DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30697#0043
Mentz. 1460.]
BALBUS.
35
be one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence. We proceed, in
the next place, to Wiirdtwein.
This able bibliographer concurs in the rational conclusions of those
who assign this volume to the press of Gutenberg; and who affirm
that the types are fusile or metal, differing essentially from the small
types of Fust and Schoeffer. His description of the volume is minute
and faithful: Biblioth. Moguntina, 1787, 4to. p. 66-70. Panzer is suf-
ficiently particular in his references; adding that the Voeabulary,
executed by Nicolas Bechtermunze, in the years 1467 and 1469—
(a printer, who redeemed the types of Gutenberg from Conrad
Humbrecht, or Humery, and who printed these Vocabularies precisely
in tlie same characters with those of the present work)—sufficiently
attests that Gutenberg was the typographical artist of the Catholicon
of 1460. Anndl. Typog. vol. ii. p. 113. This is probably the strongest
reason adduced in favour of Gutenberg; and has not failed to be
mentioned by subsequent bibliographers. La Serna Santander and
Lambinet are copious, but do not afford any novel information. The
latter notices eight copies of the work upon vellum, and nine upon
paper: all in foreign collectJons. Dict. Bibl. Choisi, vol. ii. p. 139; Orig.
de Vlmprim. vol. i. p. 180, 187* Oberlin, in his Essai d'Annales de la Vie
deJean Gutenberg, 1801, 8vo. p. 36-8, depends entirely upon preceding
authorities, to which he refers his reader ; and appears to have never
seen a copy either of the Catholicon or of the Voeabulary; vide post.
Fischer, in his Essai sur les Monumens Typographiques de Jean Guten-
berg, 1801, 4to. gives a fac-simile of the type, and a good description
of the volume; observing, however, that ‘ it is too well known to
require a particular account,’ p. 83-7. Lichtenberger has judiciously
availed himself of the labours of his predecessors,and given a compressed
but accurate description of it: Initia Typographica, p. 37* The last
author we shall notice is J. F. N6e De La Rochelle; whose Eloge
Historique de Jean Gensjleisch, dit Guttenberg, appeared at Paris in 1811,
8vo., the same year in which the preceding work was published. I
may embrace another opportunity of delivering a detailed opinion upon
the merits of the Eloge de Guttenberg:—observing only here, by the way,
that few works have displayed greater enthusiasm, or more fanciful con-
ceits upon a newly-founded hypothesis. The reader is constantly losing
himself in pathetic or extravagant exclamations, or in inferences so
shrewd and unexpected, that none but the author’s own sagacity can
comprehend them. Thus—to pass over many ridiculous observations
in his account of this celebrated book—N£e de Rochelle thus explains
BALBUS.
35
be one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence. We proceed, in
the next place, to Wiirdtwein.
This able bibliographer concurs in the rational conclusions of those
who assign this volume to the press of Gutenberg; and who affirm
that the types are fusile or metal, differing essentially from the small
types of Fust and Schoeffer. His description of the volume is minute
and faithful: Biblioth. Moguntina, 1787, 4to. p. 66-70. Panzer is suf-
ficiently particular in his references; adding that the Voeabulary,
executed by Nicolas Bechtermunze, in the years 1467 and 1469—
(a printer, who redeemed the types of Gutenberg from Conrad
Humbrecht, or Humery, and who printed these Vocabularies precisely
in tlie same characters with those of the present work)—sufficiently
attests that Gutenberg was the typographical artist of the Catholicon
of 1460. Anndl. Typog. vol. ii. p. 113. This is probably the strongest
reason adduced in favour of Gutenberg; and has not failed to be
mentioned by subsequent bibliographers. La Serna Santander and
Lambinet are copious, but do not afford any novel information. The
latter notices eight copies of the work upon vellum, and nine upon
paper: all in foreign collectJons. Dict. Bibl. Choisi, vol. ii. p. 139; Orig.
de Vlmprim. vol. i. p. 180, 187* Oberlin, in his Essai d'Annales de la Vie
deJean Gutenberg, 1801, 8vo. p. 36-8, depends entirely upon preceding
authorities, to which he refers his reader ; and appears to have never
seen a copy either of the Catholicon or of the Voeabulary; vide post.
Fischer, in his Essai sur les Monumens Typographiques de Jean Guten-
berg, 1801, 4to. gives a fac-simile of the type, and a good description
of the volume; observing, however, that ‘ it is too well known to
require a particular account,’ p. 83-7. Lichtenberger has judiciously
availed himself of the labours of his predecessors,and given a compressed
but accurate description of it: Initia Typographica, p. 37* The last
author we shall notice is J. F. N6e De La Rochelle; whose Eloge
Historique de Jean Gensjleisch, dit Guttenberg, appeared at Paris in 1811,
8vo., the same year in which the preceding work was published. I
may embrace another opportunity of delivering a detailed opinion upon
the merits of the Eloge de Guttenberg:—observing only here, by the way,
that few works have displayed greater enthusiasm, or more fanciful con-
ceits upon a newly-founded hypothesis. The reader is constantly losing
himself in pathetic or extravagant exclamations, or in inferences so
shrewd and unexpected, that none but the author’s own sagacity can
comprehend them. Thus—to pass over many ridiculous observations
in his account of this celebrated book—N£e de Rochelle thus explains