The chief difficulty—the greatest obstacle in the way of putting to a practical use the Types as now designed, and thus bringing the Typographic Art before the world—was the want of the Letter Press. To overcome this obstacle, to conquer this difficulty, was Gutenberg’s great task. There was, in point of fact, no particular ingenuity or inventive faculty required in making separable letters. The keen perception which saw the advantages to be gained from such separation, was, no doubt, a sure indication that Gutenberg was a man of mark—one whose mental gifts transcended those ordinarily possessed by his fellow-men. But the realization of the idea of separating the letters was a task which mainly depended on the amount of manual and mechanical dexterity brought to bear upon its execution. The higher efforts of genius, and the development of the inventive faculties were displayed in the subsequent steps, and in none more notably than in the invention of the Press.
The question—Who invented the Printing Press?—has never yet, it is believed, been thoroughly considered or satisfactorily answered. A writer in the Encyclopædia Britannica says, “It is probable that one of the difficulties which Gutenberg found insuperable at Strasburg was the construction of a machine of sufficient power to take impressions of the type or blocks then employed. Nor is it at all wonderful that even the many years during which he resided at that city should have been insufficient to produce the requisite means; for what with cutting his type, forming his screws, inventing and compounding his ink, and constructing the means for applying the ink when made, his time in the Alsatian capital must have been fully occupied.” And he goes on to argue that the Press was probably the joint production of Gutenberg, Faust and Schœffer, during the time of their association in Mentz. But for such a belief there is no real ground whatever.
Mr. Hansard, although he devotes 166 pages of his voluminous work[36] to an account of Presses and Printing machines, strangely enough heads his first chapter on the subject “Construction of the Original Printing Press by Blaew of Amsterdam.” But Blaew lived two centuries after the original invention, and was only an improver of certain of its parts. Of the original inventor he says not a word.
Mr. M‘Creery, a contemporary of Hansard, in his poem the “Press,”[37] reprinted in the Typographia, apostrophises Gutenberg and Mentz in the following terms:—
“Sire of our Art, whose genius first design’d
This great memorial of a daring mind,
And taught the lever with unceasing play,
To stop the waste of Time’s destructive sway!
* * * * *
O Mentz! proud city, long thy fame enjoy,
For with the Press thy glory ne’er shall die;
Still may thy guardian battlements withstand
The ruthless shock of War’s destructive hand,
Where Gutenberg with toil incessant wrought
The imitative lines of written thought;
And, as his Art a nobler effort made
The sweeping lever his commands obeyed:”—
But although, poetically, Mr. M‘Creery thus ascribes the invention to the man and place to whom it rightfully belongs, I do not know (not having the original edition to refer to) whether he intended anything more. I suspect not, since otherwise Mr. Hansard would scarcely have failed to have made use of any information in the notes to the poem which tended to throw light on a subject of so much historical importance.
Other writers pass the subject by with the remark, that “Of the mechanical construction of these presses there is little or no record.” One of the latest authorities, Mr. Blades, the able palæotypographist, thus dismisses it:—“The method of obtaining an impression by a direct pressure downwards is generally supposed to have been synchronous with the use of moveable types. Mr. Ottley, however, describes several of the earliest wood blocks, which he had no doubt were printed by means of a press. Of one he states ‘I am in possession of a specimen of wood engraving, printed in black oil colour on both sides the paper by a downright pressure, which I consider to have been, without doubt, printed in or before the year 1445.’ There can be no question therefore that the earliest type printers found a press ready to their hands.”[38] But this is a very unconvincing method of reasoning; and a positive conclusion founded upon a mere opinion given in regard to the supposed age of an old engraving—a subject upon which the ablest experts differ—is one which is open to very considerable question.
It has already been stated, (pp. 42–43) that before the invention of the press, impressions were usually taken on one side only of the paper or vellum; although the possibility of their being taken on both sides is admitted. Mr. Ottley says “the best proof that the printer knew how to print on both sides of his paper, is that he did so;”[39] and he mentions two instances where, on a single leaf, the text of the Speculum is so printed.[40] The inference which these writers intended should be drawn from the above statements is, that the press used by the printer of the Speculum was essentially the same as that subsequently used by the printers at Mentz.
But what is the evidence in the case? All that can be brought forward is the nature of the ink, and the appearance of the printed pages. As regards the ink, it differed from that used at a later period in Germany, and was certainly much more fluid; this is shewn by its spreading over the edges, and filling up the loops of the letters. By itself, however, the ink proves nothing as to how the types were impressed; that is to be learnt from the appearance of the pages; and this shews that impressions were taken by a rolling process. A wooden or metallic roller, 7 inches long, with a diameter of not less than 3 inches, and covered with two or three folds of fine woollen cloth, rolled, with a sufficient amount of pressure, over the back of the paper when it was laid upon the types after they had been inked—or an uncovered roller, if two or three folds of woollen cloth were laid over the paper—would do all that was needed, and be quite sufficient to account for the practice of printing on one side of the paper only. The statement how such an impression might be taken, is not however a proof that such was in reality the method adopted. That proof lies in the fact, that the capital letters of the columns of text on the left hand margin, and the end letters of the lines on the right, are all more or less blurred, and choked with ink, in a way which only such a cylindrical method of printing would effect; that effect being caused by the first and last contact of the roller with the outer edges of the types. In cylindrical machine printing at the present day, where care has not been taken to guard the edges and ends of the types by ‘bearings,’ similar blurrings may at any time be seen. In the admittedly rude appliances of the earliest printers such appearances would under such a process be at least as plainly shewn. And in the absolute fac-simile which Mr. Humphreys gives, on plate 10 of his work, of the page of the Speculum printed from separable letters with black oleaginous ink, those appearances are most plainly visible. Of course it was possible to print sheets of paper in this way on both sides; but care would have to be taken to guard the first printed side by interposing between it and the roller a waste or setting-off sheet, before the process was repeated. And, as already hinted, by the use of ‘bearings,’ the blurring might be avoided. The difference however between such a process and that invented and put in practice by Gutenberg, is as great as that which exists between the battering rams and catapults of the ancients, and the siege trains of modern artillerists.
Admitting then that impressions from type could be taken on both sides of a sheet, the mere fact that a single leaf was so printed in two editions of the same ancient work, is no proof whatever that the said impressions were made with a press such as was used by the printers at Mentz, the invention of which became a necessity in order to complete the Typographic Art. What it does prove, is, that the printer of the Speculum, with the appliances then at his command, preferred the easier, simpler, and safer method of printing on one side only.
But in the consideration of this subject there are other questions which ought not to be overlooked;—e.g.