john gutenberg at strasburg
395
blocks; in the two buttons, which Dr. Van der Linde says are improperly translated by him as two screws, he finds a screw chase that held the four pages together. 
A Medieval Press.
[From Duverger.] This conjecture is in every way improbable. All the processes of block-printing should have been as well known at that time in Strasburg as they were in Venice, Augsburg and Nuremberg. Something more novel than this form of printing would have been required to secure the coöperation of shrewd men like Riffe and Heilmann. The enthusiasm of Dritzehen, and he eagerness of all parties to learn the new art, and to have a share in its profits, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the conjecture that this art was simple block-printing.[1]
- ↑ There is no evidence that Gutenberg had been taught xylography, or any of the many branches of book-making. He was not, for that reason, incompetent to invent an entirely new branch. The history of great inventions shows that many inventors never received a thorough technical instruction in the arts or trades which they undertook to reconstruct. Jacquard, inventor of the automatic loom, was, in his boyhood, a bookbinder and a type-founder. Arkwright, inventor of the spinning jenny, was a barber until he was thirty years of age. Stephenson, inventor of the locomotive, tended a steam boiler, but had not served time as a machinist nor as a carriage-builder. Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, was not a sailor, machinist nor ship-builder. Morse, inventor of the electric telegraph, was an artist, not a mechanician, nor even a man of science. Koning, inventor of the cylinder printing machine, was not a printer. The greatest inventions have been made by men not within, but without, the arts they improved. It would seem that a thorough technical education in any art or trade cramps the inventive faculties, disqualifying the expert from making any attempt at radical changes, permitting him to attempt improvement in the details only.
