PRI
(874)
PRI
vet undifcover'd by the Portuguefe i there ,s no room to charge the Europeans with borrowing their Arrfrom the Chinefe : But each muft be own'd to have fall'n on the fame thing, tho' at very different times. _
Father Couplet allures us, that 'Printing has been in ule in China from theYearojo. Father te Compte fpeaks more largely ; faying, that it has been there trom, almoft, all Ages : He adds, that there is this difference between theirs and ours, that, whereas we have but a very fmall dumber of Letters in our Alphabets, and by the various Arrangement of thefe, are able to form infinite Volumes ; we have the Advantage, by making our Charaaers move- able, to print the largeft Works with an inconfiderable Quan- tity of Letter ; thofe that fcrved for the firft Sheets, lerving over again for the fucceeding ones : The Chinefe on the contrary, by reafon of the prodigious Number of their Let- ters are precluded this refource; and find it more ealy and lefs expenfive to cut all their Letters on wooden Blocks ; and thus to make as many Blocks as there are Pages in a Book, and thefe of no further ufebut for that (ingle Work.
•their Method of Printing/ee hereafter.
Origin and Invcntionof the European Printing.
Who the firft Inventors of the European Printing were ; in what City, and what Year 'twas firft fet on foot, is a famous Problem long difputed among the Learned : In effect, as the Grecian Cities contended for the Birth of Homer ; fo do the German Cities for that of Printing.
Mentis, Haerlem, and Strasbourg, ate the warmeft on this Point of Honour : Italy alfo would have enter'd the Li firft Qj mu.. _
We fhall not enter into a nice Dilquifitinn of the Merits of the Caufe, but only propofe the Pretenfions of each.
John Mantel of Strasbourg, John Guttembourg and John Fuji of Mentz, and L. John Kofier of Haerlem, are the Per- fons to whom this Honour is feverally afcribed, by their re- fpcclive Countrymen ; and have all their Advocates among the Learned.
Mantel, a Phyfician of 'Paris, enters the Lifts in behalf of his Name-fake of Strasbourg ; and contends that 'twas he firft invented Printing in the Year 1442, and that in con (ideration hereof, the Emperor Frederic III. gave him a Coat of Arms correfponding thereto : He adds, that Gut- tembourg, whom he had taken in as a Partner or Affbciate, carry'd it to Mentz, where he took in Fuji a Partner.
The Haerlemers, with Soxhornius, Schrevelius, &c. re- fer the firft Invention to La-airenzs Janzs Kofier of Haerlem, in the Year 1430. Adding, that his Affociate, Guttembourg, flole away his Tools while he was at Church ; and carried 'em to Mentz, where he fet up for the firft Inventor ; tho' others attribute this Theft, &c. to his Partner Fuji.
Mtmpr, Polydore Virgil, Pafrjuier, &c. will have Gut- tembourg, or Guttemburgh, to have really been the Inven- tor of Printing; and add, that he took in Fuji and Schoejfer for Affbciires. . .
Naude, in his Mafcurat, cfpoufes the Caufe of Fuji, or Fanjl, or Faujlus ; and will have him to be the firft Printer in Europe, and that he took in Guttembourg for a Partner. His realbn for putting Fuji in poffeffion of this Privilege, is, that the firft Books that were printed, appear to have been all of his Impreffion. 'Tis more than probable, had Gut- tembourg or Kofier had a greater or an equal Share in the Invention, they would not have allow'd him to attribute the whole to himfelf and his Son-in-law Schoijfer, as he has done, without ever offering to do the like, or in the lead con- tradicting him, and afferting theirown Right.
Thefe Editions are, i°. The Catholicon Januenfis, dated in r4<ro, and now in the King's Library. Fuji's Mame, in- deed, is not to this; but 'tis perfectly like the following ones, where it is. 2 . The Latin Bible of 146s, now in the French King's Library. 3 Q . Tiilly's Offices, in 4« ; (the reft being all Folio's) in the Year 1455 and 14.66 ; for there are Codks in the 'Bodleian, and the Library of C.C. College, Oxon, of both thofe Dates. 4 . Other Bibles of 1471. 5 . St. Jugafiine deCi'jitate Dei, 1473. tf° . Mercurms Irif- megiftusdc Fotejtate K? Sapientia Dei, in 1503. 7 . I'itus Livtus, in 151B. . . .
Add to this, that at the beginning ofLivy, is a Privilege granted by the Emperor Maximilian, to Schoejfer for the fole Power of printingrhM Author for ten Years; and for fix Years to all the othet Books he mould print thereafter, in confideration of his Father-in-law, Fuji's haying invented the Arr of Printing. This Privilege is dated i;i8, and figned Jac. Spiegel.
EraSmus, however, in the Epiftle after that Privilege, does not pofitively aver the Fact ; he only obferves, that rhe firft, or the chief Inventor of that Art is held to bey. Fuji. In the Advertifement to the faid Book , Nich. Car-
bachius fpeaks to the fame effect as the Privilege, and Erafmus.
As to Guttembourg, Mantel, and Kofier, Uattde obferves, the Perfon is not yet born that can lay he has ever fed Books printed by any of 'em, before, or as early as thofe of Fuji. All that is urged on their behalf, is only founded on Reports, Conjectures, Probabilities, forged Authorities and the Jealoufies of Cities againft one another.
Yet Salmuth, in his Additions to Pancirollus, cites a public Act, whereby it appears that Fuji, after having invented Printing, andfuftain'd it a long time on his own footing ; at length took In Guttembourg as a Partner, to contribute t the Expence ; which was very great, by reafon the firft Books were moft of 'em printed en Vellum, or at leaft Parchment, and after the Chinefe way.
But the Caufe is not thus decided : The Advocates for Kofier urge divers things, to put him in the place here affigned to Fuji. Mr. Ellis, in the Philof. TranfaB. fathers Books on him prior to any of thofe above relei'd to Fuji ; and even fome as early as 1430, and 1432. 'lis certain, the Haerlemers, fhew printed Books of that Uate,wl-.ich agreeing fo well with the account given by 'fheod. Schrevelius, and others, leaves little room to doubt, whether the Honour of the Invention be his or the others due. All that belongs to Fuji, according to this Writer, is the honour of eftablifhing the Art in greater Luftre and Perfection at another place many Y'ears after.
But the difficulty lies, either in fhewjng why rhe Practice fhould be at a ftand from 1432, to the reviving of it at Mentz by Fuji and Schoejfer, in 14(15; or elfe in giving fome account of the Condition and Progrefs of this Invention
and other Authors, ex- ork as the De Speigel, Spe- nt Haerlem tor the firft printed Book,' could "never be his firft Effay -. He muft have had the Art in its rougher Rudiments before, and have made many Trials on leffer Works : No doubt his firft Attempts were on lcofe Sheets, which we may fuppofe were eafily loft. In effect, it muft be allow'd no inconfi- derable Argument in Kofier's behalf, that the rudeft and moft artlefs Performances feem to be his : Mr. Ellis men- tions fome things of this kind without Date, which he had feen in the King's Library at St. James's, in that of Sennet College and the Bodleian at Oxford, with all the Marks of the utmoft Simplicity, and which might fairly bid for firft Effays : There is fomething fo aukward and coarfe in 'em, that any body almoft might have done 'em j mere Nature being fufficient, without any Art or Experience at all. The Ink was only common writing Ink, unartfully fpread upon wooden Blocks, very clumfily cut, iic.
By this time we have traced up the Art to fuch a State, that it may, perhaps, fcarcc feem worth the contefling who it was invented it ; and no doubt, Printing as it now flands, owes more to the Genius and Addrefs of fome ol the later Im- provers, than it did to its Author.
The fame Confideration may make us more eafy under our prefent Ignorance of the Inventors of moft other Arts; many of which had fuch Ample un-meaning Originals, that you or I fhould, perhaps, think it no mighty Credit to be efteem'd the Authors of Inventions nothing lefs Artful and Ingenious.
Progrefs of Printing.
The firft Printers, then, whoever they were, whether Kofier, Fuji, Schoejfer, or Guttembourg, made their firft Effays on wooden Blocks, or Forms, after the Chinefe manner.
'Tis not improbable, fays Mr. Bagford, they might take the Hint from antient Medals and Seals ; but others rather imagine it to have come from the Method of making play- ing Cards, which, 'tis certain, bears a near refemblance to the primitive Procefs of Printing ; as appears from the firft Specimens of that Art above-mentioned. See Card.
The Book at Haerlem, the Vocabulary call'd Catholicon, and the Pieces in the Bodleian and Sennet's College, are all perform'd in this way ; and the Impreffion appears to have been only given on one fide the Leaves ; after which the two blank fides were palled together.
But they foon found the Inconveniencies of this Method ; and therefore bethought themfelves of an Improvement; which was by making fingle moveable Letters, diftinct from one another.
Thefe being firft done in Wood, gave room for a fecond Improvement ; which was the making of 'em, at length, of Metal ; and, in order to that, forging Moulds, Matrices, £<?c. for calling 'em.
From this ingenious Contrivance, we ought to date the Origin of the prefenr Art of Printing, as practifed in Eu- rope ; contra-diflinguifh'd from the Methods of the Chinefe abroad, and the Card-Makers at home, which were the fame Art, only practifed in a diffetent place, or with »
different view. ,
And
