PRI


( 874 )


yet undifcover'd by the Portiguefle; there is no room to
charge the Europeans with borrowing their Art from the
Chinefe: But each mull be own'd to have fall'n on the
fame thing, tho' at very different times.
Father Couplet aires us, that Printing has been in ufe
in China from the Year 930. Father le Compte fpea ks more
largely; faying, that it has been there from, almoff, all
Ages : He adds, that there is this difference between
theirs and ours, that, whereas we have but a very fmall
Number 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, toprint the largeft Works with an inconfiderableQuan-
tity of Letter; thofc that ferved for the firil Sheets, ferving
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 eafy 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 ufe but for that fingle Work.
YIieir Method of Printingfee hereafter.
Origin and Invention of the European PR INT ING.
Who the frlI Inventors of the European Printing were;
in what City, and what Year 'twas firfi fet on foot, is a
famous Problem long difputed among the Learned: In
efFetI as the Grecian Cities contended for the Birth of
Homer; fo do the German Cities for that of Printing.
Mentz, Haerlem, and Strasbourg, are the warmefi on
this Point of Honour: Italy alfo would have enter'd the
Lifis; but the Suffrages being at firli divided between the
firil three Pretenders, they are left in polfeffion of the
Queflion, which, in reality is not yet jufily decided; tho' it
mufi be own'd, Mensz has always had the Majority of Voices.
We Ihall not enter into a nice Difliuifition of the Merits
of the Caufe, but only propofe the Pretenfions of each.
7ohn M~antel of Strasbourg, 7ohn Guttembourg and 7ohn
Tuft of Mentz, and L. !John Kofter of Haerlem, are the Per-
fons to whom this Honour is feverally afcribed, by their re-
fpclive Countrymen; and have all their Advocates among
the Learned.
Afantel, a Phyfician of Paris, enters the Lifts in behalf
of his Name-fake of Strasbourg; and contends that 'twas
he firil invented Printing in the Year 1442, and that in
con fideration hereof, the Emperor Frederic 111. gave him a
Coat of Arms corresponding thereto: He adds, that Gut-
tembourg, whom he had taken in as a Partner or Affociate,
carry'd it to Mentz, where he took in Fuji a Partner.
The Haerlemers, with Boxbornius, Schrevelius, &c. re-
fer the firti Invention to Lawrenzs Yanzs Kofter of Raerlem,
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 firfi Inventor, tho'
others attribute this Theft, Le.c. to his Partner Tuft.
Munfler, Polydorc Virgil, Pafquier, &c. will have Gut-
temibourg, or Guttemburgh, to have really been the Inven-
tor of Printingg; and add, that he took in Fujf and Schoeffer
for Affociates.
Naude, in his Maficurat, efpoufes the Caufe of Tuft, or
Fauft, or Fauftus; and will have him to be the firfl Printer
in Europe, and that he took in Guttembourg for a Partner.
His realon for putting Futo in poffeffion of this Privilege,
is, that the firl} Books that were printed, appear to have been
all of his Impreilion. 'Tis more than probable, had Gut-
temi'ourg or Kofter 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 Scho ffer, as he has
done, without ever offering to do the like, or in the leaft con-
tradi~ing him, and anerting theirown Right.
Thefe Editionsare, 1O. The Catholicon 7anuenfis, dated
in r460, and now in the King's Library. FuJI's Name, in-
deed, is not to this; but 'tis perfecfly like the following
ones, where it is. 2f. The Latin Bible of 1462, now in the
French King's Library. 3 ".ully's Oices, in 4to; (the refl
being all Folio's) in the Year 1465 and 1466; for there are
Copies in the Bodleian, and the Library of C. C. C ollege,
Oxon, of both thofe Dates. 4O. Other Bibles of 1471. 5f.
St. Auguftine deCivitate Dei, 1473. 6Q. Aercurius Triif-
megiftus de Poteftate U Sapientia fDei, in 1503.  70. Vtus
Livius, in X 5 1 8 .
Add to this, that at the beginning of Livy, is a Privilege
granted by the Emperor Maximilian, to Schoeffer for the
fole Power of printing that Author for ten Years  and for
fix Years to all the other Books he fhould print thereafter,
in confederation of his Father-in-law, Fuji's having invented
the Art of Printing. This Privilege is dated i518, and
figned 7ac. Spiegel.
Erafirnis, however, in the Epiflie after that Privilege,
does not pofitively aver the Faa ; he only obferves, that
the firfi, or the chief Inventor of that Art is held to be 7.
FuJi. In the Advertifement to tho faid Book, Nich. Car-


P R I


bachius fpeaks to the fame effe& as the Privilecp
U of fUr0.


As to Guttembourg, Mantel, and Kofler, Navde obferve4
the Perfon is not yet born that can lay he has ever fec
Books printed by any of 'ems before, or as early as thof0
of Ruft. All that is urged on their behalf, is only founded
on Reports, Conje&ures, Probabilities, forged Authoritie,
and the Jealoufies of Cities againfi one another.
Yet Salmuth, in his Additions to Pancirollus, cites a public
A61, whereby it appears that Fu@, after having invented
Printing, and fuflain'd it a long time on his own footing i
at length took in Guttemourg as a Partner, to contribute to
the Expence; which was very great, by reafon the Qir
Books were moll of 'em printed on Vellum, or at leatA
Parchment, and after the Chinefe way.
But the Caufe is not thus decided: The Advocates f6
Kofter urge divers things, to put him in the place here
affigned to Fuft. Mr. Ellis, in the Philopf 7ranfall. father,
Books on him prior to any of thofe above refer'd to Tuft;
and even fome as early as 1430, and 1432- 'Tis certain, the
Haerlemers, fhew printed Books of that Date,which agreein
fo well with the account given by T'heod. Schrevelius, and
others, leaves little room to doubt, whether the Honour of
the Invention be his or the others due. All that belongs to
Fuft, according to this Writer, is the honour of eflablifhing
the Art in greater Lufire and Perfe6lion at another place
many Years after.
But the difficulty lies, either in fhewing why the Praflice
Should be at a fland from 543:, to the reviving of it at
.Mentz by. FuJI and Schoeffer, in 1465 or elfe in giving
fome account of the Condition and Progrefs of this Invention
during that Interval.
Now, !Boxhornius, Schrevelius, and other Authors, ex..
prefly affirm, that fo large a Work as the De Speigel, Spe-
cul/ur Salutis, of Kofter, Ihewn at Haerlem for the firmt
printed Book, could never be his firfi Effay: He mufc
have had the Art in its rougher Rudiments before, and
have made many Trials on lefer Works: No doubt his
firil Attempts were on Icofe Sheets, which we may fuppofe
were eafily lob, in efFec&, it mull be allow'd no inconfi-.
derable Argument in Kofter's behalf, that the rudefi and
mop arrlefs 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. .7ames's, in that of Bennet
College and the .Bodleian at Oxjord, with all the Marks o
the utmofl 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 ; 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, &c.
By this time we have traced up the Art to fuch a State,
that it may, perhaps, fcarce feem worth the contefling who
it was invented it ; and no doubt, Frintivg as it now flands,
owes more to the Genius and Addrefs of fume of 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 fimple unmeaning 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 fir{} Printers, then, whoever they were, whether
Kofter,Fuft, Schoefer, or Guttembourg, made their firit 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, 'tiscertain, bears a near refemblance to
the primitive Procefa of Printing; as appears from the firfi
Specimens of that Art above-mentioned. See CARD.
The Book at Haerlem, the Vocabulary cal I'd Catholicov,
and the Pieces in the Bodleian and Bennet'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 pafled together.
But they foon found the Inconveniencies of this Method ;
and therefore bethought themselves of an Improvement i
which was by making fingle moveable Letters, diftinr
from one another.
Thefe being firfi done in Wood, gave room for a Second
Improvement; which was the making of 'cm, at length, of
Metal ; and, in order to that, forging Moulds, Matrices,
ec. for cafling 'em.
From this ingenious Contrivance, we ought to date the
Origin of the prefent Art of Printing, as praaified in au-
rope; contra-diflinguifh'd from the Methoas of the Chmneft
abroad, and the Card-Makers at home, which were the
fame Art, only praaifed in a diffetent place, or with s
different view.                                     X