brief-type 
 used for the text of the 31-line Letters of Indulgence of 
 1454.1 It is known that this type has never yet been de- 
 tected in any book ; M. Didot even concludes (Nouv. Biogr. 
 G^n. art. Gutenberg that it must have been destroyed. 
 
 I now thought it had been my good fortune to discover 
 it, and just in a place (Eltville) whither we might have 
 expected it to be transferred. 
 
 On a closer inspection and comparison of the two types, 
 however, I was compelled to abandon the idea of identity, 
 as the new type is smaller than the old, though in design 
 there is absolutely no difference between them. Mr. Blades 
 (vol. 2, page xxxii.) has shown that some of Caxton's types 
 have undergone a process of trimming ; namely, a new 
 mould was prepared, and in it was stamped, not the old 
 original /a/«'.a; ox punch, but an old type (letter) trimmed, 
 so that a new fount of type was produced, which was really 
 the same as the old one, but not quite the same in body. 
 But it is doubtful whether we could assume such a process 
 to have been adopted with regard to the 31 -line Indulgence 
 type, and we must, therefore, treat the 1472 type as nothing 
 more than a close imitation of the 31-line Indulgence type. 
 
 Another work was printed with the type of the 1472 
 Vocabularius, namely an undated edition of the Summa 
 de articulis Fidei of Thomas de Aquino, of 35 lines, men- 
 tioned by Hain *i426. As Dr. Von Halm was so kind as to 
 send this little work to Cambridge for my use, I have thought 
 it better to have a page of it photographed and added to 
 the present work. Its greatly irregular lines would justify 
 us, I think, in ascribing to it a somewhat earlier date than 
 1472. On a measurement it will be seen that this type 
 
 + Though I made this observation independently, Mr. Bradshaw 
 obliged me much by calling my attention to Dr. C. L. Grotefend's 
 "Catalogue of Herr F. G. H. Culemann's Incunabeln-Sammlung" 
 (Hannover, 1844), where on p. 10 the Vocabularius of 1472 is said to 
 have " been printed with the small types of those Gutenberg Letters of 
 Indulgence of 1454, which also contain the Missal-types of the 36-line 
 Bible." This note was repeated in Sotheby's Sale Catalogue, Feb. 7, 
 1870, p. 73, (Culemann's Library) ; but here the note to the Vocabu- 
 larius of 1477 is wrong, as it is said that this latter edition is printed 
 with the same type, which is not the case. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 147 
 
 prints about 23 lines in the same space where the Indul- 
 gence contains only 20, and yet in the latter document the 
 down stroke of some of the letters of one line already 
 nearly touches the up stroke of the line underneath.* It 
 is true, in the 35-line Aquinas the lines appear in such close 
 proximity that they would almost seem to overlap one 
 another, but it may be doubted whether this result can 
 have been obtained by a filing down of the Indulgence 
 type. 
 
 As to the individual letters, in the 3 i-line Indulgence, 
 which is not a lengthy document, we find only the capitals 
 ABCDEIMNRST. Of these the CEIMS would seem to 
 reappear almost unaltered in the Aquinas and 1472 
 Vocabulary type, but the ABDNRT are different, and 
 represent more the form and size of the Catholicon type, 
 of which the Aquinas type seems also to have taken the 
 FGHOS. 
 
 These details, which I might give at even greater length, 
 coupled with a mixture of types in the Vocabularies of 
 1467 and 1469, spoken of above (p. 143), point, in my 
 opinion, to the fact that the office where the 31-line Indul- 
 gence of 1454 and 1455 was printed, and that where the 
 Catholicon of 1460 was printed, and that where the 
 Vocabularies of 1467, 1469, and 1472, and the 3S-line 
 Aquinas, were printed, were one and the same, and must 
 have been in possession not only of the types with which 
 these works are printed, but also of the tools for producing 
 the types. Whether that office belonged, from 1454 to 
 1472, to one and the same printer, is a question which I 
 cannot solve at present. Not before 1467 do we see the 
 name of the printer mentioned. But it appears to me that 
 in that year the Catholicon type (with its modifications), and 
 the type of the 35-line Aquinas were already in one office 
 at Eltville. I cannot deny that the circumstance of a type, 
 resembling so closely that of the 31 -line Indulgence, being 
 found at Eltville in 1472, may favour the theory of a 
 transfer of type, at some time or other, from the printer 
 of that document (let us call him Gutenberg), to Eltville. 
 It is exactly for this reason that I refrain from deciding 
 
 * It will be seen below that two other editions of this work have 
 been printed in the Catholicon type, the one of 34, the other of 36 lines. 
 Would the edition of 35 lines have to be placed between these two ? 
 
148 Gutenberg: 
 
 against such a transfer, however much I may distrust 
 Bodmann's or any other person's unauthorised statements 
 regarding this point. But, as I have said, I cannot decide 
 against Bernard's theory that the Eltville press had first 
 been established at Mentz. The additions to the Catholicon 
 type appear already in 1461, but I cannot record a mixture 
 of this type with that of the Aquinas and Vocabulary of 
 1472 earlier than 1467, though in this year it consists only 
 of the sign for et, and is therefore subject to doubt; the 
 mixture is more decided in 1469. The questions which 
 remain to be solved are simply : i) was the 31-line Indul- 
 gence printed at Mentz? 2) if so, by whom? 3) was the 
 Catholicon printed at Mentz? As this last question is 
 answered in the affirmative by the colophon of the Catholi- 
 con itself, the remaining questions are: 4) who printed \h& 
 Catholicon? 5) is the type used in 1461 and in 1467 and 
 1469, which is usually regarded as the Catholicon-type, 
 really identical with this t}rpe? and if so 6) when, by 
 whom and under what circumstances was it transferred to 
 Eltville? 
 
 In order to answer these questions we must, in my 
 opinion, have more materials than we know of at present. 
 We have actually no evidence which compels us to reject 
 Bernard's theory that Henricus Bechtermuncze had first 
 been established at Mentz and printed there the Catholicon. 
 Nor is there at present any evidence to compel us to accept 
 Gutenberg as the printer of the 31-line Indulgence.' If we 
 accept him as such, and also accept the theory that he used 
 the church-type, employed in that document, for other 
 works, it must again be asked : how could he have remained 
 proprietor of this type after the law-suit of 1455 — and if it 
 did remain in his possession, what could have induced him 
 to transfer this type before 1461 to another printer, and 
 himself to call in assistance from Dr. Homery to cast 
 another type ? 
 
 I am not able to say in what books besides the Vocabu- 
 larius of 1472 and the Summa of Thomas de Aquino, the 
 small type imitated from the 3iline Indulgence type is 
 found, nor during what period it continued to be used, nor 
 again whether the larger or church type of the Indulgence 
 is ever found associated with it in its later history. 
 
 There may be a good many other books in existence, 
 pvinted with these types, but as yet unidentified or ascribed 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing f 149 
 
 to some other printers. All I can say is that the Eltville 
 Vocabularius of 1477 is printed again with a different type, 
 and this time with a colophon in which Nicolaus Bechter- 
 muncze is mentioned as the printer.* 
 
 A copy of this edition is preserved in the Royal Library 
 at Munich, and was most kindly forwarded to me by the 
 Librarian, Prof. Dr. Karl von Halm, for my inspection. 
 
 The imprint on leaf 172" li. 25 runs as follows : 
 
 Presens hoc opusculum non stUi aut penne || sui&agio. Sed 
 nova artiBciosaq, inuencione || quadam ad Eusebiam dei In- 
 dustrie per Ny= || colaum Bechtermucze in Eltuil est osuatu || 
 Sub Anno diii. M.CCCC. Ixxvij. Ipso die || sancti Thome apti 
 qd fuit Sabbato die mes' || Decembris 1| Hinc tibi sancte nato 
 cu flamlne sacro || Laus et honor diio trino tribuat et vno || Qui 
 laudare piam semp non linq Mariam 1| ; 172' blank. 
 
 Collation: A"B CD EFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVX", 
 172 leaves 4°. 34 mostly even lines on a page ; with signatures, 
 no printed initials, no initial directors, with double hyphens. 
 
 Leaf I blank ; 2" (with signature A') : [E] X quo vocabularij 
 varij autenti =||ci videlicet Hugwicio Kathos|l 
 
 In order to show the results which, in my opinion, we 
 have obtained, I subjoin an attempt at classifying the types 
 and works attributed, in Dr. Van der Linde's book, to 
 Gutenberg. This list is arranged chronologically under the 
 several types, wiiich again are placed in the order of their 
 first appearance. Each work is described minutely when- 
 ever I think I may correct some errors or throw some 
 light on the books mentioned. With respect to some of 
 the books, however — which were beyond my reach, or the 
 correct collation of which would require perhaps weeks or 
 months; e.g. the 36- and 42-line Bible — I simply refer to 
 the description of other bibliographers. 
 
 (*) Bodmann speaks of a division of his goods in 1476 ! Did Bod- 
 mann intend to represent hiiji as dead in that year? 
 
150 Gutenberg: 
 
 TYPES 1 AND 2, 
 
 used by the unknown printer of the 31-line Letters 
 of Indulgence of 1454. 
 
 These types appear together in four issues of this Indul- 
 gence, which are really one composition, which has under- 
 gone successive modifications as regards the position of 
 some of the words, which makes them appear different 
 editions. The four issues may easily be distinguished by 
 the lines 18-21 as printed on the accompanying folding 
 plate. 
 
 a) Indulgence with printed date Mccccliiii; 31 lines; 
 Broadside folio. Types : 1 (large, church-type, used for the 
 rubrics, and regarded as identical with that of the 36-line 
 Bible); 2 (text or brief-type). Besides these two types 
 we find a large initial V, and two large initials M, which 
 differ from each other. 
 
 In this issue the blank space left between the word deuoti 
 (the last in line 18) and the word Juxta (the last but six in line 
 19) is about I J line (for which see the folding plate). 
 
 As this issue also differs from issue b, by the setting up of the 
 lines 25 and 26, I print these lines also on the folding plate. 
 
 Of this issue no sold copy has as yet been found. The fol- 
 lowing unsold copies, all printed on vellum, have come to my 
 knowledge and been examined by me. 1) in the Town-library 
 at Brunswick, where I saw it on the 14th Oct. 1881. — 2) in the 
 Library at Wolfenbiittel, where I saw it on the 14th Oct. 1881, 
 pasted on brown paste-board ; it had formerly belonged to the 
 Brunswick Library. — 3) in the possession of Mr. F. Culemann, 
 at Hannover, at whose house I saw it on the 13th Oct. 1881. 
 The upper portion of this copy is complete as far as line 25 ; 
 but it is combined with the lower part (lines 26-31) of a copy 
 of one of the later issues (perhaps d), as is evident from line 26 
 which has ecctiasticis. Mr. Culemann told me that he possessed 
 this piece before he obtained the upper portion, and he has 
 written on the back, that this copy was originally in the Town 
 Library at Brunswick, and was obtained by him in 1875. 
 
 Some of these copies (I believe two) were discovered, together 
 vrith copies belonging to issue b, at Brunswick, in the binding 
 of a copy of the Questiones theologice de incarnatione et 
 sacramentis, said to have been printed by Mich. Wenszler at 
 Basle, between 1470 and 1474, which was formerly pre- 
 served in the Ministerial (or Preachers') library, but is now in 
 the town-library, at Brunswick. Cf. Pertz' account in the 
 Abhandlungm of the Berlin Academy, 1856 (1857), who 
 gives a facsimile of issue b, though he seems to imply that it is 
 
'8 
 
 o 
 
 
 ■«, 
 
 •s. 
 
 S5 
 
 o 
 
 JO 
 
 ni 
 P 
 
 >S 
 
 
 5 S a 
 
 -2 S 
 
 
 O B 
 
 io< 3 
 
 •3f 
 
 
 3 
 
 «+i 
 
 
 8. 
 
 
 O 
 
 •B IS I 
 
 a 13 • 
 o .s ■ 
 s 
 
 "I 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 I 
 
 in 
 in 
 
 S S 
 
 ■s « 
 s.s 
 
 J 
 
 s 
 
 .■a 
 
 ■a 
 
 s 
 S 
 
 O 
 
 I 
 
 »-4 " 
 
 IO. 
 
 a 
 
 S i:; 
 
 ^ 
 >! 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ -2 
 
 *S S 
 
 •s > 
 
 a 3 ^ 
 
 J3 U 
 
 ■S2, a 
 
 1< 
 
 .■a "i f 
 
 to .^ 
 
 s I- 
 
 oj 3 -r! 
 
 w (U +-; 
 
 
 J3 
 
 '3- 
 
 3 
 
 Ul 
 
 S 
 
 -r-l 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ca 2.1S ■'5 
 Ji ,-t 0) la 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 151 
 
 one of issue a ; Sotzmann, in the Serapeum for 1843, p. 280, 
 who prints lines 18-21 of the issues a-c of the 31-line Indul- 
 gence, and lines 18-20 of the 30-line Indulgence ; De Laborde, 
 Debuts de I'imprimerie a Mayence, p. 1 7 &c. 
 
 I have been unable to ascertain when and where the other 
 unused copies, or fragments of copies, which I have seen, were 
 found.* 
 
 b) Indulgence with printed date Mccccliiii; 32 lines, 
 including a blank line 19. Broadside folio. Types 1 and 2, 
 and the same initial V and two initials M as in issue a. , 
 
 In this issue the blank space left between the word deuoti 
 (the last in line 18) and the word Juxta (shifted on to the be- 
 ginning of line 20) is a little more than 1^ line ; the whole line 
 19 being here left blank ; (see the folding plate). Of this issue also 
 no sold copy has as yet been found. I have seen the following 
 unsold copies, all printed on vellum, two of which seem to 
 have been discovered with copies of issue a : — 1) in the Town- 
 Library at Brunswick, where I saw it on the 14th Oct., 1881. — 
 2) in the Library at Wolfenbiittel, where I saw it on the 14th 
 Oct., 1881, pasted on brown pasteboard. It is made up of three 
 pieces, which, however, perfectly fit together, and clearly belong 
 to one and the same copy. It had formerly belonged to the 
 Brunswick Library. — 3) in the possession of Herr F. Culemann, 
 at Hannover, at whose house I saw it on the 13th Oct., 1 88 1. 
 He was unable to tell me, whence he had obtained it. 
 
 A facsimile of this issue is given by Pertz (I.e.) ; and Sotz- 
 mann (I.e.) has printed the lines 18-22 (including the blank 
 line 19). These will again be found on the accompanying 
 folding plate, and I add the lines 25 and 26 (26 and 27), 
 which differ from those in issue a. 
 
 It is not impossible that the issues a and b are experiments of 
 the printer to accommodate the Pardoner or Seller of the Indul- 
 gence with the necessary blank space for filling in the names and 
 dates. Issue a, with Juxta &c., commencing in the latter part of 
 line 19, was probably found to be inconvenient to him, hence 
 the word Juxta was shifted to the beginning of the next line, 
 and all the following words accordingly, but line 19 was left 
 entirely blank ; this change produced issue b. The blank line 
 being found unnecessary, the lower portion of the Indulgence 
 was shifted up, and the third issue (f) was produced. This 
 again was changed into issue d, by simply altering the date 
 Mccccliiii into Mcccclv. 
 
 c) Indulgence with printed date Mccccliiii; 31 lines. 
 
 * If I could have described every separate fragment I have seen, I 
 should have registered a still greater number of copies. But while on 
 my travels I did not knovy all the points whereby to distinguish the 
 different issues. 
 
152 Gutenberg: 
 
 Broadside folio. Types 1 and 2, and the initial V, and two 
 initials M. 
 
 Of this issue, which was ready at least before Nov. 15, 1454, 
 seven sold copies have hitherto been discovered, and are pre- 
 served : — 1) in the Meerman-Westreenen Museum at the Hague, 
 issued at Erfurt, on the 15th Nov. 1454. This copy has been 
 described by Schelhorn in his Ergiitzlichkeiteti, Ulm, 1763, p. 
 376-80. He presented it to Meerman. Cf. Dibdin, Bibl. 
 Spenceriana, I. p. xhv. ; Pertz, (1. c. ) — 2) in the Library at 
 Wolfenbiittel, in a frame under glass. It is a fragment consisting 
 of the left half as far as Paul |. The copy was issued in 
 behalf of "Beseb'tol |"; what was to follow must of course 
 have been on the other half, which is wanting ; that there were 
 more persons than one appears from the word erogauerut, which 
 has remained in the following line. The date is intact, namely, 
 "die uero secunda Mensis Decembris."^3) in the National 
 Library at Paris, issued at Mentz, on the 31st Dec. 1454 ; cf. 
 Pertz (I.C.). A facsimile of this copy in De Laborde, Debuts 
 etc. p. 4.-4) in the Library at Cassel, issued at Eynbeck, on 
 the I2thjan. 1455 (the numerals iiii of the year having been 
 altered with the pen to quinto, just as in the four following 
 copies). — 5) in the Library at Gbttingen, issued at Luneburg, 
 on the 27th (not 26th) Jan. 1455. — 6) in the Archives at 
 Schwerin, issued at Liineburg, on the 28th Jan. 1455. — 7) in 
 the Royal Museum at Copenhagen, issued at Copenhagen, on 
 the 29th April, 1455. — 8) in the Library at Gbttingen, issued 
 at Hildesheim, on the 30th April, 1455. (De Laborde says 
 that the date of this copy was altered to 1455 ^7 adding j to the 
 numerals iiii ; but this is not the fact, the date having been 
 altered in precisely the same way as in the copies 3-6.) 
 
 I am able further to indicate the existence of the follovring 
 unused copies : — 9) an unused copy in the Town-Library at 
 Brunswick, where I saw it on the 14th Oct. l88r. The date 
 Mccccliiii has been altered, by hand, to Mcccclv. — 10) an unused 
 copy in the possession of Herr F. Culemann, at Hannover, at 
 whose house I saw it on the 13th Oct. 1881. He could not tell 
 me whence he had obtained it. — 11) another unused copy in the 
 possession of Herr F. Culemann, at Hannover, at whose house 
 I saw it on the 13th Oct. 1881. It consists of two pieces be- 
 longing to two different copies, namely, lines 1-9, which Herr 
 Culemann informed me he had obtained from the Eschenburg 
 Collection in Brunswick ; and the lines IO-31, of which he 
 could not tell me the origin. 
 All the copies are printed on vellum. 
 
 d) Indulgence with printed date Mcccclv; 31 lines. 
 Broadside folio. Types 1 and 2, and the initial V, and two 
 initials M. 
 
 This issue, which was ready before March 7, 1455, in all 
 respects conftrms to issue c, except that the date Mccccliiii 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 153 
 
 has been ^tered to Mcccclv, and the last four lines from foot 
 seem to have been a little shifted. 
 
 Copies of it, all on vellum, are preserved : — 1) in Earl 
 Spencer's Library at Althorp, issued at Wiirzburg, on the 7th 
 March, 1455 ; cf. Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc. I. p. xliv. (*)— 2) in the 
 University Library at Leipxig, issued at Nuremberg on the 24th 
 Majch, 145s. — 3) the copy from which the transcript was taken 
 which Laborde (p. 10) saw at Cassel, and which, according to 
 Sotzmann's description (1. c.) may be still in the possession of 
 the Baronial Family Zu Eyssenbach-Lauterbach, near Cassel. 
 The original was issued at Erfurt on the 28th March, 1455. (t) 
 4) in the Library at Wolfenbiittel, issued at Goslar on the loth 
 April, 1455. I saw this copy on the 15th Oct. 1881, in a frame 
 under glass.— 5) in the Library of the late Sir Thomas PhiUipps, 
 at Cheltenham, issued at Wurzburg, on the 13th April, 1455 ; 
 
 see above No. 1 and note 6) in the University Library at 
 
 Heidelberg, issued "in Constancia" on the 21st of April, 1455, 
 to "Judocus friimesser prespiter (sic) secularis Constanciensis 
 dyocesis." — 7) in the City-Archives at Augsburg, issued at [St. 
 Gallen?] on the 28th April, 1455; cf. Pertz (I.e.); Hassler, 
 in Verhandl. des Vereins fur Kunst in Ulm, &c., 1857, p. 34. — 
 8) in the University Library at Leipzig, issued at Wiirzburg on 
 the 29th April, 1455. — 9) in the University Library at Gbt- 
 tingen, issued at Gottinghen on the 29th April, 1455. It was 
 discovered in the City-Archives by Dr. G. Schmidt, see Sera- 
 peum, 1863, p. 81. — 10) in the Library at Wolfenbiittel, in a 
 frame under glass, a fragment consisting of the last 10 lines 
 (therefore the two forms of absolution). Further, of line 11 
 (counting from foot) some strokes have remained, which, accord- 
 ing to Prof. Dr. Von Heinemann, the Librarian of Wolfenbiittel, 
 seem to indicate that the copy was sold " [die vero] xxx Mensis 
 Aprilis." Of line 12 only so much has remained that the lower 
 
 (*) Dibdin speaks (in 1814) of two copies with the printed date 
 Mcccclv, as being at Althorp. Pertz, who visited Althorp in 1856, 
 pointed out (l.c.) that there were only two copies at Althorp, including 
 the Indulgence of 30 lines. Consequently, Dr. Van der Linde (p. 525) 
 speaks of Dibdin's second copy (of 14SS) as non existent. But Dibdin 
 could scarcely have spoken of such a second copy unless he actually 
 had one before him. This was really the case ; but the unsealed one 
 of 14SS, which he mentioned but did not describe, was some time after 
 exchanged by Lord Spencer for the 30-line Indulgence, which had been 
 purchased by Payne and Foss (see their Catal. of 1837, No. 6265, and 
 Sotheby, Principia Typogr. ii. 210) ; the 1455 copy afterwards passed 
 into the Library of Sir Thomas Phillipps (see my No. 5 of issue d). 
 
 (t) There is no evidence yet published to show to which of the several 
 issues this copy belongs, so I leave it where I find it placed by others, 
 until some one has an opportunity to examine it. It must be remem- 
 bered that Laborde only saw a transcript of it in a volume of collec- 
 tanea relating to the family above mentioned, in which, naturally, no 
 difference wouldTbe made between the written and printed parts of the 
 Indulgence. 
 
 X 
 
154 Gutenberg: 
 
 portion of the v of the year is visible. At the foot, on the 
 right-hand side, is written : " Johes Droste i pttiiss3 deputats" ; 
 on the left, "s'adcistf." 
 
 In 1876, Dr. Gustav Schmidt, Director of the Royal Dom- 
 Gymnasium at Halberstadt, discovered four unused copies of 
 this edition at Halberstadt, in the binding of a book preserved 
 in the Library of the Dom-Gymnasium, the title of which Dr. 
 Schmidt no longer remembers. One of the copies (which I 
 shall call No. 11) has remained in that Library. The three 
 others (No. 12-14) were sold to Mr. Albert Cohn, the book- 
 seller at Berlin. In reply to my letter of Sept. l8th, 1881, this 
 gentleman most kindly informed me that he sold : 12) to the 
 Duke d'Aumale ; 13) to M. Fillon (this copy was exhibited in 
 the Paris Exhibition of 1879 on the Trocadero) ; 14) to Herr 
 Senator Fried. Culemann, at Hannover. This last copy I saw 
 on the 13th Oct. 1881. The last two lines, and the latter por- 
 tion of the 5th (from foot) : In nomine &c., which had been cut 
 away from this copy, have been added to it by Mr. Culemann, 
 from another copy, of which he possessed a:t the time 5 or 6 
 lines. Another unused copy, 15) in the British Museum 
 (pressmark C. 18. e. 2, No. 125). 
 
 Before leaving the subject of the 31-line Indulgence I wish 
 to make a few remarks. First, as to the presence of blank 
 copies at Brunswick, which has been explained in a way 
 which I think is not the right one. 
 
 In 1843 Holtrop, the late Librarian of the Hague, writing 
 to Sotzmann (see "Serapeum" for 1843, p. 386) informed 
 him that the book in which four blank copies of the 
 31-line Indulgence had been discovered at Brunswick was 
 printed by Michael Wensler, in Basle, probably between 
 1470 and 1474. Holtrop further suggested that — as 
 Wensler printed in that city in 1475, in conjunction with 
 Bernh. Rihel, who, a year before (?), had printed a Latin Bible 
 in conjunction with the same Berthold (Rodt, or Riippel) 
 of Hanau, who appeared in the Mentz Law-suit of 1455 as 
 an assistant of Gutenberg — we might perhaps infer that, 
 through him, the proof-sheets of the Indulgence had gone 
 from Mentz to Basle and thence to Brunswick. 
 
 What was merely suggested by Holtrop in 1843, is told by 
 Dr. Van der Linde in 1878 as an undoubted fad (see his 
 Gutenberg, p. 45), without Holtrop's name being men- 
 tioned. 
 
 A more plausible explanation of so many blank copies 
 (which I do not regard as proof-sheets, but as unused copies 
 of issues, which either have been used, or were intended 
 to be used) having been discovered at Brunsvrick (and 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 155 
 
 Halberstadt) may be attempted, by saying that the par- 
 doners or persons sent out to sell the Indulgences, had most 
 probably arrived with their wares at the two places men- 
 tioned, by the time that the Indulgence was no longer 
 valid, i.e. May, 1455. When we observe the dates when, 
 and the places where, the Indulgences which have come 
 down to us, have been sold, we can follow the vendors 
 on their journey from Mentz to Copenhagen, and see them 
 in April, 1455, sell copies at Copenhagen, Hildesheim, 
 Goslar, Gottingen. Brunswick and Halberstadt are on 
 this route, and it may fairly be assumed that the pardoners, 
 when the month of May had arrived, abandoned then and 
 there the unsold copies, leaving them, most likely, in the 
 first instance, in the hands of the local chief ecclesiastical 
 dignitary, whence they came finally into the hands of the 
 binders. 
 
 The idea of an assistant of Gutenberg, having been 
 instrumental in bringing the copies, first from Mentz to 
 Basle, and thence to Brunswick (and Halberstadt) may 
 safely be dismissed from our minds. 
 
 There remains for me to notice an error into which, if 
 appearances do not deceive me, De Laborde has fallen with 
 regard to the issues of this Indulgence. In his work Debuts 
 de Cimprimerie h Mayence eth Bamberg, Paris 1840, he speaks 
 of an edition of this Indulgence of 32 lines, preserved at 
 Brunswick. He arrives at this number of lines by printing 
 Juxta as the very last word in line 19, and shifting all fol- 
 lowing words forward accordingly. To make the whole 
 matter clear he prints, in special type, the end of the 20th 
 and 2ist line thus: 
 
 debet In veritatis testimonium 
 Anno dni Mccccliiii die uero 
 
 By this arrangement the word Mensis would fall on a 
 separate line, and hence his edition of 32 lines. 
 
 De Laborde has been quoted by Brunet (s.v. Nicolaus V.) 
 
 From all that I have said on this document and from 
 the lines which I print on the folding plate, it will be seen 
 that no such edition has come to my knowledge. 
 
 I may add that Mr. Bensly, the Librarian of Caius 
 College, Cambridge, examined for me, in September, 1881, 
 all the copies preserved at Brunswick and Wolfenbiittel. 
 
156 Gutenberg: 
 
 In his letter to me he made no mention of Laborde's 
 edition of 32 lines. Within a few weeks afterwards I myself 
 visited Mr. Culemann, at Hannover, and the Brunswick and 
 Wolfenbiittel Libraries. I saw all the copies of the In- 
 dulgences in the possession of Mr. Culemann, and the two 
 libraries, but no such edition as described by De Laborde 
 came to light. Nor can I find that anyone else mentions 
 this edition. There is, I may say, an issue of 32 lines 
 (issue b) if we include in our calculation the line (19) 
 which has been left blank, but De Laborde's notes do not 
 refer to this point. 
 
 I cannot account for De Laborde's error unless I assume 
 that in the notes he made at Brunswick he must have 
 written that Juxta, which appears in the issues b, c, and d 
 at the beginning of the line, occurred in one of the issues 
 at the end of the line. Having returned from his journey 
 he probably worked out his notes, and finding in them 
 that Juxta was to come at the end of the line, he must 
 by some measurement have fixed the word testimonium 
 at the end of the next, and again the word uero at the end 
 of the following line, and so on. ^ De Laborde has done 
 something similar with regard to the Strassburg lawsuit 
 of 1439, where he gives in some places of his facsimiles 
 something quite different from what he prints in his text. 
 His indication of an edition of 32 lines of this Indulgence 
 has caused me considerable trouble; but I believe I am 
 justified in saying that it is a simple error on his part, and 
 that no such issue exists. 
 
 Finally I have to take notice of a pamphlet entitled The 
 Signature of Gutenberg, by Dr. P. De Villiers, London, 
 1878, in which the author professes to have "established 
 the authenticity and modus legendi of the signature of 
 Gutenberg." This gentleman imagines that he has dis- 
 covered — in the strokes of the large capital R which is 
 found, accompanied by a small *» and in some cases by 
 some flourishes which look like S, on the back of almost 
 all the sold copies of the Letters of Indulgence of 1454 
 and 14SS — not only the letters which constitute the name 
 of GUTENBERG, but also an S, which Dr. De VilUers 
 explains to be the initial of the name of Sulgeloch. 
 
 In reply to this it may be said that it is now beyond 
 doubt that Johann Gutenberg, though he seems to have 
 
TVas he the Inventor of Printing? 157 
 
 been connected with the family who bore the name of 
 Sulgeloch, never bore that name himself, and, therefore, 
 could not have signed it on the back of any document 
 whatever ; and it is still more beyond doubt that the R, or 
 R**, or Rt* (which we fiiid in some copies) on the back of 
 the Indulgences, simply means Registrata. 
 
 It is written quite differently in the different copies, and 
 the ink and penmanship of this endorsement, in the four 
 copies which I have examined, correspond in each case 
 exactly with that of the Pardoner who has entered the 
 buyer's name and his own in the text. The Pardoners 
 differ, as may be seen in De Laborde's or Dr. Van der 
 Linde's book, according to the district in which they were 
 deputati or subdeputati of Paulinus Chappe, and conse- 
 quently the R or R** differ. I have also seen several 
 unsold copies, on which no endorsement is found at all. 
 The R or R** has therefore, beyond doubt, nothing what- 
 ever to do with Gutenberg's or any other printer's name. 
 
 TYPE 1 continued. 
 
 (For type 2 see above, p. 150, and for the imitation 
 of it below, p. 180.) 
 
 It is generally assumed that this type continued to be 
 used at Mentz for the printing of the following works : 
 
 2. Manung widder die Durke. For Jan. 1455. 4°> S 
 printed leaves j the last page blank, 20 and 21 uneven 
 lines to a page. 
 
 I have had no opportunity of seeing this book, the unique 
 copy of which is preserved in the Royal Library at Munich. 
 I only know it from the description and facsimile published in 
 1808 by J. Christ, von Aretin (Ueber die Folgen der Erfindung 
 der BtKhdruckerkunst, 4" Miinchen). Aretin's facsimile is 
 most likely not a faithful representation of the original, other- 
 wise I should have some difficulty in believing that it could 
 have been printed with the type of the 36-line Bible, As 
 I am not prepared to say that the types differ, I class the 
 "Manung" with those works with which it is usually placed. 
 It was discovered in 1804 in the Convent of Jesuits at Augsburg. 
 Cf. Bernard, Orig. de I'impr. i. 26. 
 
 3. Conjunctiones et Oppositiones solis et lunae (usually 
 
158 Gutenberg: 
 
 called Kalendar) for the year 1457. Broadside sheet, 
 printed on one side only. 
 
 The upper half of a copy (the only one known) was dis-, 
 covered in 1804 in a file of accounts of the City of Mentz from 
 1420-1460, and present^ by Gotthelf Fischer to the Paris 
 Library. Cf. Bernard, II. 27. A facsimile of it may be seen 
 in Fischer's Notice du premier monument typogr,, Mayence, 
 1804 ; Wetter's Gesch,, plate vi, etc. 
 
 4. Der Cisianus {not Cislanus) zu dutsche. Broadside 
 sheet, printed on one side only ; 36 lines, besides separate 
 head-line. 
 
 The Tross copy, mentioned in the Supplement to Brunet's 
 Manuel (1878, s. v. Cislanus) is now at Cambridge. It was 
 bought in 1870, not in 1876. The size of the pag,e is that of 
 the 36-line Bible, but the type is in poor condition. The head- 
 ing is : Dis ist der Cisianus zu dutsche vnd . . . (the rest lost), 
 
 5. Donatus. Edition {a) of 14 (?) leaves; 27 uneven 
 lines on a page. 
 
 Of this edition the British Museum (pressmark : C. 18, e. i 
 No. 2) possesses the following leaves or fragments of leaves. 
 Leaf 2, lines I (?) — 12 ; on the verso a portion of a I3tli line is 
 still visible ; 4) intact, except that some letters are effaced by 
 use; 6) lines I (?) — 21 ; 7) lines 3 (or 4) — 24 or 25; 8) 20 
 lines ; 9) 21 lines and portions of a 22nd, they seem to be the 
 lines 1-22 ; 10) intact; 11) intact; 13) the lower points of one 
 line and 13 other lines intact. 
 
 As I have found it useful, for the identification of the different 
 editions of Donatus, to have some idea of what text there is 
 on the existing fragments, I have copied of each fragment a line 
 or some words, which may help others whenever leaves or 
 fragments should be found. Where I do not give the whole 
 line, I give, as far as practicable, the first and last words of 
 each line, representing by — that portion which is omitted. 
 
 Leaf 2' line i (?) : hiic et hac Sacerdote vto o sacerdos abl'to 
 ab V t ab hac || sacerdote vl' sac'doti t pl'r nto hij T; hee 
 sac'dotes gf hof. || 3 : et — sacers || 4 : dotes^sac'dotibS {| 5 : 
 [F]Elix — singl'aris il 12 : [F]ructus— masculini licibS || 
 
 heai 2'' line i (?) : vts pl'es in ae dyptogon desiniit aces 
 in am correptam |1 2: vts — correpta || 3: dats — productam || 4: 
 [S] Ecuda— r s m |1 5 : Quot— Da ex« || &c. 
 
 Leaf 4' line i : qs 1' a quibS Gnis neut' quod 1' quid cuiS cui 
 qd r qd a II 2 : quo — a || &c. 
 
 Leaf 4' line I : i masclio pductii in neut veo correpta vt 
 quisqs || 2 : [V] Erbu — cet || 17 : amabo — indicato 
 
 Leaf 6'' line 4 : [L]egens — || 5 : actio — || 
 
 Leaf 7" line i (?) : [L]egendus pticipiii — || 2 : nuT — || 
 
 Leaf 8 contains the distinctive lines [I] Nteriectio — || ; 
 [A]mo verbii — 1| 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 159 
 
 Leaf 10' line I : plsq3pfco vt doctu eet 1' fuissj futo vt 
 doceat Coiuctiuo || 9 : [D]oceor— do || 10 : cent— do || 
 
 Leaf II' line i: gisse legisses legissj 1; plr cu legissemS 
 legissetis legisset Fu || i: tuo — || etc. 
 
 Leaf 13° line 3 (or 4): [F]ero fers fert ptitu* vt audits 
 futuj Vt audiends || ; if li. 8 (?) [F]eror— |1 9 (?) : t plr.— || 
 
 On comparing the first line of this 13th leaf with that of 
 edition b (No. 6) it will be seen that the setting up differs. 
 
 6. Donatus. Edition (^) of 14 (?) leaves, 27 lines on a 
 page. 
 
 In the British Museum, in the same volume (No. 5), there 
 is a fragment of a leaf of a Donatus, in this same type, on 
 which 25 lines are visible; the text, which we find on leaf 
 13 of edition a, reads in this fragment : [F] Ero fers fert et 
 plr ferim^ fertis ferunt Pretito impfecto. I call this edition b. 
 
 After this follows a leaf, which is the last (14 ?) of an 
 edition of 27 (?) lines, but, having nothing to compare it 
 with, I am unable to say whether it belongs to edition a 
 or h, or to some other edition. 
 
 7. Donatus of 30 lines. Edition composed of 12 (?) 
 leaves, of which a fragment of the 8th (?) leaf printed on 
 vellum is preserved in the Town Library at Mentz, where I 
 examined it on the 6th Oct., 1881. Cf. Wetter, Gesch. der 
 Buchdruckerk., p. 433, with facs., pi. II. 
 
 The text of the fragment is not always legible ; the first line 
 
 of the recto reads : rent Pretito pfco t pl'^fco ut aatS es || 
 
 2 : ses— II 3 : ul'— II 4: meini- || S : ame— || 6 : maeris— || 
 7: pfecto— II 8: fueimus— || 9: sem— || lO: fuissemus— || II: 
 
 ris— II 12: ritis(?)— II 13: ore (?)— II 14: tu— || 15: pas- 
 
 siuo— II 16: [D]oceo— || 17: impfecto— || 18: docebat— || 
 
 19: docuistis— II 20: (?) docueras— || 21: Futuro— || 22: 
 
 cebunt— II 23: nam— || 24: doceto— || 25: te Optalo— || 26: 
 ipfo(?) — II 27: docuisse— || 28: docuisset— || 29: doceatis— || 
 30: [docea]s doceat T; plr — || 
 
 The verso is also much damaged; the commencing letters 
 (one or two) have been cut away ; I give, therefore, the last 
 ■word in each line, though even here I had to guess in several 
 instances. 
 
 i: [d]ocere doces docet t plr cu docemS doceretis |1 2: 
 — docu II 3:— docus II 4:— cu II 5:— docuerit || 6:— do || 7:— doc |1 
 
 * The rest of this line is the remainder of the preceding clause in 
 the text. 
 
i6o Gutenberg. 
 
 8:— doce II 9:— eat II 10:— Futuo || 11— PretitoH 12:— Coiuc« || 
 13:— pfcojl 14:— Tutojl 15:— pti(?)|| 16:— Fufojl 17:— docedo II 
 18:— verbo (?) II 19:— dodiurus || 20:— Pretito i (?) || 21: — doce- 
 bain (?) || 22:— foisti e (?) || 23:— fo || 24:— eat || 25:— fiie || 
 26:— docebi || 27:— scd'a3 t (?) || 28: — docean || (?) 29:— doce- 
 minor || 30:— -do (?) |1 
 
 The above works 4-7 are, of course, not placed in any 
 chronological order, as I can assign no date to them. 
 
 8. 36-line Bible. 2 (sometimes misbound in 3) vols. Fol. 
 
 This Bible is known to some as Schelhom's Bible, because 
 he was the first to give an account of it (De antiquissima 
 Latinorum Bibliorum editione, Ulm, 1760. 4°). Others call 
 it the Pfister Bible, who assume that Alb. Pfister of Bamberg is 
 the printer of it. I have not myself collated any copy, but the 
 work has been described by Bernard (Orig. de Vimpr. ii. 31) 
 from the paper copy, in 3 vols., preserved in the Paris National 
 Library. It is composed of 882 printed leaves, with 2 columns 
 of 36 lines each on a page. The Paris Library possesses another 
 copy of the last leaf which bears the date 1461 in rubric. 
 Another detached leaf of the same Bible was found in the cover 
 (consisting of different sheets of paper) of a Register of ex- 
 penses of the Abbey of St. Michael at Bamberg, commencing 
 the 2lst March, 1460. From this discovery it has been inferred 
 that this Bible must have been printed before this date. But 
 it may be remarked that the cover may have been made for this 
 Register any time after its commencement. 
 
 De Laborde (Ddbuts de rimpritnerie &, Mayence et h Bamberg, 
 p. 25) has pointed out that most of the copies of this Bible 
 were preserved in Bavaria, and that a ^reat number of frag- 
 ments have been discovered in convents of that country. C. G. 
 de Murr found in 1775, in the Library of the Monastery of 
 Langheim, several ancient volumes, bound in veUum sheets of 
 this Bible. Cf. Bernard, Orig. de Vimpr. ii. 34 sqq,, who, on 
 p. 54 sqq., calls attention to the MS. Chronicle of Paulus 
 Paulirinus (or Paulus de Praga), preserved at Cracow, who 
 wrote in 1463 that when he was at Bamberg, a'person engraved 
 a whole Bible on small plates (lamellae), and finished the 
 impression of it (scriptura) on vellum in four weeks. 
 
 Copies of it are preserved : 1) at Althorp (cf. Dibdin, Bibl. 
 Spenceriana, i. 7) ; 2) in the National Library at Paris, 3 vols, 
 on paper ; 3) in the same Library, the last leaf of another copy 
 with the date 1461 ; 4) in the British Museum ; 5) at Jena ; 
 6) at Leipzig ; 7) at Antwerp, in the Musee Plantin, &c. &c. 
 There are t\aee leaves in the University Library at Cambridge. 
 Mr. Bradshaw has observed that Lord Spencer's copy differs 
 from that in the British Museum in the setting up of the first 
 page. 
 
 Some bibliographers are of opinion that this type changed 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? i6i 
 
 hands after the printing of the above five works (namely 
 Nos. I, 2, 3, 7 and 8; the Cisianus and the Donatus, a and 5, 
 have never yet been noticed), and was acquired by Alb. 
 Pfister of Bamberg. Bernard {Orig, de Fimpr. ii. 53) shares 
 this opinion with the exception that he ascribes the 36-line 
 Bible to Pfister. The latter certainly published with this 
 same type the following works : 
 
 I. Boner's Edelstein. Bamberg, 14 Febr. 1461. 88 
 leaves, folio, with wood-engravings, and 25 lines on a page. 
 
 A copy is preserved in the Library at Wolfenbiittel, which I 
 saw on the isth Oct. 1881, and from which I took the following 
 description : 
 
 Leaf i» (after the woodcut) : [S]Ins mals ein affe kam gerat. 
 Do er vil guter || nusse vant. Der hette er gesse geme. Im 
 was II ges^ &c Colophon : zu bamberg dis3 puchley geendet 
 ist. Nach der ge- 1| purt vnsers herre ihesu crist. Do man zalt 
 tausent |1 vnde vierhundert iar. Vnd ym einundsechzigsten || das 
 ist war. An sant valenteins tag. Got behut || vns vor seiner 
 plag. Amen. ll 
 
 Another copy appears to be in the hands of Mr. Stoger at 
 Munich; cf. Bernard, Orig. de fimpr., ii. 36; Falkenstein, 
 Buchdnukerk., p. 134. 
 
 II. Boner's Edelstein (and ed.) ; no place, no date, no 
 name of printer. 77 leaves, folio, with wood-engravings, 
 and 28 lines on a page. 
 
 Cf. Brunet (Manuel, voce Boner), who saw a copy at Paris 
 in 1835, which is now preserved in the Royal Library at Berlin, 
 It has been described by Sotzmann {Serafeum, 1845, No. 21). 
 
 III. The four Histories (of Joseph, Daniel, Judith, and 
 Esther) in German, 60 leaves, folio, with wood-cuts, 28 lines. 
 Colophon : printed at BamlDergk, by Albrecht Pfister, in 
 1462, not long after St. Walpurgentag. 
 
 Copies preserved : 1) in the Paris National Library ; 2) al 
 Althorp ; the work has been described by Dibdin, Biblioth. 
 Spenceriana i. 95 ; Bernard ii. 37 ; Falkenstein, Buchdruckerk 
 P- 137- 
 
 IV. Belial, seu consolatio Peccatorum Jacobi de Theramo, 
 in German, Bamberg ; Albreht Pfister ; no date, 95 leaves, 
 folio, 28 lines to a page; no woodcuts. 
 
 The only copy known is in Lord .Spencer's Library; cf. 
 Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc, iii. 181 ; Brunet, Manuel, voce Theramo: 
 Bernard, ii. 41. 
 
 Y 
 
1 62 Gutenberg: 
 
 V. Biblia Pauperum, in German; i8(?) leaves (last leaf 
 blank) in folio ; with woodcuts. 
 
 Copies : 1) in the Paris National Library ; 2) in Lord 
 Spencer's Library ; cf. Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc. i. loo ; 3) in the 
 Wolfenbiittel Library, where I saw it on the iSth Oct., i88l, 
 and found only 14 leaves. Of each of these 14 leaves I give 
 the first words, to enable others to ascertain, by a comparison 
 with the other copies, the missing leaves. Leaf i" ysaias. 
 Sich ein iugfrau ; 2° Dauid. Die kunig von ; 3' Dauid. Sich 
 ich hab mi — ; 4" Dauid. Here rich das pl= ; 5° ysaias. Ir 
 wert sepfe das ; 6» Moises. Ich todt vud ich ; 7" Dauid. die 
 lieb deines has ; 8' Dauid. Scho ist er in seifl ; 9' Jacob. In 
 ire rat ist nicht ; io» Dauid. Der mesch mein" ; 1 1° Dauid. 
 Sein Stat ist wore ; 12' Osee. An de dritte tag w-; 13' Dauid. 
 Herre du hast ni» 514' ysaias. Ich hab in gesehe. 
 
 VI. Biblia Pauperum, in German. 
 
 This edition differs in many parts of the text and the arrange- 
 ment of the woodcuts from the preceding. It is preserved in the 
 Paris National Library. Cf. Notice des objets expos&, No. 49. 
 
 VII. Biblia Pauperum, in Latin. i7(?) leaves, in folio; 
 with woodcuts. 
 
 The only copy known is in Lord Spencer's Library ; cf. 
 Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc. i. 103. 
 
 VIII. Quarrel of a widower (Ackermann von vogelwaid 
 in Beham land), who had lost his wife, with Death ; in 
 German. First edition. 18 leaves; in folio; 28 very- 
 uneven* lines (especially on the first leaves) ; no initials ; 
 no initial directors ; no woodcuts. 
 
 The only copy known is in the Wolfenbiittel Library, where I 
 saw it on the 15th Oct., 1881. 
 
 Leaf I' : Nn [He for An) dem buchlein ist beschriben ein 
 krig wan einer || dem sein libes weib gestorben ist schildtet den 
 todt II So verantwot sich der todt also seczt der clager ein || 
 capitel vnd der todt das ander bisz an das ende der || capitel 
 sind. xxxiiij. dor inn man hubsches sines gesH tichtes behendikait 
 wol vindet Der || clager hebt an |i vber den todt zu clagen Das 
 erst capitel •;•;•:•;•:•!• • [G]R!miger abtilger aller lent 
 schedlicher echter || &c. ; iS"" last line (28) rechter Richter erhor 
 mich • : • : . • • 
 
 Cf. Falkenstein, Buckdruckerkunst, 139, who speaks of 
 
 * I am unable to arrange Pfister's books in a chronological order, as 
 I had not sufficient time to study these books minutely. But it appears 
 to me that some of the productions I describe ought to be placed, on 
 account of their workmanship, before the Boner of 146 1. 
 
JVas he the Inventor of Printing? 163 
 
 this copy as having 23 leaves ; I have found only 18 leaves. 
 Falkenstein further says that the first line commences An and 
 he even adds (sic), but the line commences as I have given. 
 Bernard {Orig.de IHmprimerie, ii. 44) copies Falkenstein. The 
 Bamberg Library possesses, according to Falkenstein, 4 leaves 
 of this edition. 
 
 IX. Quarrel of a Widower, &c. ; in German. Second. 
 edition ; 26 leaves j in folio; with woodcuts. 
 
 Copies : 1) in the Paris National Library ; 2) in the posses- 
 sion of M. Nachler, at Berlin (see Bernard, ii. 44) ; 3) in the 
 Wolfenbiittel Library ; this copy I saw on the iSth Oct., 1881, 
 and took from it the following description. 
 
 Leaf I" blank ; i"" woodcut ; 2» [G]iymiger abtilger aller leut. 
 schedlicher echt vn || etc. ; 4" blank ; 4'', 10% l8', 23'' entirely 
 occupied by a woodcut; 25'' last line (25) : mit innkieit sprechen 
 amen. 26 (blank) cut away. 
 
 The Library of Bamberg seems to possess four leaves of this 
 edition also ; 1 another leaf is in Lord Spencer's Library. 
 
 Dibdin (Bibl. Spenceriana i. 121) speaks of a Latin 
 Psalterium, 29 lines on a page, except the first, which has 
 27, as having apparently been printed by Pfister, which 
 means, I suppose, in the 36-line Bible type, but I have 
 not seen the book, and Dibdin's explanation of the look 
 and size of the type is not decisive enough to ascribe it to 
 this printer. Brunet speaks of the work as having been 
 printed by Pfister, but evidently only follows Dibdin. 
 
 Another Psalterium was e^diibited at the Caxton Cele- 
 bration in 1877, lent by the Bodleian Library, composed of 
 126 leaves, with 20 lines on a page ; the type of which 
 seemed to resemble that of Pfister, which means, I suppose, 
 the 36-line Bible type (see Catal. of the Caxton Exhibition, 
 
 P- 93)- 
 
 Bernard (who regarded t)rpe i as identical with that of the 
 36-line Bible) ascribes the Manung, the Conjunctiones and 
 the Donatus of 27 lines (see below, p. 176) to another 
 printer than Pfister, for three reasons : 
 
 1°) Pfister never used the small or brief-type which we find in the 31- 
 line Indulgence ; z" Pfister lived at Bamberg, but the Donatus of 27 
 lines (edition C, see p. 176) and the Kalendar of 1457 were found at 
 Mentz, the same place from which one of the earliest-issued Indul- 
 gences is dated ; 3°) the typographical execution of the Indulgence is 
 superior to that of Pfister's works. 
 
 As regards Bernard's first reason, it is of little weight, be- 
 cause the books we know as Pfister's productions, were not 
 
1 64 Gutenberg : 
 
 . ^ 
 
 suitable for the use of this type. Bernard's second reason 
 is of as little weight as his first, because a) the Donatus is 
 most, hkely later than 1451, and not printed in the 36-line 
 Bible type at all; b) the Kalendar of 1457 was, indeed, 
 found at Mentz, but the " Manung " of 1455 was found at 
 Augsburg, a place much nearer to Bamberg than to Mentz. 
 Bernard's third reason is of still less weight than his first and 
 second ; the typographical execution of the Indulgence is 
 certainly very good, but that of Pfister's books is by no 
 means so bad as some people would have us believe, con- 
 sidering that all those enumerated above being more or less 
 of a popular character, and must have been far, more handled 
 than a Bible ; and considering also that the paper used for 
 them was perhaps of an inferior kind, as they had to be 
 much cheaper than a Bible. 
 
 I am far from certain that Nos. 2-8 (pages 157-160) are 
 printed at Mentz ; but having no evidence to prove that 
 they were printed at Bamberg or any other place, I prefer 
 to leave the controversy with regard to these books as it 
 was. It even appears to me that the church-type of the 
 31-hne Indulgence differs from the 36-line Bible type (cf. 
 also Sotheby, Principia Typogr. ii. p. 191 sq.), but I do not 
 know how to ascertain the identity of two types when they 
 are so similar. 
 
 TYPES 3 and 4, 
 
 used by the printer (Peter Schoeffer de Gemssheim) 
 of the 30-line Letters of Indulgence of 1454. 
 
 These tjrpes appear together in two editions (the second 
 having two issues) of this Indulgence which may be dis- 
 tinguished by the way in which the lines 17-20 are printed, 
 as given on the folding plate which faces p. 150 above. 
 
 I. (a) Indulgence of 30 lines, with printed date Mccccliiii. 
 Broadside folio. Types : 3 (large, church-t)rpe, used for 
 the rubrics); 4 (text-or brief-type). Besides these tj^es we 
 find a large initial U (which helps to distinguish this Indul- 
 gence from the 31-line Indulgence, which has an initial V), 
 and two large initials M, which differ from each other. 
 
 Only one copy of this edition seems to have come to light, 
 which was discovered in the binding of one of the books in the 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 165 
 
 Library at Louvain. Its description by De Reiffenberg in 
 Vol. V of the Norn). Mhn. de tAcad. Roy. des Sciences de 
 Brtixelles (1829), and De Laborde, Diluts de rimprimerie <i 
 Maymce (1840) p. 6 is, in each case, accompanied by a facsimile. 
 It is now preserved in Lord Spencer's Library at Althorp, where 
 it was seen by Pertz in 1857 (see his Abhandlung in the 
 " Abhandl, der kim. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin" for the 
 year 1856 (1857) p. 707). It was issued at Cologne, on the 
 27th Feb. 1455 (the printed date Mccccliiii having been altered 
 with the pen to Mccccliiiij). In line 15 the misprint olia for 
 alia occurs. 
 
 2. (b) Indulgence of 30 lines, with printed date 
 Mcccclquito. Broadside folio. Types 3 and 4, with the 
 same initial U and two initials M, as in edition a. 
 
 This issue, which is the first of the second edition, and which 
 was ready before the nth April, is distinguished from the fol- 
 lowing issue, by its having in line 18 Juxta instead of iuxta. 
 It is distinguished from edition a by having the misprint in line 
 15 corrected; and by lines 1 6 and 28 as given on the accom- 
 panying folding plate. 
 
 Two copies of it have been preserved : 1) in the Royal 
 Library at Berlin, issued at Werla in Westphalia on the I ith 
 April 1455. This copy has been copiously described by Pertz 
 (I.e.) with a facsimile annexed. — 2) in the British Museum, 
 issued at Neuss near Diisseldorf, on the 29th April 1455. A 
 photographic facsimile of this copy (which I have seen several 
 times) may be seen to perfection in Humphreys' Hist, of the 
 Art of Printing, pi. 12 ; and a misleading one in De Laborde's 
 work, who seems to have taken a copy of the edition a as his 
 model for this edition. This copy which when first known was 
 in the possession of Neigebauer, passed successively into that 
 of Dr. Kloss of Frankfurt, Mr. B. Heywood Bright, and the 
 British Museum. 
 
 (c) Indulgence of 30 lines, with printed date Mcccclquito. 
 Broadside folio. Types 3 and 4, with the initials U and 
 two M. 
 
 This issue, which is the second of the second edition, and 
 which was ready before the 22nd February 1455, may be 
 distinguished from the preceding by its having in line 18 iuxta 
 instead of Iuxta. 
 
 Copies of it have been preserved : 1) in the possession of 
 Herr F. Culemann, at Hannover. It was issued "in hildenshem 
 Anno dni Mcccclquito die vero xxij mensis februarij " to 
 " Religiosi iUustri et nobili Dni Magni episcopi Cathed in 
 Ciui" Hildenshems." * I saw this copy, with the seal attached, 
 
 * Though Mr. Culemann's copy affords us an earlier date for this 
 issue than for the issue b, yet I place it last, at the advice of 
 
1 66 Gutenberg : 
 
 in Mr. Culemann's house at Hannover, on the 13th Oct. 1881 ; 
 the Latin is written as I give it here. Mr. Culemann had 
 appended a note to it that " Edwin Tross had obtained this 
 copy at Hildesheim in 1850, together with other vellum docu- 
 ments, to be sold to gold beaters in France " ; 2) in the Ducal 
 Library at Wolfenbiittel, issued at Brunswick, on the 24th April 
 I455> with the seal attached to it. I saw this copy on the 
 15th Oct. 1881, in a frame under glass. — 3) an unissued co'py in 
 the possession of Herr F. Culemann, at Hannover, at whose 
 house I saw it on the 13th Oct. 1881. He was unable to tell 
 me whence he had obtained this copy.* 
 
 No further trace of the Brief-type 4 has as yet been 
 found. Some consider type 3 to be identical with that of 
 the 42-line Bible, others see merely a resemblance between 
 the two types (see Bernard, Orig. de Fimprim. L 172), and 
 it must be remarked that the capital P found in the Indul- 
 gence, does not seem to appear anywhere in the Bible. 
 But I believe the question, as to who was the printer of 
 this Indulgence, may now be regarded as settled for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 Ii^ Mr. Culemann's house, at Hannover, I saw on the 
 i3lh Oct. 1881 an Indulgence of 33 lines issued in r489 
 by the notorious "Raymundus Pejrraudi archidiaconus 
 Alnisiensis in ecclesia Xanton," at the order of Innocent 
 VIII., " pro tuicione orthodoxe fidei contra Turchos." In 
 this Indulgence, unquestionably printed by Peter Schoeffer, 
 the initial M of the second absolution, is identical with the 
 initial M of \h& first absolution of the 30-line Indulgence 
 of 1454, and 1455 ) a circumstance which at once connects 
 the printer of these two documents. 
 
 Bibliographers usually ascribe both the 31-line and the 
 30-line Indulgence to one printer (Gutenberg) ; but in deal- 
 ing with anonymously printed books we must arrange them 
 according to their type, and if two books are printed in 
 different types, and we have no evidence to show that they 
 are printed by one and the same printer, it becomes neces- 
 sary to ascribe them to different printers. It is therefore 
 not unreasonable that, if we ascribe the 31-line Indulgence 
 to Gutenberg, we should attribute the other document, con- 
 Mr. Bradshaw who regards the small i of iuxta as a correction for luxta 
 (in issue b) which was probably put by some one who regarded the 
 word as the begiiming of a new sentence. 
 
 * All the copies of this Indulgence are printed on vellum just as 
 those of the 3 1 -line Indulgence. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing ? 167 
 
 temporary with it, to some other printer. The connexion 
 of the 1489 Indulgence with that of 1454, make it, in my 
 opinion, clear that Schoeffer, who printed the 1489 Indul- 
 gence, also printed that edition of 1454 which we cannot 
 reasonably ascribe to Gutenberg; that, therefore, in 1454 
 we have at least two rival printers at work in Mentz : i ) 
 the printer of the 31-line Indulgence, whose name I cannot 
 give, but who may have been Gutenberg, subsidized by 
 Johann Fust ; — 2) the printer of the 30-line Indulgence, 
 whom we may safely call Peter (Schoeffer) de Gernssheym. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde (Gutenberg, p. 59) tells us that we 
 meet Peter Schoeffer, " after his return from Paris, there- 
 fore, according to a document, before 1455, as a workman 
 in Gutenberg's first office." But here Dr. Van der Linde 
 goes beyond documentary evidence. In the notarial act of 
 the Mentz Law-suit of 1455, the only document to which 
 Dr. Van der Linde could refer, Peter Gernssheim is men- 
 tioned as a witness on the side of Johann Fust, but it is not 
 said anywhere that this Peter was Gutenberg's workman I 
 
 I may remark that long before I had found the initial M 
 in Schoeffer's Indulgence of 1489, Mr. Bradshaw held out 
 to me that he regarded Peter Schoeffer as the printer of 
 the 3Q-line Indulgence. For these reasons : 
 
 1457-1466 Schoeffer prints in partnership with Joh. 
 Fust; 1467 he prints alone; 
 
 1457 and 1459 (August), he issues the Psalter with 
 the C2c^\\.i\s printed in colours ; 
 
 1459 (Oct.) the Durandus, with the capitals printed. 
 (but in some copies only) in colours ; 
 
 1460 the Clementinae without /«Vz/«if capitals ; 
 1460-1489 no printed capitals in books; 
 
 1490 and 1502 the Psalter is reprinted, with the 
 printed capitals (as an antiquarian reprint). After this 
 date no books known with printed capitals. 
 
 Now, we have a folio Donatus (see p. 171 No. 8) printed 
 in the 42-line Bible type, and according to the colophon : 
 " per Petrum de gernssheym, in urbe Moguntina cum suis 
 capitalibus." 
 
 It is usually said that as P. (Schoeffer) de Gernssheym 
 does not here mention Johann Fust, this Donatus must 
 have been printed after Fust's death. But as the capitals, 
 of which Gernssheym speaks, occur only in the first two 
 
i68 Gutenberg: 
 
 dated books and some copies of the third and in none 
 whatever of the subsequent books except the merely anti- 
 quarian reprints of the Psalter in 1490 and 1502, and as it 
 is altogether more consonant to method to place the 
 Donatus in 1456 with the Bible printed in the same type, 
 and so before 1457, we obtain a very natural chronology in 
 Schoeffe^s work as will be shown below by the numbers 
 3-8. A point which strongly corroborates this is that 
 there seems to be no trace whatever of the type of the 
 42-line Bible after 1456. That which has very commonly 
 been identified with it (the type which occurs in the Her- 
 barius of 1484, and many subsequent books) is really 
 larger and quite different, when the two are examined side 
 by side. It would seem, therefore, that the Donatuses 
 printed in this type, should be placed before, not after, 
 this date. 
 
 TYPE 3 continued.* 
 
 Mentz. 
 
 Peter [Schoeiffer] de Gemssheym. 
 
 before 15 Aug. 1456. 
 
 3. Donatus, 6f 24, 25 or 26 lines. 
 
 One leaf (which may be the 8th or 9th) of this edition 
 (which probably consisted of 24 leaves) is preserved in the 
 Library at Mentz, where I saw it on the 6th Oct 1881. 
 Some lines at the top or the foot have been cut off; I 
 carmot say, therefore, with certainty, how many lines would 
 go to a page. 
 
 Line I recto (of the fragment) : lecturus uel legendus. Signifi- 
 cationes partici || 2 : pioru — pti || 3 : cipia — lecturus || 4 : 
 A — lectus II 5 : legendus — actiuo. i| 6 : psens — qt || 7 : tria 
 
 — locu II 8 : tus — psens || 9 : et — criminatus || 10 : crimina- 
 turus ^ ptici< II II: pioru — le || 12 : ges — siit || 13 : due — 
 negliges. || 14: [L]Egens — actiuo || 15 : tpis — singularis |1 
 16 : figure — declina || 17 : bitur — huius || 18 : legentis — les j| 
 19 : gente — ab II 20 : hoc — pl'r || 21 : N£o — et || 22 : ham 
 
 — Iegetib3 || 
 
 * It is known that type 4 has never yet been found in any other 
 book or document, except the 30-line Indulgence. It may be pre- 
 sumed that.-SchoefTer discarded it, and melted it down for his other 
 types. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 169 
 
 Line l verso : sns nti qd decllnabitur sic. Nto liic lectures 
 hec li 2 : lectura — lecturi || 3 : Dt5 — lecture || 4 : liac — 
 lectu B 5 : ru — lioc || 6 : lecturo — gto || 7 : ho j — le || 8 : 
 ctuiis — vto II 9:0 — lecturis. H 10 : [L]Ectus — passiuo || 
 II: tpis — sim II 12: plicis — lectus || 13: hec — Dto || 14: 
 huic — hoc II 1$: lectu — lecto || i6: ab — le= || 17: cte — 
 lecto II 18: rem — lectas || 19: hec — hijs || 20: [L]Egendus 
 
 — lectis. II 21 : a — singulas || 22: ris — sic. || 
 
 Mr. Culemann, at Hannover, possesses a leaf printed 
 in this same type, which evidently belongs to an edition of 
 26 lines ; but whether to this or another I cannot say. 
 
 Lines 1 and_2 cut away ; 3 : simplex ut nam coposita ut 
 namij. ordo coiiictis || 4 : onu — coiunctiones || 5 ; sunt — aut || 6 : 
 cSmunes — igitur. || 7 : [P]Repositio — que || 8 : pposito — 
 signi= II 9 : ficacione — mis || 10 : nuit — quid. || 1 1 : casus — 
 accusatiuus |j 12 : et — accusatiui. || 13 : ut — circa || 14 : cotra 
 
 — pone II 15 : per — supra |1 16 : circiter — pas || 17 : tre (?) — 
 cis II 18 : reuii — ho |1 19 : stes — naues || 20 : intra — augu- || 
 21 : riii — ppter || 22 : disciplina — ripa || 23 : vltra — an || 24,: 
 nos — arbitros || 25 ; Da — cii || 26 : coram — tenus. || 
 
 Verso, line 3 (?) — les || 4 : genda hoc legendii. Vto o legende 
 legenda leges || 5 : dum — legenda || 6 : ab — legende 1| 7 : hec 
 
 — legendaru || 8 : ho^ — lege- || 9 : dos — le || 10 : gende 
 legenda — legendis. || 11 : [C]Oniuctio — an- 1| 12 : nectens — 
 Coiuctio II 13 : in quot — figu || 14 : ra — species || IJ : habet — 
 exs II 16 : pletiuas — copulatii || 17 : uas — ut || 18 : aut — qui || 
 ig : dem — autem || 20 : porro — aliter. || 21 : Da — quado || 22 : 
 quadoquide — ne || 23 : ue — quaobs || 24 : rem — preterea || 25 : 
 Da — enimue || 26 : ro — quidem || 
 
 4. Donatus of 32 lines. 
 
 One leaf (which may be the loth) of this edition (which 
 probably consisted of 14 leaves) is preserved in the Library 
 at Mentz, where I saw it on the 6th Oct., 1881. It is cut 
 into 8 portions and is further mutilated at the left edge, 
 whereby the first letters of the recto and the last letters of 
 the verso have disappeared. 
 
 Line I recto : [pf ]ecto et plus^per m esse vel fiiisse a 
 
 Futuro II 4 : [L]Ego verbum actiuii in indicatiuo modo dictu(?) 
 tjpis ps II 5 : sentis — prime || 6 : — et || 7 : — le || 8 : — Preteri || 
 9 : — vel II 10 : — et pl'r || II ; — t pl'r || 12 : — secuns || 
 13 : — legat || 14 : — legunto || 15 : — impfecto || 16 : — legeres || 
 17 : — legissem || 18 : — Fu || 19 : — legat || 20 : — le || 21 : — 
 leges II 22 : — Preteri || 23 : — legerimus f 24 : — legissem || 25 : 
 
 — legissent a || 26 : — lege» || 27 : — tem= || 28 : — et || 29 : — 
 esse II 30 : — impfes || 31 : — P[reterit]o || 32 : — legetur a || 
 
 Line I verso : Imparatiuo modo tempore presenti legatur^A 
 Futur[o legi] || 2 : tor — II 3 : legeretur — II 4 = vel — 1| 5 : pnti 
 Z 
 
I 'JO Gutenberg: 
 
 — II 6: rito— 117: cum — 1|8: Infinitmo — 1| 9: to— || 10 : vel 
 
 — II u : sunt — II 12 : Duo — || 13 : Futurum — || 14 : [L]Egor 
 
 — II IS : legutur — 1| 16 : bare — 1| 17 : terito — 1| 18 : lecti — 1| 
 19 : Preterito — || 20 : ras — || 21 : fueratis — || 22 : getur — 1| 
 23 : pore — || 24 : legamur — || 25 : et — || 26 : senti — || 27 : 
 legeretur — 1| 28 : terito — 1| 29 : esses — 1| 30 : vel — || 31 : vtina 
 
 — 1133: mini(?) — II 
 
 5. Donatus, of 33 lines. 
 
 2 leaves, preserved in the Paris National Library; cf. Notice 
 des Objets exfosis. No. 38. 
 
 6. 42-line Bible, printed before 15 Aug., 1456. 2 vols. fol. 
 
 This Bible, usually called ttie Mazarine-Bible, was finished 
 before the 15th Aug., 1456, according to the rubrication of 
 the binder found in the paper copy preserved in the Paris 
 National Library. 
 
 As I have had no opportunity to examine a sufficient num- 
 ber of copies to give an absolutely accurate bibliographical 
 description of the work, I feel obliged to refer to the (not 
 entirely accurate) descriptions of Bernard (Orig. de Vimpr. 
 i. 164, 177-192) and others. We gather from them that 
 this Bible is composed of 641 printed leaves or 1282 pages 
 in folio ; each page having two columns, each of 42 lines, 
 with this exception that, in some copies, the columns of 
 pp. 1-9 contain only 40 lines, while the 10th page is com- 
 posed of columns of 41 lines each, though this difference in 
 the number of lines makes no difference in the space they 
 occupy. Further, the first three rubrics of the first quire, 
 and the first two of the first quire of the second portion of 
 the volume are printed in the 40-line copies in red, whereas 
 they are in MS. in the other copies. Bernard (L 187 sqq.) 
 has given his own view and that of Sotheby on this dis- 
 crepancy in the number of lines ; but there is still room 
 for a more satisfactory explanation, which I hope wiU some 
 day be attempted by Mr. Bradshaw, who has made a minute 
 study of the early Bibles for many years. 
 
 7. 42-line Cantica ad matutinas. 
 
 The first leaf (the only one preserved) has recently been 
 acquired by the Paris National Library. It is printed on 
 vellum, and corresponds in every respect to the Mazarine Bible ; 
 double columns, number of lines, and MS. initials. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? I'ji 
 
 8. Donatus, of 35 lines. 
 
 Printed, according to the colophon: "per Petrum de gemsss 
 heym, in urbe Moguntina cum suis capitalibus." 
 
 Four leaves and parts of a fifth and sixth are preserved in the 
 Paris National Library; cf. Notice des Objets exposSs, No. 66. 
 
 I have shown above, that one of the initials of the 
 30-line Indulgence is found in 1489 in Schoeffer's office. 
 The Church-type of the same Indulgence links on (in spite 
 of the different capital P) to the anonymous 42-line Bible 
 of 1456. This Bible links on to the 35-line Donatus, which 
 is in the same type and has Schoeffer's name and his 
 coloured capitals. This again brings us to the Psalter 
 which J oh. Fust and Peter Schoeffer published together 
 on the 14th Aug., 1457, at Mentz, their first (dated) 
 book, with their name and the capitals of the Donatus. 
 As this work, and their other publications after this date 
 do not come within the scope of my work, and have been 
 more or less elaborately described by most bibliographers, 
 I refer to their works for further information. 
 
 TYPE 5. 
 
 Mentz. 1460. 
 
 I. Joannis de Balbis, Catholicon. 1460. large folio. 
 373 leaves. 2 columns, 66 lines in a column, except the 
 3 columns for the table of contents, which have been 
 leaded and contain only 56 lines; cf. Bernard, ii. 4. No 
 printed signatures. 
 
 CoUation : a b c d e f '° g*, 64 leaves, 1-64, pt. I (grammar); 
 a b c d e f g h i k 1 m" n (n* cancelled)^, 125 leaves, 65-189, 
 pt. 2 (Dictionary A-H) ; o p q r s t v x y z o 9 aa bb cc dd ee 
 ff'° gg''; 184 leaves, 190-373, pt. 3 (Dictionary I-Z, colophon 
 and table of contents). 
 
 Leaf I" lines i arid 2 left blank for the rubric, which, in the 
 Cambridge and British Museum (No. 2) copy is filled in by hand ; 
 line 3 : [P]Rosodia queda ps || gramatice nuncupa || tur. Partes 
 siquidem || &c. ; leaf 64''' line 35 : odus. Et cetera. || ; Hnes 
 36-66 blank ; leaf 65" line 1 : [J]Am diuina potencia auxihante 
 sup deter || minauimus de quatuor pticuUs pncipalib3 || &c. ; 
 Leaf iSg"' line 54 : tur festinans. uel consiliator. seqvitvr.i 1| ; 
 
172 Gutenberg: 
 
 lines SS-66 blank; leaf iSg* blank; leaf igo"" line I : [I] est 
 impatiuus de eo is it. facit enl impatius || &c. ; leaf 372"'' line 49 : 
 testas regnu et imperiu3 in'secula seculo^ Amenil ; lines 50-52 
 blank ; lines 53-66 : Altissimi presidio cuius nutu iufantium 
 lingue fi II unt diserte. Qui cj nOo sepe.puulis reuelat quod || 
 sapientibus celat. Hie liber egregius. catholicon. || dnice in- 
 camacionis annis M cccc Ix Alma in ur || be maguntina nacionis 
 indite germanice. Quam || dei clemencia tam alto ingenij 
 lumine. dono <i g II tuito. ceteris terraj nacionibus preferre. 
 iUustrare || % dignatus est Non calami, stili. ant penne suffra || 
 gio. S3 mira patronaj forma^i ^ Concordia ppor || done et 
 modulo, impressus atcj confectus est. || Hinc tibi sancte pater 
 nato cu flamine sacro. Laus || et honor dno trino tribuatur et 
 uno Ecclesie lau 1| de libro hoc catholice plaude Qui laudare 
 - piam II semper non linque mariam DEO. graciAS || ; Leaf 372'"' 
 line I : Sequitur tabula rubrical huius uoluminis, Et || &c. ; 
 leaf 373" line 7 : Quinta ps huius opis tractat de ethimo- 
 logia II recti! littera^ alphabet! ordinem tenens cxxxiiij || ; lines 
 9-56 blanlc ; leaf 373°'' and 373* blank. 
 
 The above collation has been taken from the copy preserved 
 at Cambridge in one volume. I have further seen copies : 
 (2) in the British Museum (2 volumes, pressmark C. 24. d. 7 
 and 8), in vrhich the last line of the author's epilogue (testas, 
 &C.) is separated from the colophon by three blank lines, as in 
 the Cambridge copy — 3) in the British Museum (press-mark C. 
 14. e. I) with only one blank line between the epUogue and 
 colophon. — 4) and 5) in the Paris National Library (one blank 
 line). — 6) in the WolfenbUttel Library (one blank line). There 
 are a great many other copies (e.g. at Althorp, see Dibdin, 
 Bibl. Spenc. iii. 37 ; and in the Library at Mentz), but these I 
 have not seen. The British Museum has a copy on vellum (in 
 2 volumes, Grenville Collection, 11966 and 11967) in which 
 the first two lines are printed in red thus : Ncipit summa que 
 uotat catholicon, edita a fra || tre iohanne de ianua. ordinis frat^ 
 predicate^. |i . One blank line between epilogue and colophon. 
 The British Museum (C. 18. e. i No. 28) has besides one vellum 
 leaf. I saw another vellum leaf at Mr. Culemann's house. 
 
 2. Matth. de Cracovia, Tractatus racionis. 22 leaves 
 (ai* \^\ with 30 uneven lines ; no printed signatures ; lio 
 printed initials j no hyphens ; no initial directors ; 4" : * 
 
 Leaf I" line I : (M) ulto!j. tam clerico?. \ laicof quere || la e 
 non modica. occupacio grauis || et questio dubiosa. quomodo 
 quis II ; leaf 22" line 27 : secula. AMEN || ; line 28 blank ; 
 line 29: Tractatus racionis et consciencie de sumpcone pa|| 
 
 * This work has been interlined or leaded, just like the table of con- 
 tents in the Catholicon. A printer, who had made a study of incu- 
 nabula, suggested to me that instead of the book having been leaded, 
 the type had been cast on a diiferent body (Germ. Kegel). I doubt 
 whether this is correct. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 173 
 
 buli saludferi corpis dni nostri ih'u xpi. Finit. || ; leaf 22'' 
 blank. 
 
 Several copies have been preserved of it : 1) in the British 
 Museum (C. 37. d. isf).— 2) in the British Museum (C. 9. 
 a. 27).— 3) in the British Museum, GrenviUe collection, 
 No. 11719. — 4) in Lord Spencer's Library (of. Dibdin, Bibl. 
 Spenc. iii. 418). — 5) in the Paris National Library. — 6) in the 
 Paris National Library, with the celebrated MS. note in a hand 
 of the iSth century written on the verso of the last leaf at the 
 foot of the page : [Ho]s duos sext»-nos accomidauit Tsihi 
 hey«ric?« Keppfer de moguwcia || [nujKquara reuenit ut reac- 
 
 c\^ere.\.ur. Quare ec«a»j do meo p'. — Something after do 
 
 has been erased, and the binder has cut away nearly the whole 
 of the first word ; also the n and first part of the u of nunquam, 
 in the second line ; and all that may have followed after the 
 second line ; some strokes of a third line are still visible. The 
 portion of the last letter of the first word of the note which 
 remains appears to me to be the remainder of sxx s ; I read, 
 therefore, Hos not Per, as has been hitherto read. — 7) in the 
 University Library at Cambridge. — 8) in the Library at Mentz. 
 I saw this copy on the 6th Oct., i88i ; it is imperfect, as it 
 wants the leaves 16 and 17. — 9) in the Grand-ducal Library at 
 Darmstadt (see Ph. A. F. Walther's Beitrage).— 10) Herr 
 Fried. Culemann, in Hannover. 
 
 3. Thorn, de Aquino, Summa de articulis fidei. Edition a. 
 13 leaves (a^ b* + 4*), 34 uneven lines; 4°. No printed 
 signatures ; no hyphens ; no initials ; no initial directors. 
 
 1° line I: [P] Ostulat a me uestra dileccio . ut de ar || ticulis 
 fidei et ecclesie sacramentis ali||; leaf 13" line 13: us. et 
 spiritus sanctus AMEN|| ; lines 14 and 15 blank; line 16: Ex- 
 plicit summa de articulis fidei et ec || clesie sacramentis . edita a 
 fratre tho || ma de aquino. ordinis fratrum predi || catorum . 
 Deo . Gracias || ; lines 20-34 and 13'' blank. - 
 
 Copies of it are preserved : 1) in the British Museum (C. 9 . 
 a . 24) — 2) in the British Museum, GrenviUe collection, 
 No. 11892. — 3) in Lord Spencer's Library (see Dibdin, Bibl. 
 Spenc. iii. t53). — 4) in the Hague Library. — 5) in the Uni- 
 versity Library, Cambridge. — 6) in the Rev. John Fuller 
 Russell's Library, 4 Ormonde Terrace, Regent's Park, London. 
 — 7) in the Darmstadt Hofbibliothek (V 3036/110).— 8) in the 
 University Library at Wiirtzburg. — 9) Herr F. Culemann, 
 Hannover. ^10) in the Wolfenbiittel Library. Herr Alb. Cohn 
 in Berlin had a copy (Catal. 1877, No. 10) of this (?) edition, 
 which differed in some respects. 
 
 t On the last (blank) leaf of this copy is written in a hand of the 
 1 5th century : Sequitur Tractatus de exposUione misse. This tract may 
 have been printed in the same type, but I have not been able to find 
 out the tractatus indicated. 
 
1 74 Gutenberg : 
 
 4. Thorn, de Aquino, Summa de articulis fidei. Edition b. 
 1 2 leaves (a^^). 36 uneven lines ; 4". (*) 
 
 I' line I : [P] Ostulat a me uestra dileccio . ut de ar || ticulis 
 fidei et ecclesie sacramentis ali || ; 12' line I : us . et spiritus 
 sanctus AMEN || ; lines -2 and 3 blank ; line 4 : Explicit summa 
 de articulis fidei et ec || desie sacramentis . edita a firatre tho || 
 ma de aquino . ordinis fratram predi || catorum . Deo . 
 Graclas || ; lines 8-36 blank. 
 
 Copies of it are preserved 1) in the British Museum, 671. 
 b. 30). — 2) in the Paris National Library. 
 
 TYPE 5*. 
 
 i.e. the Catholicon type with additions, 1461. 
 (at Mentz?) 
 
 I. Indulgence of 1461. 
 
 A formula of Indulgence (15 lines) granted by Pope Pius II. 
 in 1461 for the restoration of a church at Nuhusen in Germany. 
 The formula is signed by Reynhard, bishop, and Rudolph, 
 dean, of Worms, and dated 1461. According to Bernard (Orig, 
 de Pimfrimerie II. 11), the fragment, a small piece of vellum, 
 was discovered by Gotth. Fischer in the cover of a book at 
 Mentz, and described by him in '' Notice des monuments 
 typogr. qui se trouvent dans la Bihliotkiqtie de S. E. M. le 
 comte Razomcrwski, Moscou. 1810. 8°, p. II. Since the sale 
 of this nobleman's Ubrary, the firagment has been lost sight of. 
 Fischer published a facsimile of it in 1836 (Einige Wortean 
 die Mainzer bei der Feierlichkeit des dem Erfinder der Buch- 
 druckerkunstjoh. Gutenberg zu errichtenden Denkmals. Moskwa, 
 1836. 4°) (t) which was copied by Bernard, pi. X. 
 
 [Bulla anathematis edita a Pio II....adversus Dietherum 
 ...archiepiscopuin, Tiburi duodecim Kalendas Septembris 
 1461.] 
 
 (*) The difference between the twoe ditions a and b consists merely, 
 I believe, in the number of lines on a page, for the text reads every- 
 where the same. The type appears to have been kept standing after 
 the 34-line edition Imd been issued, and when a fresh issue became 
 necessary, two more lines were put on each page, an arrangement 
 whereby the odd leaf at the end was avoided, and the whole text 
 brought into one quire of 6 sheets or 12 leaves. In the edition of 35 
 lines (see p. 180) the text of editions a and b has been closely followed, 
 so as to make no difference in the entire number of lines. 
 
 (+) A copy of this facsimile is in the British Museum, (823. i. 7 
 No. 8). 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 175 
 
 Brunei (s.v. Aeneas Silvius) speaks of an edition of this 
 Bull of 32 lines, said to be printed in the Catholicon type, as 
 having been mentioned in a Catalogue, published in June, 
 1851, by the bookseller Fidelis Butsch, at Augsburg. It 
 was, according to Brunet, afterwards acquired by the Mentz 
 Library. In the summer of this year (1881) a notice went 
 the round of the English daily and weekly newspapers to 
 the effect that a Bull of 1461, printed in the Catholicon 
 type, had been discovered by the Mentz Librarian. 
 
 On the 6th Oct. 1881, I visited the Library at Mentz, 
 and asked for this Bull, and was shown a Bull of 146 1, but 
 — it was only the well-known Bull of 18 lines, printed in 
 the Fust and Schoeffer type. 
 
 A few days afterwards I had an opportunity at Frankfurt 
 to see Butsch's Catalogue, in the possession of Dr. Ernst 
 Kelchner, and actually read the description of the Bull of 
 32 lines. I wrote at once to Butsch and inclosed postage- 
 stamps for the reply, but I never received any answer to 
 my letter. 
 
 Bernard (Orig. da I'imprim. i. 244) writes on this subject 
 and says distinctly that there is no foundation for Butsch's 
 statement, and that the whole matter turns upon the Bull 
 of 18 lines. 
 
 As it seems incredible to me that a bookseller would 
 announce for sale a Bull of 32 lines, when it has only 18, I 
 cannot help mentioning this subject once more, in the 
 hope that some further light may be thrown on this matter. 
 
 I have already pointed out above (p. 142) that if the type 
 used by the Bechtermuntzes at Eltville in 1467 and 1469 
 is identical with that used for the Catholicon, it must yet 
 be treated as in some respects a departure from the original 
 type on account of certain additions. When I wrote this, I 
 was under the impression that these additions did not 
 occur before 1467, but when looking at Bernard's facsimile 
 of the above Indulgence I saw that the contraction for us ( ) 
 which distinguishes type 5* from type 5, occurs already in 
 this Indulgence of 146 1. I do not feel at liberty, however, 
 as yet to place the type at Eltville. 
 
176 Gutenberg: 
 
 Type 6, 
 
 used for the so-called Donatus of 1451. 
 
 Donatus minor ; edition of 14 leaves, with 27 uneven 
 lines on a page ; with hyphens, no printed initials. 
 
 Only two leaves, the 5th and loth * have been preserved 
 to us, and are at present in the Paris National Library, bound 
 in a cover like an ordinary book. On the recto of the lOth 
 leaf, which is bound first in the cover, is written, in a hand of 
 the end of the 15th century, if not later: Vffgerichter Vertrag 
 wegen der aigen guetter Zur Heyderssheim. 1492. A. On the 
 verso of the Sth leaf (the second in the cover) is written, on the 
 top of the page, Htyderssheym, followed by a date partly cut 
 away by the binder, but of which 14 is still distinctly visible, 
 while the remaining strokes may indicate 51. 
 
 The fragments have been described by Gotth. Fischer 
 (Typogr. Seltenheiten, i. 55, a.n6. Essai sur les monum. typogr. 
 dejean Gutenberg, p. 68) who regarded the types as move- 
 able, but cut in wood, and thought that Albrecht Pfister 
 modelled his types after them. Fischer had obtained the 
 two leaves from the well-known Bodmann, who had dis- 
 covered them in the Mentz Archives, where they served as 
 cover for a register of accounts from 1451-1492. From 
 this circumstance it is inferred that they must have existed 
 as early as 1451. It cannot be denied that the t3rpe and 
 the printing look decidedly primitive, when compared with 
 the Letters of Indulgence of 1454. But yet it must be 
 observed that the Register, when it was commenced, may 
 have had another cover, and the leaves of the Donatus may 
 have been taken for this Register any time between 1451 
 and 1492, if not later. It must not be forgotten that the 
 leaves are not printer's waste; they have the initials 
 rubricated in by the rut«icator, and they bear traces of 
 
 * I have compared the two leaves with the Donatus minor printed 
 at Cologne by Mart, de Werdena, which contains in every respect the 
 same text. As this edition consists of 28 leaves, arid the fragments 
 show that each leaf contains the text of about two leaves of the Cologne 
 edition, I think I cannot be far wrong in saying that the edition of 
 which we treat was composed of 14 leaves, and 3iat the Paris leaves 
 are the Sth and loth. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 177 
 
 having been very much used. In the middle of the 15th 
 century, when books were far more costly than at present, 
 their leaves ,were not likely to be used as covers very soon 
 after their manufacture. Therefore, if we were to believe 
 that they had actually been taken for the Register at its 
 commencement, the date 1451, which is usually assigned to 
 this Donatus, would scarcely do justice to its printer, and to 
 his place in history, as in that year the book must already 
 have passed through several stages of its existence. 
 
 But the fact of their having been discovered by Bodmann, 
 and by him communicated to Fischer, throws suspicion on 
 the date claimed for this Donatus. 
 
 When I was in Paris last September, I took a tracing of 
 the word Heyderssheym, and also of the numerals, found on 
 the verso of the 5 th leaf This tracing I submitted to the 
 Darmstadt Archivists, Dr. Schenk zu Schweinsberg and Dr. 
 Wyss, who declared without hesitation that the name of 
 the place was decidedly written in a hand of the end of the 
 1 8th or of the beginning of the present century. The 
 question of the date is of course more difficult to decide. 
 The Archivist of Wiirzburg gave me the same decided 
 opinion as regards the word Heyderssheym. 
 
 As the circumstances in which the fragments were found 
 are no evidence as to the date of printing, I place this type 
 last in this List, and venture to add that I do not regard the 
 type as identical with that of the 36-hne Bible, though they 
 resemble each other very much ; nor do I think that the 
 Donatus-type is the same as that used in the 31 -line letters 
 of Indulgence. 
 
 As I copied at Paris the first line of the recto and verso 
 of each leaf, and also the first and last word of all the re- 
 maining lines, and this method has enabled me to ascertain 
 that the fragments of an edition of 27 lines preserved in the 
 British Museum belong to a different edition (see above, 
 p. 150), I give what I copied, as this may help others in the 
 identification of fragments. 
 
 Leaf S' l™e i : audia audior audiar Vbi possut hec discemi 
 hec in ipas || ; line 2 : tiuo — Iram 1| 3 : correpta — e || 4 : 
 c5uertit — oiugaco II S: futuj — sill'aj || 6 |^— mittit— fducta 1| 
 7 : vt — verboru || 8 : quot — T; || 9 : comunia — Ifa || 10 : 
 faciut — in II II : r — Neutra ||, 12 : que — latina i| 13 : no — 
 neut° 11 14 : passiua — su || 15 : Deponentia — depta || 16 : 
 latina — Cos II 1 7 : munia — duas || 18: formas — di= || 19: 
 2 A 
 
178 Gutenberg: 
 
 cimS — te |[ 20 : Numeri — Pl'is || 21 : vt — lego || 22 : 
 CSposita — pses || 23 : vt — declis || 24:: nacione — le- || 25 : 
 geba — legera || 26 : Futurura — Tres || 27 : Que — legit || 
 
 Leaf 5' Sne i : [A] Duerbiu quid est ps oiois que adiecta vbo 
 signis II 2 : iicacione — quot || 3 : accidiit — ads || 4 : uerbio^ 
 
 — a II 5 : numel — la || 6 : hortadi — qualis || 7 : tatis — respo || 
 8 : dendi — phibe || 9 : di — illuc |i 10 : inde — eras || 11: 
 aliqiido — semel || 12 : bis — affirmandi || 13 : vt — optan || 
 14 : di — de || 15 : inde — Da || 16 : sil'itudinis — vel || (*) 
 17 : vti — male || 18 : Da — minirae Ij 19 : ualde — fortas || 
 20 : se — re || 21 : spondendi — seor || 22 : su — fi || 23 : dius 
 
 — si II 24 : mul — forte || 25 : fortuitu — maximii || 26 : min- 
 ima — est II 27 : In — opatiuo || 
 
 Leaf 10' line i : pls^fco vt doctu eet 1' fiiissj Fiio vt doceat 
 Coiiictiuo iBo || 2 : tpe — doc || 3 : tu — do ||(t) 4 : tu — ptis || 
 5 : to — fu II 6 : tuo — docendi || 7 : docendo — trahu || 8 : tur 
 
 — docturus II 9 : [D]oceor — do || 10: cent — do || 11 : cebat 
 
 — docts II 12 : su — fuimS || 13 : estis — doctus || 14 : era — 
 fueras || 15 : m9 — vl' || 16 : docebe — Impatiuo || 17 : mo — 
 do II 18 : ceafn — doce || 19 > amur — Tp || 20 : fco — doceremi || 
 21 : docerent — fuissem || 22 : ees — eetis || 23 : vl' — do || 24 : 
 ceare — doceatur J| 25 : Coniunctiuo — do || 26 : ceare — 
 doceantur || 27 : Pteito — plr || 
 
 Leaf 10'' line I : di — fueri || 2 : sis — fueris || 3 : tis — vl' || 
 4 : fuisses — fuis= || 5 : setis — fu || 5 : eit — fuerit || 7 : Infinito 
 
 — docei II 8 : ptito — Duo || 9 : pticipia — docedS {| 10 : 
 [L] Ego — ip II II : fco — legeba || 12 ^ tis — legis ||_ 13 : tis 
 
 — lege II 14: rat — le || 15: get — tepoe || 16: psenti — 
 legas II I7_: mus — lega || 18: mus — te || 19: pore — ^ plf || 
 20! vt — pfco II 21: vt — legissetis || 22: legissent — le || 
 23 : gatis — legas || 24 : legat — le || 25 : gere — legerent || 
 26 : Pretito — legerims || 27 : legeritis — legissem || 
 
 Types 7 and 8. 
 
 Mentz. 
 Printer of the Darmstadt Prognostication for 1482. 
 
 After what I have said above (pp. 111-114) about the 
 fraud committed in the Darmstadt copy of the Prognos- 
 tication (said to be for 1460, its real date being '1482), 
 these types can henceforth no longer figure as Gutenberg's 
 types. 
 
 (•) Here the v alone is visible ; there may be vl'. 
 (t) c (?) cut aviray ? 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 179 
 
 ELTVILLE PRESS. 
 
 1467. 
 
 Type 1, 
 
 i.e. type 5*, or the Catholicon type, with an additional 
 (long, thin) sign for us f ) and a sign for et (1), which 
 latter belongs to the type of the Vocabularius of 1472. 
 
 (Printers): Henricus Bechtermuncze, Nycolaus 
 Bechtermuncze frater Henrici, and Wigandus Spyes 
 de Orthenberg. 
 
 I. Vocabularius Ex quo, commenced, according to the 
 colophon, at Altavilla by Henricus Bechtermuncze, and 
 finished 4th Nov. 1467, by Nycolaus Bechtermuncze, the 
 brother of Heinricus, and Wigandus Spyes de Orthenberg. 
 
 The only copy known of it is preserved in the Paris 
 National Library. 
 
 (For a description of the work see above p. 141). 
 
 1469. 
 Type 1, 
 
 i.e. type 5* or the Catholicon type, with the additions of 
 1467, and a further additional s, belonging to the type of 
 the Vocabularius of 1472. 
 
 (Printer) : Nicolaus Bechtermuntze. 
 
 2) Vocabularius Ex quo, 165 leaves, in 4°, 35 lines on a 
 page ; finished, according to the colophon, on the 5th day 
 of June, 1469, by Nicolaus Bechtermuntze. (*) 
 
 (For a description of the work see above p. 142.) 
 
 Copies of it are preserved : 1) in the Paris National 
 Library; 2) in the Sunderland Collection, at Blenheim; 
 
 (*) In the spelling of the names I follow, as much as possibly the 
 spelling of the documents, 
 
i8o Gutenberg: 
 
 3) in Lord Spencer's Library (see Dibdin, Biblioth. Spen- 
 ceriana, iii. 129). 
 
 1472. 
 
 Type 2, 
 
 (an imitation of the Brief-type of the 31-line In- 
 dulgence. See above p. 146). 
 
 (Printer not named.) 
 
 1. Vocabularius Ex quo. Same colophon as in the editions 
 of 1467 and 1469, but without the name of the printer. 
 (For a description of the work, see above p. 145.) 
 
 2. Thomas de Aquino, Summa de articulis fidei et 
 ecclesiae sacramentis, 12 leaves, small 4° (circa 1467-1472). 
 
 Collation : a'^ 12 leaves, with 35 very uneven lines to a page, 
 no signatures; no initials printed in; no initial directors; no 
 punctuation except the middle point (and even this sparingly 
 used) ; with double hyphens. Described by Hain *I426. 
 
 Leaf I' : 
 
 Ostulat a me uestra dilectio ut de ars 
 
 ticulis fidei et ecclesie sacramentis alls 
 
 qua vobis conpendiose p memoriali 
 
 transcriberem CU3 dubitaconibus que 
 circa hec moueri pnt Verii cii omne theologos 
 
 12'' line 23 : 
 
 ale Ad quam gl'am nos perducat pater et fili» 
 us et spiritus sanctus AMEN 
 
 lines 26 and 27 blank. 
 
 Explicit summ£\ de articulis fidei et ecs 
 clesie sacramentis edita a fratre thos 
 ma de aquino ordinis fratrum predi; 
 catorum Deo Gracias 
 
 Bernard (Orig, de Pimprimerie, ii. 14 note) speaks of an 
 edition/ of Matthaeus de Cracovia, Tractatus racionis, com- 
 posed of 12 leaves, with 35 Jines on a page, as printed in 
 the type of the Vocabularius of 1472. He does not say 
 where he saw the book. I inquired for it in the Paris 
 National Library, but was informed that no such edition 
 appeared to be there. I have made inquiries for it in 
 several other Libraries, but with the same negative result. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? i8t 
 
 As I observed by chance that Hain described an edition 
 of Thomas de Aquino, Sumnia, of 12 leaves and 35 lines, 
 I requested Dr. Karl von Halm, the Librarian of Munich, 
 to send me the book for examination. He kindly com- 
 plied with my request, and I am, therefore, able to say that 
 there can be no doubt as to the identity of this type with 
 that of the Vocabularius of 1472. 
 
 Nor have I any doubt but that Bernard's edition of 
 Matt, de Cracovia is a slip of the pen for Thomas de 
 Aquino. The Cracovia in the Catholicon type, described 
 above, contains 1260 lines (42 pages, 30 lines on a page); 
 the edition, as described by Bernard, could only have had 
 840 lines (24 pages, 35 lines on a page), and as the Vocabu- 
 larius type of 1472 is rather larger than the Catholicon type, 
 Bernard's edition would be an impossibility. 
 
 1477- 
 
 Type 3, 
 
 (Printer) : Nicolaus Bechtermuncze. 
 
 I. Vocabularius ex quo. 4", 21. Dec. 1477. 
 
 (For a description of this work see above p. 149.) 
 
 I may here observe that type 3 is exactly the same as 
 that used by Peter Drach at Spire. When I received this 
 Vocabulary from Munich, the only book I had seen of 
 Drach was the Leonardi de Utino Sermones published 
 in 1479, and it occurred to me that Bechtermuncze had 
 probably ceased to print about this time and might have 
 transferred his type to Drach. But this appears not to 
 have been the case, as Drach published already on the 1 8th 
 May, 1477, the Vocabularius luris utriusque, printed with 
 the very same type, and must, therefore, have been in 
 possession of his type simultaneously with Bechtermuncze. 
 The question, therefore, arises, did Drach perhaps print the 
 1477 Vocabulary for Nicolaus Bechtermuncze? A careful 
 examination of the books published with these types, would 
 perhaps enable us to discover some features, which would 
 mark out some works now usually ascribed to Drach, as 
 productions of the Eltville press, suppose this to have been 
 
i82 Gutenberg: 
 
 a separate one. But I cannot myself undertake, for the 
 present, any such examination. 
 
 The above List, which commences on p. 150, enumerates 
 the eight types on which the question of a Mentz Inven- 
 tion may be said to turn, and which recent Bibliographers 
 (notably Dr. Van der Linde) ascribe, without hesitation, to 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 From what I have said on pp. 111-114, it must be clear 
 that types 7 and 8 (see p. 178) can have had no cmnexion 
 with Gutenberg and must, therefore, be removed from 
 the controversy ; types 3 and 4 must, in my opinion, be 
 ascribed to Schoeffer; of type 6 (which most Biblio- 
 graphers consider to be identical with type i) I can say 
 nothing, except that I do not think it identical with type i. 
 This, therefore, and the remaining t)rpes 1, 2 and 5, are, 
 if I am not mistaken, the only ones which can be claimed for 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 One of the 14 works forming this group (the Catho- 
 licon of 1460) says that it was printed at Mentz, and there 
 is nothing against our assuming that the 13 other works 
 were also printed in that city. 
 
 But none of them reveal anything regarding the printer. 
 
 We are, therefore, to infer, if possible, from other circum- 
 stances who was the Inventor of printing. 
 
 It has been usual to refer us, for a final decision, to what 
 we may call GvA&r^&rg-documents. I have treated, at great 
 length, of the 23 which are known to us. Let us now take 
 a rapid review of them. 
 
 Documents i (p. 11), 13 (p. 63), and 17 (p. 105), are 
 allowed, on all hands, to be forgeries of the well-known 
 Prof Bodmann, who had himself so well posted up in the 
 handwriting and language of old documents that he was 
 able to supply his credulous friends with anything they 
 wished, and, of course, with much more than a genuine 
 historian would desire. 
 
 Documents 2 (p. 12 ; now I believe in the Town-Library 
 
 (P- I 
 at Frankfurt), 4 (p. 18), 5 (p. 19), 8 (p. 58), 10 (p. 60), 
 
 II (p. 61), 12 (p. 62^, IS (p. 103), 18 (p. 106), 19 
 
 (p. io6), and 21 (p. 114), need not concern us any more, 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 183 
 
 as they merely establish the fact of Gutenberg's existence, 
 which it is not my intention to deny. In the same category 
 I place 
 
 Document 3 (p. 13). But here I have to correct an 
 error. Of this document I say on p. 16 that the date of 
 the Manuscript, in which it occurs, does not go further 
 back than 1581. I wrote this from such information as I 
 could gather at Cambridge and in the British Museum. 
 No author had hitherto attempted to describe the Manu- 
 script, and those who quoted it, called it a MS. of 1581 
 (see e.g. Dr. Van der Linde, p. 513). In September, 1880, 
 I visited the Frankfurt Town-Library and asked for the 
 volume, but it had been lent out to Erlangen, and I was 
 unable to see it, though I remained for ten days at Frank- 
 furt. An elaborate description of the MS. Chronicle has 
 now appeared in " Die Chroniken der deutschen Stddte vom 
 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, Bd. xvii. {Mainz)," edited by 
 C. Hegel, from which we learn that Johann Max. Zum 
 Jungen, who died in 1649, bequeathed the volume, with 
 other MSS. and books, to the Frankfurt Town-Library, in 
 the Catalogue of which (Bibliotheca Jungiana), published 
 in 1682, it is mentioned on p. 289. He (Zum Jungen) 
 had bought it, in 1640, of Mattaus Merian, the Frankfurt 
 engraver. Before Merian obtained it, the MS. had been in 
 the possession of Wilhelm Fitzer, and in 1605 it was in the 
 hands of the well-known Johann Friedrich Faust von 
 Aschaffenburg. He, or some previous possessor, must 
 have written the date 1581, which is now seen inside the 
 binding under the title. 
 
 The contents of the volume embrace the period of 
 1332-1452, and its chief compiler was "a witness of the 
 events which he relates in the latter part of his work." Our 
 document occupies the leaves 53-57* (pp. 73-78 of Hegel's 
 edition), and is written, according to Hegel, by a different 
 hand from that of the compiler, but a hand who wrote the 
 three documents (dated 1341, 1430, which is ours', and i437) 
 found on the leaves so''-66. The heading of our docu- 
 ment : die alte rachtunge, die erczbischof Cunradt selger 
 gemacht hat, occurs on 53"; under it is written by a later 
 hand: Anno dni 1430; 53" is blank; S4''-57'' the docu- 
 ment; the name Henchin zu Gudenbergis found on ^6"^. 
 
 Document 6 (p. 19) may safely be considered to be 
 an invention, if not a forgery, either of Schoepflin or of 
 Wencker. 
 
184 Gutenberg: 
 
 Document 9 (p. 58), is a piece of oak, said to be a por- 
 tion of Gutenberg's press, with an inscription bearing the , 
 initials J. G. and the date MCDXLI. It is regarded, I 
 believe by most people, as a falsification. The thing was 
 bought for a very large sum of money, by a Dresden 
 gentleman, and is, if I am not mistaken, joined to other, 
 new, pieces of wood, so as to form a press such as Guten- 
 berg is presumed to have used. If the piece of oak could 
 be considered to be a genuine relic of such a (printing) 
 press, it would, of course, entirely alter the history of the 
 Invention of printing. Even in the absence of any product 
 of the Invention of such an early period, the relic alone 
 would be evidence not only of a complete printing-office, but 
 even of a Gutenberg who had been aware of having invented 
 something important, and was bent on leaving his name to 
 posterity ; and we should have to adopt the date 1441, if 
 not an earlier, as our starting point, and Strassburg as the 
 place where the Invention had been accomplished. It is a 
 pity that the circumstances under which the piece of oak 
 was discovered (?) are not known, or at least have not been 
 accurately described. If the locality where it was con- 
 cealed and the history of this locality were known, it would 
 perhaps enable us to form an opinion. Under the circum- 
 stances we are left face to face with the piece of oak itself 
 and the inscription it bears. I have never seen it myself, 
 and feel unable to pronounce for or against it. Dr. Van 
 der Linde rejects the inscription because the year 1441 is 
 expressed by MCDXLI, and not MCCCCXLI. It seems, 
 indeed, that as a rule 400 was expressed in Germany and 
 elsewhere by CCCC, instead of CD. The question re- 
 mains, however, whether there were no exceptions to this 
 rule. The CD was not unknown; we find it in dates 
 (MCDLXXIV &c.) recorded by Panzer, ii. pp. 15, 16 (three 
 times), 18, 23, 25, 26, 29, 45, 146. It is true these dates 
 are found in books printed at Milan and Barcelona, and I 
 cannot find an instance of CD in German books or docu- 
 ments ; "but to people who feel inclined to believe in the 
 Invention of printing at Strassburg or at Mentz it would 
 seem rather hazardous to reject the press on this ground. 
 
 Document 16 (p. 103) is z. forged imprint by some person 
 unknown. 
 
 Document 20 (p, 107) must be a forgery, if it ever has 
 existed at all. 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 185 
 
 Document 22 (p. 116) is not a forgery, but simply an 
 entry in an Anniversarium, which refers to a man who 
 was dead before 1423, and who was perhaps Gutenberg's 
 grand-uncle, but not Gutenberg himself. 
 
 When we set aside all these documents, which are either 
 forgeries or documents which cannot help us in the con- 
 troversy, there remain only three documents which can 
 claim our further attention, namely, a) the Strassburg Law- 
 suit of 1439 (document 7, p. 23); b) the Mentz Law-suit 
 of 145s (document 14, p. 63); c) Dr. Homery's Bond of 
 1468 (document 23, p. 119). 
 
 With regard to the several entries of which the Law-suit 
 of 1439 consists I have first to add a few particulars which 
 I learned at Strassburg last September. On p. 26 I say 
 that " Vol. C may have shared the same fate (as Volumes 
 A and B, which are said to have been burnt during the 
 siege of Strassburg in 1870), but it is nowhere explicitly 
 mentioned." 
 
 On my asking Dr. Brucker, the Strassburg Archivist, last 
 September, whether he could tell me anything about this 
 volume, I was shown a work written by J. F. Lobstein, 
 entitled : Manuel du Notariat en Alsace ou Notices sur la 
 composition de toutes les 'etudes de cette ancienne Province, 8" 
 Strassburg, 1844, where on p. 159 the author says : 
 
 "the acts of the city-archives, which formed part of the chancery and 
 of the Chamber of contracts and were deposited in the study of the 
 oldest notary, commenced with the year 1500; those anterior to this 
 period, had been delivered to the flames, at the celebration of the 
 first fete of the Supreme Being, the 20th Brumaire of the year II (Nov. 
 20, 1793). A considerable number of protocols, of files containing 
 documents of every kind, titles of nobility, ancient vellum charters, &c., 
 all belonging to the archives of the town and of the province, loaded 
 on fifteen wagons, were burned on this day, on the square of the 
 Cathedral, in sight of the castle ; we ourselves witnessed the event." 
 
 On p. 327 Lobstein relates : 
 
 "Among the protocols of the Chancery, those of the year 1439, 
 which contained, among other things, the sentence of the Senate, 
 between Gutenberg and Andri Dritzehen, have, unfortunately, been 
 burned, but that of the Grand Senate of the same year, containing the 
 depositions of the witnesses in this celebrated law-suit, have been 
 preserved from destruction and deposited in the Town- Library." 
 
 I believe Lobstein is the only author who has recorded 
 
 2 B 
 
1 86 Gutenberg . 
 
 the fate of the Sentence of the Senate, contained in Vol. C, 
 which I had expected to find still at Strassburg. 
 
 All hope, therefore, of examining the volumes containing 
 the entries of this Law-suit have vanished for ever, and 
 under these circumstances it becomes difficult to express an 
 opinion. 
 
 We knowthat the genuineness of the volumes has never 
 been questioned by the Germans; Bernard examined 
 volumes A and B and found them authentic (see above, 
 p. 32) ; Dibdin saw one of them, and regarded it as a copy 
 (see above, p. 28). Dibdin was not, I believe, an authority 
 as regards manuscripts, and the only inference that could 
 be drawn from his remark is that the manuscript he 
 saw differed in style and character from igth century 
 writing which had come under Dibdin's notice, a kind of 
 negative which appears to me insufficient for rejecting the 
 document. 
 
 To me it always appeared suspicious that Schoepflin had 
 just discovered documents which furnished him with evi- 
 dence and a date which he had previously wished to find. 
 It was his theory, and that of many of his friends, that the 
 Invention of printing had taken place, in an incomplete 
 form, and in secret, at Strassburg, ie/ore it had been per- 
 fected at Mentz. Everybody in his time, and long before 
 him, talked of 1440 as the Mentz date, and by his docu- 
 ments, Schoepflin was, all at once, provided with a mechanical 
 process, and that a most mysterious one, already in opera- 
 tion, at a most convenient time, namely in 1439 at Strass- 
 burg. Schoepflin was also distinctly under the impression 
 that Gutenberg had printed books at Strassburg, and he 
 even mentions some works as Gutenberg's products. But 
 in his ignorance of incunabula, and misled by a date, he 
 attributed books to Gutenberg which we now know could 
 not have been printed by him. Such proceedings must 
 arouse our suspicion. 
 
 It has been pointed out to me, j) that if once we admit 
 the possibilHy of the documents having been forged, we 
 must not forget that Wencker, the Strassburg Archivist, 
 discovered one portion of the Law-suit, and Schoepffin 
 another; that, therefore, two dishonest men must have 
 been concerned. 2) that even if we could surmount this 
 djifficulty, there would yet be another, namely that neither 
 Wencker nor Schoepflin could, if they would, have forged 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 187 
 
 such lengthy documents as those of the Strassburg Law-suit 
 because in their time people were too ignorant of the lan- 
 guage and of palaeography to attempt such a thing. 
 
 With regard to this first objection I must remark i) that 
 no one ever saw, as far as I know, the Sentence of the 
 Senate said to have been discovered by Wencker; and 2) 
 that Schoepflin published it in 1760, therefore seventeen 
 years after Wencker's death. As regards the second objec- 
 tion, Schoepflin had unrestrained access to the Strassburg 
 Archives. I^ therefore, he possessed the same faculties as 
 Bodmann, and could imitate the handwriting of the tsth 
 century, he had merely to take a document which contained 
 sentences somewhat similar to those he wished to introduce 
 into his document, to change the names and modify cir- 
 cumstances, and he had all he wanted. 
 
 I must not be understood to say that things have hap- 
 pened as I point out they might have happened ; I merely 
 want to say that I do not think a forgery impossible. I will 
 even go further and say that the valuable bibliographical 
 description, which De Laborde has given us of the two 
 volumes which he has seen (see above, p. 24), must neces- 
 sarily convey to us the idea that everything is genuine. But 
 even here we must consider that Schoepflin may have found 
 blank leaves in the volumes which enabled him to insert 
 his documents. And when we deal with Schoepflin and 
 Wencker, we must not forget what has been said above 
 (p. 20 sqq.) where we see Schoepflin build a whole Romance 
 upon fictitious documents, produced by himself or his friend 
 Wencker. 
 
 I am allowed to publish a remark made to me by Dr. 
 Brucker, the Strassburg Archivist, who pointed o^t to me, 
 last September, that it had always appeared strange to him, 
 that Schoepflin had discovered his volumes, which contained 
 legal documents, in the Pfennig-Thurm of Strassburg, a 
 place which was reserved, as the name indicates, for money- 
 afiairs', and not for acts of another nature. 
 
 Bul^ though I may hesitate to pronounce against Schoep- 
 flin''s documents of 1439, it seems that Dr. Van der Linde 
 is anything but favourable to them. I must quote this 
 author once more, in order that every one may judge for 
 himself. 
 
 There is one remarkable passage in the Law-suit : namely 
 the testimony of one of the witnesses, Hans Diinne, the 
 
i88 Gutenberg: 
 
 goldsmith, who declares that "three years ago or there- 
 about he had earned from Gutenberg nearly loo guilders, 
 merely for that which belonged to printing" (see above, 
 p. 49). 
 
 If this testimony be genuine, and the word " trucken " is 
 to be taken in the present sense, it must be clear that 
 printing had already been exercised some time before 1439 
 at Strassburg, and therefore long before we hear of it in 
 Mentz. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde seems to be aware of this difBcuIty. 
 An invention of printing at Strassburg, and before 1450, 
 appears inconvenient to him. 
 
 On pp. 327, 328 of his Gutenberg he speaks of Schoepflin's 
 translation of "vier stiicke" by "quatuor paginas," of 
 " Spiegel- and polier-arbeiten" by " artes mirabiles et 
 secretae," as a translation to suit his own purpose, and he 
 adds : " Schoepflin had the acts for an alarmingly long time 
 under his keeping and Diinne's testimony appears at the 
 end as if it had snowed into the document." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde thinks it necessary to explain why he 
 feels himself at liberty to hint at such a dishonourable act 
 of Schoepflin's j he, therefore, adds in a note (p. 328) : 
 
 " I object to any indignation which may be felt because I do not 
 sufficiently respect the learned compiler of Akatia illtistrata. He, 
 that could rob an abbey of its most precious books (psalterium 1457, 
 1459) under the pretence of wishing to send them, as an example of 
 the ancient art of printing, to the royal Library at Paris, and after- 
 wards sells them for his own private gain,^ has forfeited the right of 
 being considered an honest man. The gaol holds people far more 
 innocent." 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde's opinion, as to the honesty of the 
 people he has to deal with, cannot always be implicitly 
 relied upon (see above, p. 105). I am unacquainted with 
 Schoepflin's offence of stealing books as related by Dr. Van 
 der Linde, but I certainly feel bound to remark that if Dr. 
 Van der Linde's suspicion with respect to Hans Diinne's 
 testimony be well founded, he (Dr. Van der Linde) has 
 pronounced in the most unmistakeable manner against the 
 documents of the Law-suit of 1439. The clause containing 
 Diinne's testimony happens to be among the facsimiles 
 given by De Laborde ; the writing and character of this 
 clause differs in no wise from the other portions of the Law- 
 suit as given by De Labord6 ; ergo : Dr. Van der Linde, 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 189 
 
 who regards Dunne's clause as a forgery, is bound to regard 
 the whole of the Law-suit of 1439 as a forgery. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde can scarcely expect to be at liberty 
 to set up systems, and manipulate documents as he pleases, 
 eliminating from them whatever does not suit him. 
 
 Therefore, it appears to me that those who regard 
 Diinne's testimony as a forgery of Schoepflin, have no 
 choice but to reject the whole of the Strassburg Law-suit as 
 a fabrication. On the other hand, those who accept it as 
 genuine, can scarcely come to any other conclusion but that 
 either trucken does not mean printing books, or that printing 
 was going on as early as 1439 at Strassburg, I cannot find 
 that any German Lexicon inserts the word trucken, as mean- 
 ing printing books, from this source. ' Are we to assume 
 that no one believes in it ? 
 
 Document 14 (p. 63). Of the Mentz Law-suit of 1455 
 I have said already so much that I do not think it desirable 
 to add more than that I should not feel justified in stating 
 that I distrust the transcripts which are, for the present, our 
 only guide. If we accept their text as genuine, Gutenberg 
 may safely be regarded as a Mentz printer, who was esta- 
 blished in that city at least as early as 1455. ^^t — suppose 
 we do this — I cannot find anything in the document which 
 reveals Gutenberg to us as " the Inventor of Printing," and 
 that is, after all, the question that concerns us. Nor can I 
 find any such evidence in our last 
 
 Document No. 23 (p. 119) : the Homery bond, which, if 
 genuine (and I have already said that I have no grounds to 
 suspect it), gives further confirmatory testimony as to Guten- 
 berg having been 2. printer, but which leaves us in the dark 
 as to whether he was " the Inventor," and as to what he did 
 print, and what types had been in his possession. 
 
 To conclude : the question " was Gutenberg the In- 
 ventor of Printing" I must leave, to my great regret, 
 unanswered, because all data for a decision are wanting. I 
 believe, I may state the result of my inquiry to be as 
 follows. As early as (Nov. 15) 1454 two printers were at 
 work at Mentz ; the name of one of them may have been 
 Johann Gutenberg (perhaps subsidized by Johann Fust), 
 but it is not stated anywhere ;~ th.e name of the other is, in 
 all probability, Peter (Schoeffer) de Gernssheym (seep. 166). 
 That the latter did not consider himself to have been the 
 
190 Gutenberg: 
 
 first, or even the chief, printer (of Mentz), seems suffi- 
 ciently clear from what we may call his own statement, in 
 the imprint of the Justinianus of 24 May 1468, in which he 
 speaks of two Johannes " Librorum insignes prothocarag- 
 matici quos genuit ambos urbs maguntina." One of these 
 Johannes must have been Johann Fust ; who was the other ? 
 Everybody says Gutenberg, and I am in no position to 
 contradict it. It is possible that Johann Mentelin, who 
 printed at Strassburg already in 1460 (we may even say 
 1459), may have been meant, but we know nothing of his 
 residence at Mentz. 
 
 Schoeffer repeated his statement in the reprint of the 
 Justinianus in 1472, and in the Decretals of 1473, but 
 omitted it in the reprint of the Justinianus in 1476. 
 
 The question : Where did Peter Schoeffer learn the art 
 of printing, I cannot solve, for want of any distinct state- 
 ment regarding this point. 
 
 That prothocaragmatici dot% not necessarily mean \h& first 
 (primi) typographers on earth, we know from the way in 
 which protho- was used in the later Middle Ages, it simply 
 signifying chief, principal. 
 
 In the Grammatica, published in 1468 by Schoeffer, 
 appeared the well-known lines : 
 
 " At Moguntina sum fusus in urbe libellus, 
 Meque domus genuit unde caragma venit." 
 
 These verses are said to originate with Joh. Brunnen 
 (otherwise called Johannes Fons) the chief corrector in 
 Schoeffer's office and the author of the work. But here 
 we are confronted with the difficulty that the book in 
 question was printed in Schoeffer's office, which we know 
 to be not the office in which Gutenberg is said to have 
 started. Therefore, as early as 1468, a distinct statement 
 is made by a Printer at Mentz, as to where the Invention 
 of Printing had taken place. And yet we are now con- 
 tinually pressed to believe that it has taken place, not in 
 the locality named, but in another, namely in the house 
 which Gutenberg occupied from the moment he came to 
 Mentz till his law-suit with Johann Fust, which was not the 
 house where Schoeffer printed in 1468, and whence he tells 
 us that the caragma had come. Dr. Van der Linde explains 
 this difficulty with his usual facility (see his p. 285). 
 
Was he the Inventor of Printing? 191 
 
 The first distinct mention of the name of Gutenberg is 
 found, as far as we know, in a Chronicle published, on the 
 14th July 1474, at Rome, by Joh. Philippus de Lignamine. 
 The publisher, whose name appears in the imprint, was 
 House-physician to Pope Sixtus IV, and had estabhshed a 
 printing office at Rome. I cannot say who was the com- 
 piler of this work, but Eckhard and Muratori ascribe it to 
 " Ricobaldus Ferrariensis, or another anonymous author of 
 the same period." It is preceded by a letter of the Pub- 
 lisher to Sixtus IV, occupying the first seven leaves. Leaf 
 8 commences : Incipit Crononica («V) summoruw || Ponti- 
 ficuw Imperatoru»?q«« : Ac || de septe»z ^tatibus mu«di 
 ex. s. II Hyeronimo : Eusebio aUisque ui||ris eruditis ex- 
 cerpta. & primo ||. 
 
 The first portion of the Chronicle (that ascribed to 
 Ricobaldus) goes down to 1312. After this comes a con- 
 tinuation, beginning with the year 13 16, which is said to be 
 the work of Joh. Ph. de Lignamine. In this continuation — 
 which is, like the whole of the Chronicle, a series of 
 insulated paragraphs, sorted, as far as possible, into strict 
 chronological sequence — comes, between two entries, relat- 
 ing one to 14 July 1459 and the other to i October 1459, 
 the following undated paragraph : 
 
 Jacobus cognome«to Gutenbergo : -patria || Argentinus & quidam 
 alter cui nomen || Fustus imprimenda?-«»z XxW^x^rum in mem- || branis 
 cum metallicis formis periti tre- || centas cartas quisqw^ eorum per diem 
 facere || innotescuKt apud Maguntiam Germanic || ciuitatem. Johannes 
 quoqae Mentelinus || nuncupatus apud Argentinam eiusdem li prauincig 
 ciuitatem : ac in eodem artificio || peritus totidem cartas per diem 
 iffiprimere || agnoscitur. || 
 
 Here therefore, is a plain statement that in the summer 
 of 1459 two presses were at work at Mentz and one at 
 Strassburg in the hands of Gutenberg, Fust, and Mentelin 
 respectively ; but not a single word is to be found which 
 even touches upon the Invention of the art. 
 
 It is to be remarked that the same Chronicle says, under 
 the year 1464 : 
 
 " Conradus Suuejfiiem : ac Amoldus panarcz Vdalricus Gallus 
 parte ex alia Teuthones librarii insignes Roma»2 uenie«tes primi 
 imprimendorum librorum artem in Italiam introduxere trecewtas cartas 
 per diem imprementes." 
 
 The Chronicle was reprinted at Rome on the loth 
 February 1476 by Johannes Schurener de Bopardia, with- 
 
192 Gutenberg. 
 
 out De Lignatnine's Letter to Sixtus IV. It contains the 
 two passages quoted above without any alteration, except 
 that instead of Gutenbergo, we find Cutenbergo, and for 
 fanarcz there is Pannartz. 
 
 The Chronicle was republished by J. G. Eccard (Corpus 
 historicum Medii Aevi, vol. i (1723), col. 1299), and L. A. 
 Muratori (Rer. Ital. Scriptt., vol. 9 (1726), col. 263). 
 Both print Gutenberger, and both print Justus instead of 
 Fusfus. 
 
 To quote later documents or writers than those of 1468 
 and 1474, just mentioned, would be unsafe for my purpose, 
 as after these dates we unavoidably plunge more and more 
 into the dark region of tradition. Dr. Van der Linde has 
 (p. 151) drawn up a List of what he calls "Witnesses," 
 which may be consulted. 
 
 Beyond 1454 (the date when printing makes its appear- 
 ance in a perfect state) I cannot go, simply because there is 
 nothing to rest myself upon. The diary of Jean Le Robert, 
 the abbot of Cambray, speaking of books "jet6 en moUe," 
 in Jan. 1445, (cf. Bernard, Orig. de Fimpr. i. 97) affords a 
 point to look back upon, but for the present it would only 
 encourage me to indulge in speculation, which it is the 
 whole object of my book to discourage to the utmost of my 
 power. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ACKERMANN VON VOGELWAID, 
 162, 163 
 
 Adolf II., Archbishop of Mentz, 
 
 114, 119, 121, 131, 143 
 Albert, Archbp. of Mentz, 72 
 Albinus, Mentz printer, 122 
 Alexander Gallus, Doctrinale, 6, 8 
 Almanac for 1455. See Manung 
 Alphabet (illustrated) of 1 464, 6 
 Altavilla, see Eltville 
 Althorp (printed works in the 
 Library at), 153, 160, 161, 165, 
 172. See also Spencer 
 Anna zu der Iserin (Eisernen) 
 Thiire, (Anne Porte-de-fer), also 
 called Anna (or Ennel) Guten- 
 berg, or Gudenberg, 19-23, 61 
 Anopisthographic block-printing, 6 
 Anthony (St.) of Padua, the Fran- 
 ciscan Saint, 13 
 Anthony (St.), the abbat, 13 
 Antwerp (guilds at), 7 
 Antwerp (copy of the 36-line Bible, 
 
 at), 160 
 Appeal against the Turks, of 1455, 
 
 126-128. See also Manung 
 Aquino (Thorn, de), Sumraa de 
 articulis fidei, ed. of 34 lines, 173 
 
 of 35 lines, 146-148, 180 
 
 of 36 lines, 1 74 
 
 Arbegast, Arbgast, Arbogast (St.), 
 
 18, 39, 42, 44 
 Aretin (J. C. von), 157 
 Argentoratuin (=Strassburg, q.v.) 
 Ars caracterizandi, 8 
 Ars impressoria, 8 
 Ars imprimendi, 8 
 Ars moriendi, of 1473 and 1504, 6 
 Aschaffenburg, 116 
 
 Aschaffenburg (Joh. Friedr. Faust 
 
 von). See Faust 
 Augsburg (31 -line Indulgence at), 
 
 153 
 Aumale (Duke d'), 154 
 Authaeus (Phil. Lud.), 77, 82, 89, 
 
 90, 92, 97 
 Aventinus (Joh. Thurmayer), 71, 90 
 
 Babylonians, 5 
 
 Balbis (Joan. de). See Catholicon 
 
 Bamberg Library (Fragments of 
 
 Pfister's books in the), 163 
 Bamberg printing, 161 sqq. See 
 
 also Pfister 
 Barth (Jo. Henr. ), 25, 27, 28 
 Basle (books at), 6 
 Bauern-Kalendar (Xylographic), 7 
 Bechtermuncze (Henricus) 122, 
 (Hanns)-r25, 127, 143, 144, 148, 
 175, 179- See also Eltville 
 Bechtermuncze (Nyclas or Niclas, 
 or Nicolaus), 123-125, 127, 143, 
 144, 149, 175, 179, 181. See 
 also Eltville 
 Becker (Prof. J.), 93 
 Behm (Franz), 18 
 Beildeck or Beldeck (Lorentz), 23, 
 
 24, 30, 35, 36, 40, 50, 51 
 Belial, 161 
 Bensly, Librarian of Caius College, 
 
 Cambridge (Mr.), 155 
 Barbel, 51 
 Bergel or Bergellanus (J. Arnold), 
 
 67, 72, 73, 74, 77. 95 
 Berjeau, 7 
 Berlin Library (Printed works in 
 
 the), 161, 165 
 2 C 
 
194 
 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 Bernard (Aug.), 12, 13, 18, 32, 33, 
 60-62, 100, 105, 107-111, 131, 
 144, 148, 160, 161, 163, 170, 
 171, 174, 175, 180, 186, 192 
 
 Bernardinus (St.) of 14S4, 6 
 
 Bemer (Franz), 44 
 
 Berthe, a fictitious nun of the Con- 
 vent of St. Clara, 1 1 
 
 Bertolff or Bechtolf or Berthold von 
 Hanau, 68, 154 
 
 Besoldus (Chr.), 86, 92 
 
 Biblia Pauperum, 6 
 
 Biblia Pauperum (Xylographic), of 
 1470, 6 
 
 Biblia Pauperum (in German), edi- 
 tion a and b (printed by Pfister), 
 162 
 
 Biblia Pauperum, in Latin (printed 
 by Pfister), 162 
 
 Bible of 36 lines, 80, 1 26, 129, 130, 
 149, 160, 161, 177 
 
 Bible of 42 lines, 30, 130, 149, 168, 
 170, 171 
 
 Bible of 1462, 80. 
 
 Biel (Gabr.), 125-127, 129 
 
 Bisinger (Heinrich), 51 
 
 Blades (William), 146 
 
 Blenheim, see Sunderland 
 
 Block-printing ( = Xylography), 6 
 
 Bockenheimer, Ij, l6, 116-119 
 
 Bodmann (Prof. Franz Jos.), II, 
 12, 16-18, 62, 63, 103, 106, III, 
 
 112, 119, I22-I2S, 127, 129-131, 
 
 138, 139, 148, 149, 176, 177, 182 
 
 Bbschwilr, 43, 44 
 
 Boner's Edelsteinof 1461, 161, 162 
 
 2nd edition, i6i 
 
 Bradshaw (Henry), 3, 4, 13, 104, 
 
 146, 158, 160, 166, 167, 170 
 Brant (Diebolt), 39 
 Brant (Sebastian), Richterlicher 
 
 Klagspiegel, 113, 114 
 
 Liber Moreti, 126 
 
 Brechter (Martin), 60, 61, 107 
 BreviariumMoguntinum(of 1 509), 70 
 Breviarium or Psalterium (Marien- 
 
 thal) of 1474, 125, 132 seqq. 
 Breythart (Dhiel Hepp von), 62 
 British Museum, 3 
 British Museum (Books in the), 6, 
 
 7, 71, 83, 89, 109, no, 113, 114 
 
 129, 130, 139, 154, 158-160, 165, 
 
 171-174 
 
 Brbmser (Reinhart)^ 62 
 Brucker (Dr.), 185, 187 
 Bruges (Guilds at), 7 
 Brunet, 161, 163, 174 
 Brunet (Supplement to) 158 
 Brunnen (Joh.), see Fons 
 Brunswick (Printed works in the 
 
 Library at), 150-152, 154, 156 
 Brussels Mary-engraving, 6 
 Bull of 1461, of 18 lines, 175 
 Bull cf 1461, of 32 lines (existing?), 
 
 175 
 Bursfeld, 138, 139 
 Butsch (Fid.), 175 
 
 Calendar, see Kalendar 
 Cambridge (Printed books in the 
 Library at), 109, no, 158, 160, 
 
 171-173 
 Camesina, 6 
 Cantica ad matutinas, of 42 lines 
 
 (printed by Schoeffer), 1 70 
 Cassel (printed works at), 152, 153 
 Catholicon of 1460, 124-128, 142- 
 
 '45, 147, 148, 171, 174, 17s. 
 
 179, 182 
 Caxton Exhibition, 163 
 Caxton's types, 146 
 Celebratio missarum, see Tractatus 
 Cennini, 9 
 Cerimoniae (printed at Marienthal), 
 
 138 
 
 Chronicle of 1474 (published by 
 De Lignamine), 191 
 
 Chronicle of 1476 (published by 
 Schurener), 191 
 
 Chiinther, see Giinther 
 
 Chapter of St. Thomas at Strass- 
 burg, 21, 22, 58, 60, 106, 107 
 
 Chinese writing and block-printing,5 
 
 Christopher (St.) of 1423, 6 
 
 Cisianus, 158, 161 
 
 Clementinae of 1460, 167 
 
 Cohn (Alb.), 154, 173 
 
 Comines (Phil, de), 8 
 
 Concubinarum (Questio de fide), 
 printed by Heumann, 126, 129 
 
 Conjunctiones for 1457, see Ka- 
 lendar 
 
 Conrad IIL(Archbish.) of Mentz,l3 
 
 Copenhagen (31 hne Indulgence at), 
 
 152 
 Copia Indulgentiarum of c. 1468, 131 
 
Index. 
 
 195 
 
 Corvinus (Laur.), 126 
 Coster, Laurens Janszoon, 2, 5 
 Councils (German work on), 109 
 Cracovia (Matth.), Tractatus ra- 
 cionis, of 30 lines, 172 
 
 of 35 lines, not existing, 180 
 
 Cracow (documents at), 160 
 Cromberger, 72 
 Cruse (Henne), 7 
 
 Culemann (Senator Friedr. ), books 
 and documents in his possession, 
 126, 127, 129, 130, 139, 145, 146, 
 150-152, 154, 156, 165, 166, 
 169, 172, 173 
 
 Darmstadt Archives (Documents 
 
 in the), 63, 64, 80, 81 
 Darmstadt Library (Printed works 
 
 in the), 108, 109, in, 112, 126, 
 
 129, 131, 132, 135, 136,138, 173, 
 
 178 
 Decor mariane vallis ( ? printed at 
 
 Marienthal ?), 139 
 Decretals of 1473, 190 
 Defensorium, of 1470 and 1471, 6 
 De Laborde (Leon), 24-26, 33-37, 
 
 39, 41, 44, 45, 47-50, 151-153, 
 
 155. 156, 160, 165, 187, 188 
 De Reiffenberg, 165 
 Deschamps, 126 
 De Villiers (Dr. P.), 156 
 De Vinne (Theod. L.), 10, 33, 128, 
 
 129 
 Dialogus, see Dyalogus 
 Dibdin, 28-32, 153, 161, 163, 186 
 Didot, 146 
 
 Diel (Florentius), 126 
 Dielnhenne, 103 
 Diether, the Elector, 18 
 Dinckmut (Cunradus), 8 
 DirectoriummissK(Heumann'sed.), 
 
 126, 129 
 Directorium miss^ (Mentz (?) ed.), 
 
 130 
 Doctrinale, see Alexander Callus 
 Dominican church at Mentz, 116, 
 
 117, 118, 119 
 Donatus (said to have been printed 
 
 by Fust), 87, 88, 96 
 Donatus of 24, 25 or 26 lines (in 
 
 the 42-line Bible type), 168 
 Donatus of 27 lines (ed. a, in the 
 
 36-line Bible type), 158, 161 
 
 Donatus of 27 lines (ed. b, in the 
 
 36-line Bible type), 159, 161 
 Donatus of 27 lines (of 145 1 or 
 
 rather later?, ed. c, in the 36-line 
 
 Bible type?), 10, 163, 176 
 Donatus of 30 lines (in the 36-line 
 
 Bible type), 159 
 Donatus of 32 lines (in the 42-line 
 
 Bible type), 169 
 Donatus of 33 Unes (in the 42-line 
 
 Bible type), 170 
 Donatus of 33 lines (another ed. in 
 
 the 42-line Bible type), xxvii 
 Donatus of 35 lines (printed in 
 
 the 42-line Bible type, by P. de 
 
 Gerussheym), 167, 168, 171 
 Donatus, of Ulm, of 1475, 6 
 Donati editio minor (Heumann's 
 
 ed.), 126, 129 
 Donatus (printed by Mart, de 
 
 Werdena), 176 
 Drach (Peter), 181 
 Dritzehen (Claus), 35, 36, 40, 49, 
 
 52, 53. 56, 57 
 Dritzehen, Dritzehn or Drizehen 
 
 (Andreas, Andres, Andre), 26, 
 
 34-44, 46-50, 52-57, 185 
 Dritzehen, Dry-(Ennel), 51 
 Dritzehn (Jerge, Jorge, Geo.) 23, 
 
 24, 29, 30, 34, 44, 50, 51-53, 56, 57 
 Dritzehen (Johan), 51 
 Droste (Johannes), 154 
 Diinne (Hans), 23, 49, 51, 187-189 
 Duntzenbeim (Claus), 34 
 Durandus of 1459, 167 
 Dyalogus inter Hugonem, Catho- 
 
 nem, &c.,- 109 
 
 EccARD or Eckhard (J. G.), 191, 
 192 
 
 Eckhart (Peter), 23, 40 
 
 Eggestein (Henr.), 103, 104 
 
 Ehenheim (Reimbolt yon), 23, 41, 
 42, 51 
 
 Eltvil, Eltville, 19, 119 ;' (Printing 
 at) 122-124, 126-128, 142-148, 
 175) '79- See also Bechter- 
 muucze (Henr. and Nic.) 
 
 Engraving, 5 
 
 Entkrist of 1472, 6 
 
 Eyssenbach - Lauterbach (Family 
 Zu), '53 
 
196 
 
 Gtitenberg. 
 
 Falkenstein, 161-163 
 
 Faust (Christina). See Fust 
 
 Faust (Or. Johann), 88, 96 
 
 Faust (Johann) [Founder of a 
 Family], 82 
 
 Faust (Johann), see Fust 
 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg (Friedr. 
 Jac), 90 
 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg (Johann 
 Friedr.), the elder, or Grand- 
 father, 63, 69, 74, 75, 77, 78-86, 
 89-102, 183 
 
 Faiist von Aschaffenburg (Joh. 
 Friedr.), Junior, or Grandson 
 (wrongly called Son of the other 
 J. F. F. V. A.), 81, 86, 89, 90, 
 
 92, 95 
 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg (Joh. 
 
 Hector), 90 
 Faust von Aschaffenburg (Maxim.), 
 
 83, 89, 93. 94, 95. 97 
 Feria Secunda ante Anthonii, 13 
 Fichart, 95 
 Fickwirth (Geo.), 81 
 Fillon, 154 
 F'ischer (Gotthelf), 11, 12, 106, 
 
 107, 108, HI, 112, 130, 158, 
 
 174, 176, 177 
 Fitzer (Wilh.), 183 
 Florian (Gebhard), 81 
 Fons (Joh. ,= Joh. Brunnen), 190 
 Four Histories (printed by Pfister), 
 
 161 
 Franciscan Church at Mentz, 15, 
 
 16, 117, 118, 119 
 Franciscans, at Mentz, 68, 100 
 Frankfurt °/M. (documents or books 
 
 at), 7, IS, 16, 64, 79, 91, 92, 
 
 93. 97, 98, 99. 100. 102, 132, 
 136, 138, 182 
 
 Fratres vitae communis (Marien- 
 thal), 121, 122, 123, 125, I27j 
 131 sqq. 
 
 Fresenheimer (Elsse, Widow of 
 Clese), 62 
 
 Fry (Francis), 59 
 
 Fust (Christina) or Faust, 70, 82, 
 86, 87 
 
 Fust (Jacob), 67, 68, 86 
 
 Fust (Johann), 18, 28,30,61,63, 64, 
 65sqq.,74.'75, 76, 77.81. 82,84, 
 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 
 100, loi, 102, 167, 171, 190-192 
 
 Fust (Niklas), 67 
 Fust (Peter), 72 
 
 See 
 
 Gansfleisch, (family), 16. 
 
 also Gensfleisch 
 Gansfleisch (Frilo or Friele), 9, 19 
 Gallus, see Alexander 
 Gelthus (Adam), 15, 16, 117-119 
 Gelthus (Arnold), 61, 62 
 Gelthus zur jungen Alen, 15 
 Gennsfleisch (Friele), fictitious, 12, 
 
 106 
 Gensefleische (Henne, sonof Friele), 
 
 = Joh. Gutenberg (q.v.) 
 Gensefleisch (Joh.) der Junge, ge- 
 nannt Gutemberg, = Joh. Guten- 
 berg (q.v.) 
 Gensfleisch (seals of), 12 
 Gensfleisch Senior (Henne, or Jo- 
 
 han), 16, 61, 62 
 Gensfleisch zu Gutenberg (Henne), 
 
 = Jolian Gutenberg (q.v.) 
 Gensfleisch Jun. (Joh.), 103 
 Gensfleisch von Sorgenloch, 15 
 Gensfleisch zu Gutenberg (Friele), 
 
 16 
 
 Genszfleisch (Hans, Henn, Heuchin, 
 
 or Johan), also called von 
 
 Mentz, = Joh. Gutenberg (q.v.) 
 
 Genszfleisch (Johann), Secular 
 
 Judge, 67 
 Genszfleisch genannt Sorgenloch 
 
 (Henne), fictitious, II 
 Gernsheim (Joh. von), 82 
 Gernssheim (Peter Schceffer de), 
 
 see Schoeffer 
 Gerson (Joh.), 131 
 Ginsefleis (Johannes zum), a grand- 
 uncle of Gutenberg? 116-118 
 Glauburg (Johann Ernst von), 13, 
 15. 16, 63, 74-81, 90, 91, 93-95, 
 97-100, 102 
 Gbttingen (31-line Indulgence at), 
 
 152, 153 ^ ,„ 
 Grammatica of 1468, 190 
 Gregorii Dialogi, 103 sqq. 
 Gregorius Magnus, 18 
 Grotefend (Dr. C. L.), 146 
 Grotefend (Dr.), of Frankfurt, 80, 
 
 86 
 Gudenberg, see Gutenberg 
 Gudenus (Val. Ffe?;), 116, 117, 
 
 119 
 
Index. 
 
 197 
 
 Giinderrode (Baron von), 86, 100 
 Gunther (Heinr.), 68 
 Gutenberg (Anna), see Anna 
 Gutenberg (Else zu), 9, 12, 13 
 Gutenberg (Jac. for Joh.?), 191 
 Gutenberg, also written Gudenberg, 
 and also called Genszfleisch ; von 
 Mentz, genannt Gutenberg (Jo- 
 han or Hans, Henn, Henchin), 
 8-13, 15, 16, l8, 19, 21-24, 26- 
 30, 34-36, 38-49, 51-55, 57-68, 
 70-77, 79-82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 95, 
 96, 103, 105, 106, 107, III, 113, 
 114, 116-119, 121, 122, 124-127, 
 129-131, 143, 144, 148, 149, 154, 
 155, 166, 167, 178, 182-185, 189- 
 192 
 Gutenbergen (Ennel), see Anna 
 
 Haarlem Legend, 2 
 
 Haarlem, 4, 5 
 
 Hague Library (printed book in 
 
 the), 1 73- See also Meerman- 
 
 Westreenen Museum 
 Hain, 138, 139, 180 
 Halberstadt (Printed documents at), 
 
 154, 155 
 
 Halm (Dr. Karl von), 146, 149, 181 
 
 Hamburg (documents or books at) 
 64, 74. 75, 77. 79. 85. 86, 91-93, 
 98, 99, 102, 114, 120, 145 
 
 Han or Gallus (Ulricus), 71, 191 
 
 Hartleib (Jac), 126, 129 
 
 Haselberg (Joannes), 71 
 
 Hassler, 153 
 
 Haueisen (Dr.), 79 
 
 Haumann, see Heumann 
 
 Hegel, 183 
 
 Heidelberg (31-line Indulgence at), 
 
 153 
 Heilman (Claus), 51 
 Heilmann (Andres), 27, 37-40, 42, 
 
 43. 46, 48. 49. 51. 55-57 
 Heilmann (Anthonie), 23, 38, 43, 
 
 44. 48, 51. 54 
 
 Heinemann (Prof. Dr. Otto Von), 
 
 153 
 Helbig, 125-130 
 Helmasperger (Ulricus), 64, 65, 67, 
 
 68 sqq., 77, 78, 102, 103 
 Helten (Claus zur), 34 
 Hesse, 40 
 >Ieunnann, Hewman, Hauman 
 
 (Friedr.), 121-123, 125-127, 
 
 129-131 
 Heydersheym 1451 (?), 10, 177 
 Heywood Bright, 165 
 Hirtz (Meister), 51 
 Hbchst on the Nidder (documents 
 
 at), 64, 86, 100 
 Hofsattler (Jorge), 63 
 Holtrop, 154 
 Homery (Dr.), or Humeiy, 61, 67, 
 
 119-124, 129, 148, 185, 189 
 Honowe (Midhart), 51 
 Horn (Ritter Von), 138 
 Horwood (Alfred J.), 131 
 Hiiter (Conrad), 5o 
 Humery, see Homery 
 Humphreys, 165 
 Husner, 8 
 
 Imeler (Jocop), 51 
 
 Indulgence of 30 lines, 164 sqq., 171 
 
 of 31 lines, 126-128, 146, 147, 
 
 150 seqq., 166 
 
 of 1461, of 15 lines, 174 
 
 of 1484, of 48 lines, printed at 
 
 Marienthal, 138 
 
 of 1489, of 33 lines, printed 
 
 by Schoeffer, 166 
 
 Iildulgentia, see also Copia 
 Inghen (Prof. Marsilius de), 118 
 Innocent VIII., 166 
 Iserin Thiire (see Anna zu der) 
 Isler (Dr. ), 79 
 
 Jan the prenter, 7 
 
 Jena (Copy of the 36-line Bible at), 
 
 160 
 Jenson, 8, 9 
 
 Jete en moUe or moule, 8, 192 
 Joannis (Geo. Chr.), 13-17, 19, 58, 
 
 79, 114, 115, 120 
 Jung, 60 
 Jungen (Family Zum), 13, 14, 79, 
 
 82 
 Jungen (Hof zum), 16, 59 
 Jungen (House Zum), 6l 
 Jungen (Toh. Maxim. Zum), 16, 77. 
 
 79. 90^93. 97-99. 192, 183 
 Jungen (Ort zum). Senior, 16 
 Justinianus (of 1468, 1472, 1476), 
 
 190 
 Juveni (Family de), 14. See also 
 
 Jungen 
 
198 
 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 Kalendar for 1455. See Manung 
 K.alendar for 1457, 126, 127, 157, 
 
 '5°, 163. 164 
 Kalendar for 1482 (with the falsified 
 
 date 1460), see Prognostication 
 Karle(Joh.), 58 
 Keffer (Heinr.), 68 
 Kegel Wilhelm), 7 
 Klein (K.), 59 
 Kloss (Dr.), 165 
 
 Kohler (Johann David), 13, 15, 16, 
 
 18, 19, 62, 63, 67, 77-81, 91-93, 
 
 95. 96, 99, 100, 102, 114, lie, 
 
 120 
 
 Kogelherm (Mergenthaler) = 
 
 Fratres vitae communis (q.v.) 
 Koster, see Coster 
 Kraft (Marc. Ant. a), 15, 58 
 Kremer, 119 
 Kungtse, books of, 5 
 
 Laborde, see De Laborde 
 
 Laetare Jerusalem, 13 
 
 Laib und Schwarz, 6 
 
 Last Supper-engraving, of 1457, 7 
 
 Latomus, 93 
 
 Lehne (Prof.), 11 
 
 Leipzig (printed documents at), 153, 
 
 160 
 Lempertz, 60 
 Leonardi de Utino Sermones (of 
 
 1479), 181 
 Lersner (Achill. Aug. von), 67, 81- 
 
 86, 90, 92, 94, 95, 97 
 Letters of Indulgence, see Indul- 
 gence 
 Lignamine (Phil, de), 191, 192 
 Linde (Dr. Van der), 1-5, 8-13, 
 IS, 16, 18-20, 29, 33, 41, 47, 
 48, iZ, 59, 61, 69, 70, 78-81, 
 83, 86, 89, 93, 94, 96, 99, 102, 
 105, 106, 109-111, 114, 115, 117^ 
 120, 121, 124, 125, 128, 129, 
 '31. I4S. 149, 154. i67, 182, 
 187-190, 192 
 Lindenschmitt (Johann), 12 
 Livy (German translation of), 69, 71 
 Lobstein (J. F.), 18? 
 Louis XL, 8 
 
 Lubeckische Chronick, 83, 85, 96 
 Liitzelburger (?), 40 
 Lyra (Nic. de), Postilla (printed at 
 Marienthal), 138 
 
 Madden, 10, 60, 80 
 
 Maittaire, 105 
 
 Manifest of Diether, the Elector, 
 
 of 4 April 1462, 18 
 ManuDg widder die Durken, also 
 called Appeal against the Turks, 
 and Almanac or Kalendar 
 (for 1455), 126, 127, 157, 163 
 Marienthal, see Breviarhjm and 
 
 Fratres 
 Mary-engraving (Brussels) of 1418, 6 
 Mary-engraving (copper), of 1451, 7 
 Matrices, 8 
 
 Mazarine Bible, see Bible of 42 lines 
 Meerman, 20, 22, 33, 71, 72, 95 
 Meerman-Westreenen Museum, 152 
 Mentelin (Johann), 122, 190, igi 
 Mentelius (Jacobus), 89, 97 
 Mentz, 13, i6, 17, 167, 168, 171, 
 
 178, 183, 184, 189, 190 
 Mentz (documents or books at), 1 1, 
 19, 62, 81, 103, 108, 113, 117, 
 132-134. 136. 139, 159. 168, 169, 
 172, 173. 17s. 176. 190, 191 
 Mentz Law-registers, 68 
 Mentz Law Suit of 1455, ^3 sqq., 
 
 154, 167, 185, 189 
 Mentze genant Gutenberg (Johan 
 
 von), see Gutenberg 
 Mercurius Trismegistus, 69 
 Meretricum (questio de fide), see 
 
 Hartleib 
 Mergenthaler Kogelherm, see 
 
 Fratres vitae communis 
 Merian (Mattaus), 183 
 Merswin (Nic), 60 
 Minorites or Franciscans, at Mentz. 
 
 68 
 Molle or moule (jette en), 8, 192 ; 
 
 mettre en — , 8 
 Monachorum ord. S. Ben. Bursf. 
 (Cerimoniae and Ordinarius ni- 
 grorum), 138, 139 
 Mongols, 5 
 
 Mulbaum (Hof zum), 18 
 Munich (documents or books at), 
 
 loi, 108-110, 116, 149 
 Muratori, 191, 192 
 Murr (C. G. de), 160 
 Museler (Reimbolt), 48 
 
 Nachler, 163 
 
 Nese von Ehenheim (Stbszer), 51 
 
Index. 
 
 199 
 
 Neunjor von Bischoffheim, see Niger 
 Niclause, secretary of Mentz, 19 
 Niger von Bischovissheim (Hans), 
 
 23.42 
 Nineveh, 5 
 Nordlingen, 6, 7 
 Nope (Cune), 52 
 
 Nummaria turris, see Pfennigtburm 
 Nummeister (Joh.), 107, no 
 
 Oberlin, II, 12, 106 
 Olse (Heinrich), 51 
 Ordinarius (Bursfeld), printed at 
 Marienthai, 139 
 
 Palmer (Samuel), 103 sqq. 
 
 Pancirolli (Guid.), 77, 89, 97 
 
 Panzer, 144 
 
 Paris Library, 3 
 
 Paris Library (Books &c. in the), 
 
 6, 108, 109, 126, 129, 131-133, 
 
 142, 14S, 152, 158, 160-163, 
 
 170-174, 176, 180 
 Paris printers, 8 
 Pater (Paulus), 121 
 Patrices, 8 
 
 Paulus Paulirinus, or de Praga, 160 
 Pembroke's Library (Copy of Pope 
 
 Gregory's Dialogues, in the Earl 
 
 of), 103 sqq. 
 Pertz, 150-153, 165 
 Peyraudi (Raymundus), 1 66 
 Petcrsheim (Hans von), 88 
 Pfennigthurm (Pfenningthum) at 
 
 Strassburg, 27, 28, 30, 31, 187 
 Pfister (Albrecht, Albreht), 127, 
 
 160-163, 176 
 Phillipps' Library (31-line Indul- 
 gence in Sir Thorn.), IS3 
 Pius II., 174 
 Plantin Museum, 160 
 Podozzi, 1 1 1 
 Printers, 7 
 Printing, 8 
 Prognostication for 1482, with the 
 
 falsified date 1460, at Darmstadt, 
 
 108, III, 112, 178 
 Prothocaragmaticus, 8, 190 
 Psalter of I4S7, 167, 171 
 
 of 1459, 167 , ^„ 
 
 of 1490 and 1502, 167, 100 
 
 of 20 lines, 163 
 
 of 29 lines, 163 
 
 Psalterium or Breviarium (Marien- 
 thai) of 1474, 125, 132 sqq. 
 Psalterium Spirense of 1515, 130 
 
 RA.MSTEIN (Luthold von), 58 
 
 Razoraowski, 174 
 
 Regensburg, 8 
 
 Regimen Sanitatis, 126 
 
 Regkman (Hans), 83, 85 
 
 Reiffenberg (De), see De 
 
 Reimbolt, 42 
 
 Reisius (Xystus), 72 
 
 Reynhard, bishop of Worms, 174 
 
 Richter [Lehmeyer] (Johannes), 60 
 
 Ricobaldus Ferrariensis, 191 
 
 Riff, Riffe, Riffen (Hanns), 27, 38, 
 
 39. 46, SI. 54. 57 
 Rihel (Bernh.), 154 
 Ringavia, 139 
 Robert (Jean le), 8, 192 
 Rodenstein (Johann), 62 
 Ross (Hans), 52 
 Rotgebe, 39 
 Roth(F. W. E.), 119 
 Rudolph, dean of Worms, 1 74 
 Russell (John Fuller), 108, no, 173 
 
 Sagen von alten Dingen der . . . 
 Stadt Mentz, 15, 183 
 
 Sahl (H.), 138 
 
 Sahspach (Cunrad), 23, 37, 51 
 
 Saldis (Herm. de) [Schildis], 108 
 
 Salmuth(Henr.), 77, 89, 97 
 
 Saltzmiitter (Jerge), 51 
 
 Savonarola (Heron.), 8 
 
 Schaab, 11-13, 15, 18, 19, 29, 30, 
 32, 58, 60-68, 80, 92, 103, 106, 
 114, 1 19-122, 124, 125, 127, 
 
 143. 14s 
 Scheffer (Peter), see Schoeffer 
 Schelhorn's Bible, see Bible of 36 
 
 lines 
 Schellhom (or Schelhom), 58, 79, 1 52 
 Schenk zu Schweinsberg(Dr.), 117- 
 
 119, 177 
 Scherz Qo. Geo.), 27, 28, 58 
 Schmidt (C), 58, 60, 106, 107 
 Schmidt (Dr. G.), 153 
 Schmidt (Dr. Gust.), 154 
 Schoeffer (Johann), 69-71, 83 
 Schoeffer (Peter) de (von) Gernss- 
 heym, 18, 30, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 
 82, 84, 86-88, 90, 96, 131, 132, 
 139,164, 166-168, 171, 189, 190 
 
200 
 
 Gutenberg. 
 
 Schoepflin (Joh. Dan.), ig, 20, 22- 
 
 27. 29-58, 60, 61, 105, 183, 
 
 186-188 
 Schrag (Ad.), 95 
 Schullieissen, see Schultheiss 
 Schultheiss CEnnel, wife of Hanns), 
 
 23, 35 
 Schultheiss (Harms), 23, 36, 51 
 Schumacher von Selgenstadt(Hans), 
 
 63 
 Schurener de Bopardia (Joh. ), 191 
 Schutter (Wilhelm von), 51 
 Schwarz (Laib u.), 6 
 Schwarz (Christ. Gottl.), 80 
 Schweighauser, 30-32, 58 
 Schwann (31-lme Indulgence at), 
 
 152 
 Seckingen (Fridel von), 23, 24, 38, 
 
 40, 43. 5'. 56 
 Senckenberg (Henr. Christ, von), 
 68, 69, 76-80, 92, 95, 98, 100, 
 
 102 
 
 Sensenschmied, 8 
 
 Serarius, 121, 122 
 
 Sevilla, 72 
 
 Sidenneger (Hanns), 23, 36, 51 
 
 Sidenneger (Heinrich), 52 
 
 Sifridus de Arena, 109, 1 10 
 
 Sixtus IV., 112, 191, 192 
 
 Skeen(W.), 33 
 
 Smalriem (Wernher), 23, 37, 51 
 
 Sorchenloche (Sorgenloche) genannt 
 
 genssefleische (Hans von), 62 
 Sotheby, 170 
 Sotzmann, 151, 153, 161 
 Speculum humanae Salvationis, 6 
 Speculum Sacerdotum, see Saldis 
 Spencer's library (printed works in 
 
 Lord), 6, 153, 161-163, 173, 180. 
 
 See also Althorp 
 Spiesz (Spyess) von Ortenberg 
 
 (Wigand, Wygand), 123-125, 
 
 127, 143. 179 
 Steinbach (Thoman), 23, 40, 51 
 S looker (Midehart, Mudart, Myde- 
 
 hart), 23, 24, 33, 38, 42, 49, SI 
 Stoger, l6l 
 Stoltz, 43 
 Strassburg, 11, 15, 18-23, 25-30, 
 
 32. 33, 58, 60. See also Chapter 
 
 of St. Thomas 
 S trassburg Lawsuit ofl439,23 sqq . , 
 
 185, 189 
 
 Sturm (Gosse), 52 
 
 Sulgeloch genannt Gudinberg 
 (Henna Genssfleisch von), fic- 
 titious, 106 
 
 Sultz (Jean de), 61 
 
 Sunderland collaction, 179 
 
 Sydenneger, see Sidenneger 
 
 Tentzel, 82 
 Theramo (Jac. da), 161 
 Torre (Alfonso de la), 72 
 Tractatus de celebratione Missarum 
 
 (with a so-called rubric of 1463), 
 
 107 sqq. 
 Tractatus da expositione misse, 173 
 Tritheim (Joh.), 70, 72 
 Tross (Edwin), 158, 166 
 Typography, 5, 8 
 
 Uffenbach (Zacharias Conrad 
 von), 75-77, 79-81, 91-93, 97- 
 100, 102, 115 
 
 Ulm, 6, 7 
 
 Urban's day (St.), 19 
 
 Van der Linde, see Linde 
 
 Veldenec (Joh.), 139 
 
 Vergil (Polydore), 69 
 
 Verwer (Martin), 52 
 
 Villiers (De), see De 
 
 Vinne (De), see De 
 
 Virgilii Bucolica (Neumann's ed.), 
 
 126, 129 
 Vocabularius Ex quo of 1467, 123- 
 
 125, 127, 128, 143, 145, 147, 179 
 
 of 1469, 123, 125, 129, 142- 
 
 14s. 147, 179 
 
 of 1472, 143, 145-148, 179, 
 
 180 
 
 of 1477, 14s, 149, 181 
 
 Vocabularius juris utriusque (of 
 
 1477), 181 
 
 Walther (Dr.), 108, 112, 138 
 
 Weigel, 7 
 
 Wencker (Jac), 20-22, 25-29, 33, 
 
 183, 186, 187 
 Wenszler (Mich.), 150, 154 
 Wetter, 33, 79, 93, 99, 158, 1 59 
 Willshire, 7 
 Wilton House, 103 
 Wimpfeling (Jac), 15, 118 
 Wittig (Ivo), 70 
 
Index. 
 
 20I 
 
 Wolf (Joh. Christian), 76, 77, 78, 
 
 91, 92, 98 
 Wolf (Joh. Ckristopk), 74, 76, 83, 
 
 84, 86, 90-92, 96, 98, 102 
 Wolfenbiittel (Printed books and 
 
 documents at), 109, no, 150-153, 
 
 156, 161-163, 166, 172, 173 
 Wiirtzburg (documents at), loi, 
 
 115, 116, 120, 173 
 Wurdtwein(Steph. Alex.), 103 
 Wuttke, 5 
 
 Wyss (Dr. Arthur), loi, 103, 107, 
 IIS, "6, 177 
 
 Xylographers, 7 
 Xylography, 5, 6 
 
 Zabern (Barbel von), 23, 34 
 Zabem (Jac), 126 
 Zestermann, 7 
 Zum Jungen, see Jungen 
 
 2 D 
 
BY THE SAME: 
 
 THE HAARLEM LEGEND OF THE INVENTION 
 OF PRINTING by Lourens Janszoon Coster, critically examined 
 by Dr. A. VAN DER LINDE. Translated from the Dutch 
 by J. H. HESSELS, with an Introduction, and a classified 
 List of the Costerian Incunabula. London (Blades). 1871. 8°, 
 price, 7s. 6d. (Sold by B. Quarilch, i^ Piccadilly.) 
 
 LEX SALICA; the ten texts with the glosses, and the 
 Lex Emendata. Synoptically edited by J. H. HESSELS. 
 With Notes on the Prankish words in the Lex Salica, by Prof. 
 H. KERN, of Leiden. London (John Murray). 1880. 4°. 
 price, 42s. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 WYMAN AKD SONS, PRINTERS, GBEAT QUBRN STREET, 
 
 LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS) W.C.