Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Buchwissenschaft - Übung

Das Buch in der Frühen Neuzeit als Forschungsgegenstand

Leitung: Dr. Christoph Reske

WS 2013/14

Professor Bruno Fabiani's theory.

The objections moved by academic scholars.

Andrea Da Roit 9. Semester

Jakob Welder-Weg 36, Mainz Buchwissenschaft

0039 3476901194 Studi Storici dal Medioevo all‟Età

andrew_daroit89@hotmail.it Contemporanea | curriculum Medioevale

2

INDEX

3 Introduction

CHAPTER I

4 Professor Bruno Fabbiani’s theory

CHAPTER II

6 Objections to those theory

9 CONCLUSIONS

Sitography

3

Introduction

In the following study I propose to expose the new theory presented during the years 2003

and 2004 by the Italian academic Bruno Fabbiani, Professor of the Politecnico di Torino.

According to his studies, published in three articles and conducted in the early 2000s, he

would intend to explain to the Italian and foreign public, just in three articles, that Johannes

Gutenberg didn't invent or use moveable type to print his famous and notorious Bible (known

as B42). Therefore I intend to briefly reveal and detect which are the ideas that led to the

formation of this theory made by Professor Fabbiani, so sensational that if it would be taken

as true, it could revolutionize all the history of printing and consequently the history of

humanity. I must point out that the discourse presented by the Italian Professor is not

supported by sufficient scientific literature. In fact it is only based on experiments carried out

in his own laboratory. Consequently he allows the possibility that other academic researchers,

in this case certainly more versed in the subject, can refute and disprove his theory without

the need of a long study.

In order to start my research I used several books and websites to gain a well-informed

opinion. However the sources were very sparse and incomplete, as it was not possible to view

the articles published by Professor Fabbiani on Graphicus magazine1. As a result I had to rely

primarily on three documents: the first one is titled Gutenberg did not print with moveable

type2 and was written by the Londoner lettering designer and calligrapher James Clough; the

second has the title Gutenberg e il Professore3 and is the Italian translation of the Clough‟s

article by a team from the important specialized magazine, already cited, Graphicus; and the

last one is an article published by Die Zeit and wrote by Angelika Franz titled Die

druckerfehde4, to which I added a variety of information in English, in German and in Italian

to make the discussion complete and to understand the distinction between the different

viewpoints.

1 It is possible have a look of the last new number of the specialized magazine at the following site:

www.graphicusmag.it. There is also an online archive, in which is possible to acquire the index of the magazines

published between the years 1997 and 2001 (www.progressografico.it/archivio-graphicus). Nevertheless was

impossible to consult the original articles wrote by Professor Bruno Fabbiani, where was expounding his theory

in the numbers: 1000, 1002 and 1005, those was published during the years 2003 and 2004. 2 JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg did not print with moveable type, downloaded from this site:

http://www.torrossa.it/digital/sam/2006/SERRA/2242639_SAM.pdf. 3 JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg e il Professore – La Bibbia di 42 righe fu veramente stampata a caratteri mobili,

«Graphicus», 1014, February 2005. 4 ANGELIKA FRANZ, Die Drukerfehde – Setze Johannes Gutenberg die 42-zeilige Bibel wirklich mit Handlettern?

Ein Italiener bezweifelt diese gültige Lehrmeinung und muss sich nun mit heftiger Gegenwehr auseinander

setzen, In: www.zeit.de/2005/08/Die_Druckerfehde.

4

CHAPTER I

Professor Bruno Fabbiani’s theory

Bruno Fabbiani was an academic Professor of the Politecnico of Torino for printing security

paper and banknote, control of forgeries and analysis of printing processes; until his

retirement in March 2007. He is also an autonomous researcher, chiefly is specialized in

forgery systems, and regarding this subject he instituted and coordinated the International

Forum Security. During his academic studies Fabbiani studied Printing technology and

Pedagogy, and he is also Engineer in Mechanics.

From his knowledge of the different printing methods, he has made several examinations

of a copy of the Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg between the years 1454 and 14555. The

theories resulting from the studies were presented in three articles published by the magazine

Graphicus between the years 2003 and 2004. Then, to better illustrate and fully discuss the

new findings, a sort of “academic process” was organised on Johannes Gutenberg, titled “G

as Genoa, Gutenberg, Gates” which took place in Genoa on October 2004. The initiative was

planned by Graphicus magazine, and Genoa Printing Museum, and is a part of the Italian

Congress of Museums of the Press and the Paper6. During the convention the theories of

Professor Fabbiani were presented and sparked a lively debate about the "old theories", the

debate in 2005 at the Centro di studi grafici a Milano. Obviously, what emerged during the

Genoese conference was bound to have great curiosity value, media appeal and a form of

promotion for the Professor himself. In addition, these new discoveries have led to the

development of a series of studies on the theories of Professor Fabbiani. The majority of these

appear to be very favourable to Fabbiani, at least in the first instance and especially by Italian

scholars. The idea that an academic could change so uniquely something that was universally

believed to be the truth for a period of longer than five centuries has generated a strong

positive approach to Italian researchers in the field. However, following the initial elation,

many bibliographers, printers, typographers, historians and other scholars have since then

produced a series of articles (scientific and otherwise) clearly at odds with the ideas of

Fabbiani. From my point of view it is important to not underestimate the fact that some of

these scholars have spent their lives studying the issues pointed out by Professor Fabbiani,

5 The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible) was the first major book printed in the Europe using

movable type. Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg,

in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s. Forty-eight copies, or substantial portions of copies, are still surviving. 6 LAURA CALEVO, Processo a Gutenberg – La Bibbia delle 42 linee non è stata stampata a caratteri mobili? E la

carta? Viene da Genova? La sorprendente teoria di Bruno Fabbiani, April 2004, in:

http://www.mentelocale.it/9674-processo-a-gutenberg.

5

whereas the latter began his research on the Bible B42 only since 2003 and after only a short

period of study his results were highly thought-provoking. I think it is very unlikely, if not

impossible, that after just one year of study someone may believe that is capable of upsetting

years of study, although it is good that he has raised that issue7.

The main "proof" presented by Fabbiani, are related to issues of printing technique. The

Professor, to summarise, says that Gutenberg did not compose the lines of the B42 with

movable type, but he insists that the composition was performed with the typing, letter by

letter and line by line, for which letters are cut in relief directly into a plate of copper or brass

or other metal. The result is a sort of metal punch, which is stuck progressively in a "matrix-

mother" of soft metal and then with the "matrix-mother" forms an entire column of lines (in

this case forty-two lines) of text. After that, molten lead was poured into the matrix. With this

operation you get the print form with embossed lettering, which is subsequently inked and

printed afterwards so that the lead matrix (not the "mother" one) can be used as the printing

surface. This, quite simply, is the theory of metallografia proposed by Fabbiani. However, the

Professor suggests a technique that is not exactly new, in fact it had already been studied and

discussed by Maurice Audin. In an article in the Gutenberg Jahrbuch published in 1930, the

scholar of typography, explains the technique and suggests the possibility that this method of

printing is one of the first steps of the experiments of print, used in a transient and

experimental way. However, he excludes categorically that this technique has been used for

the printing of a book8. However this contrasts the idea of Professor Fabbiani, who believes

that the B42 has not been printed with movable type, but through metal plates reproducing

text blocks of greater amplitude. The hypothesis is also supported, as well as by laboratory

analysis, by a real model developed by Fabbiani, with techniques of the era.

Despite this, I think it is more likely to believe that the only option for a possible use of the

technique of metallography is correct, without its true use.

7 JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg did not print with moveable type, p. 2, downloaded from this site:

http://www.torrossa.it/digital/sam/2006/SERRA/2242639_SAM.pdf. 8 http://library.oxfordjournals.org/content/s5-IV/4/282.full.pdf.

6

CHAPTER II

Objections to those theory

Starting from the theory previously covered, the discourse will develop now on the major

objections proposed by a few scholars, mainly of British and German origin. Most likely, this

theory has not been a great success, because it has an ample product comparison among

scholars. Even according to the British scholar Clough, at the base of the theory is detectable

confusion.

In fact the theory of "metallography" which exposed Fabbiani, triggers a spontaneous

objection about the inevitable deformation effects produced by the pressure of a hammer with

a steel punch inside a copper block, namely a punch in hard metal which strikes in a softer

metal. The following figure (figure 1)9 is useful in order to explain the claim made by the

Londoner researcher. Professor Fabbiani explain in the caption to the figure: the circled areas

indicate the deformation of the rods of adjacent characters

due to the surface modification of the matrix metal, due to

the punching. At this point a big doubt immediately arise:

to make a clear impression of letters on paper, the printing

surface needs to be higher than the surrounding areas. If

not, ink would reach these areas and would not be

transferred to the paper. Consequently, a steel punch with a wrong-reading letter in relief on

one end must be struck into softer metal (copper) to some depth (at least 4 mm). The result of

this soft penetration is not only a cavity with a right-reading letter at the bottom, but also the

inevitable displacement or swelling of the copper in all directions10

. If the single letters of

handmade matrices will not be justifying before they will be put into a mould, this could

cause the sides of the matrices to submit a lateral displacement of the copper, which makes it

impossible to cast moveable type. This is especially so in the case of Gutenberg's B42 lines,

whom are very closely set indeed: each successive strike of a punch would drastically deform

the previous letter. However it is impossible to see this problem in the B42 where the quality

of the type is consistently high.

Observing the figure 1, we could detect another problem about Fabbiani‟s theory.

According to his idea the letter i inside the first circle and the s in the second one should be

9 Illustration of Fabbiani published by Graphicus (October, 2003). The professor explains the deformation of the

rods inside the circled areas as a result of punching . 10

JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg did not print with moveable type, p. 2-3, downloaded from this site:

http://www.torrossa.it/digital/sam/2006/SERRA/2242639_SAM.pdf.

7

both punched (letter i after c and letter s after r), but it is impossible. When you produce the

punches you settle from left side to right side; consequently that‟s why Fabbiani‟s theory

can‟t be right: in that case the letters c and r should be deformed, instead of i and s11

. In my

opinion, it seems that Professor Fabbiani tries in every way possible to find an easy solution

to the various problems that develop during the course of his investigation.

Another serious weakness in Fabbiani‟s examples is the question of the fit between really

closely letters. Professor Fabbiani writes about this theme in the article, stating that „the fit

between letters descending and ascending, which exceed in height the size of the other

characters show that this joint is not compatible with the "type cast", but this coupling is only

possible with the metallography’. What Fabbiani called "interlocking" in typographic jargon

is a "kerning", namely a projection of a part of a letter on the shoulder of an adjacent

character. It is very possible for different types of kerning to develop during the printing

process.

There is a very serious gap in Fabbiani‟s theory concerning the question of the punches.

The hand-cutting of punches is a difficult skilled work that takes a lot of time and to produce

the B42 about three hundred different characters have been recognized, consisting of upper

and lowercase, ligatures, abbreviations, alternate letters and punctuation. Accepting that the

problem of deformation of letters had been solved, if we produce the punches with Fabbiani‟s

system, the composition of strikes (typesetting) would have required a stock of several

thousand punches. The printed letters in the B42 amount to about 3,230,000 (by the

Professor‟s calculation). Therefore the same enormous number of strikes of punches into

matrices of forty-two lines each would have been needed to print the B4212

. It sounds pretty

ridiculous and far-fetched. During the printing, of course, an enormous number of punches

would have broken and needed replacement as a consequence of the violent action of repeated

strikes13

, so the numbers of punches required would be higher.

To verify his theory, Professor Fabbiani has produced a small number of hand-cutting

punches and also a matrix of a column of closely set letters of B42 Textura. These punches

and the matrix were displayed at the Museo Tipografico Rondani in Carmagnola in 2005. A

lot of scholars disproved the theory that the matrix was certainly produced by the progressive

11

JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg e il Professore – La Bibbia di 42 righe fu veramente stampata a caratteri mobili,

«Graphicus», 1014, February 2005, p. 2. 12

JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg did not print with moveable type, p. 3, downloaded from this site:

http://www.torrossa.it/digital/sam/2006/SERRA/2242639_SAM.pdf. 13

A modern steel punch can strike about twenty letters before it fails. Try to image in the 15th century with an

hand-cutting punch. This study was made by Stan Nelson (Smithsonian Institution), who has been cutting

punches by hand and making moulds for about twenty years (www.rarebookschool.org/faculty/nelson_stanley).

8

striking of punches and further the letters themselves were only very slightly below the

surface. It seems that all the Fabbiani‟s theories could be disproved without a difficult study

and most notably, the Professor seems to use all of the possible excuses to promote his

metallography theory.

But above all, there‟s a fundamental question that Fabbiani has not been able to answer. In

fact he has ignored the question of corrections in the B42. During the early days of the

printing process (the hand-press period), if a compositor‟s error was noticed in a freshly

printed sheet, the form was unlocked and the letter was taken out and put back the right way,

and subsequently printing was soon resumed. But with the metallography, the amount of time

necessary to make these changes would be longer. It should be proportional with the

importance of the error itself.

The text above is, very concisely, the contribution made by the Italian Professor Fabbiani

in the field of typography research. In the three articles published in Graphicus he attempted

to change the well-known theory about the German printer Johannes Gutenberg14

.

14

James Clough in his study wrote about that: […] the discovery […] purports to deflate the assumption of

millions of human beings over a period of more than five centuries.

9

Conclusions

In closing this brief study on the work of Professor Bruno Fabbiani, first I would like to point

out that it was not possible to study in depth the issue highlighted, regarding the potential use

by Johannes Gutenberg of the movable type during the printing of his famous Bible.

First of all because there is no complete, secure and scientific literature regarding the

problem, the sources that were used in this examination were very sparse and lacking. In

general, I was able to analyse the critics viewpoint on Fabbiani‟s articles as found on different

websites, and what emerge in Professor Fabbiani studies. Nevertheless what arose could let us

think that he is the only person doing scientific research of the B42, yet this could not be

further from the truth. In fact he wrote in his article: Many books have been written on this

Bible and on other works by Gutenberg, but nobody until now, save proof to the contrary, has

analysed this word in depth […]15

. But this is not totally true, the only truth is that nobody has

already finished analysing the Bible. There are three important scholars, namely Lotte

Hellinga (British Library), Paul Needham (Princeton University) and Cornelia Schneider

(Guttenber Museum), whom are still researching on B42 for long time.

At this point it is possible to divide the researchers into two groups of thought: on the one

hand those who are in favour with the Fabbiani‟s theory, especially Italians, and the other side

those who are against the theory, mainly Germans and English. The scholars 'against' claim

that they cannot confirm with the right seriousness a theory presented by a researcher who

began studying in 2003 and which pretends that it is recognized the following year. On the

other side, Italians promoted the Professor‟s theory as the revelation of the millennium; this is

possible to check in numerous articles published on-line. One of them says:

Do you remember Johann Gutenberg and the first Bible printed in Mainz with the innovative

system defined in "movable-type"? [...] Reset everything: the Gutenberg Bible was a big fake, even

a fake in a fake. Not only that, in fact, the first 200 copies of the famous Gutenberg Bible, made in

three successive reprints, were sold to contemporaries as a handwritten reproduction to increase

the commercial value [...], but Gutenberg do not used a printing press with movable-type, whose

invention is instead due to the printer and publisher Johann Mentelin, a contemporary of

Gutenberg and handwriting expert [...]. This compelling historical mystery has been solved in

Turin, by Professor Bruno Fabbiani [...]16

.

15

JAMES CLOUGH, Gutenberg e il Professore – La Bibbia di 42 righe fu veramente stampata a caratteri mobili,

«Graphicus», 1014, February 2005, p. 4. 16

“Vi ricordate di Johann Gutenberg e della prima Bibbia stampata a Magonza con l’innovativo sistema

definite a “caratteri mobili”? […] resettate tutto: la Bibbia di Gutenberg è stato un grande falso, anzi un falso

nel falso. Non solo, infatti, le prime 200 copie della famosissima Bibbia di Gutenberg, realizzate in tre

successive ristampe, furono vendute ai contemporanei come una riproduzione manoscritta per accrescerne il

valore commerciale […], ma Gutenberg non utilizzò affatto una stampa a caratteri mobili la cui invenzione è

invece da attribuirsi allo stampatore ed editore Johann Mentelin, coetaneo di Gutenberg ed esperto calligrafo

10

Continuing to read the article, for otherwise without the name of an author, are presented

to the public the theories of Fabbiani as the only correct and supported by a scientific work. In

a study done by Leo Sorge and published in 2010 with the title The chips of Nostradamus, we

can read an indictment of the Academy world. According to the author scholars reject the

findings of Fabbiani, not even see the proofs and without considering that many have studied

the copies without arriving at a comprehensive result. The reaction of [the academic] circles

was set to three moments: ignore, refute, deride. [...] So far, it seems that no one [...] have

tried to read with sincere eyes work Fabbiani17

.

However, just move to Germany and it is possible to find out that the theories of Fabbiani

are rejected without many problems, clearly stating that: „Fabbiani wollte [nur] seine Thesen

popularisieren’18

. In fact the German researchers take a clear stance: „Wie Fabbiani

“forscht”, geht es nicht’, as though to say that the searches of Fabbiani lead nowhere, and

more the findings of Professor Fabbiani not change the traditional interpretation that the B42

was printed with the movable type.

My study of this fact starts from the simple presentation of Fabbiani‟s theory and then I

have presented the objections. This exercise leads me to "touch" upon the theme of the new

research works moving on from Johannes Gutenberg‟s printing, and it has also allowed me to

see that in different countries, interested in the typographic field of study, a lot of scholars

want to express their viewpoint.

Carrying out this work, I think it is correct to state that, in order to conclude with a well-

educated opinion, a comprehensive study should be carried out in more detailed analysis of

the themes.

[…]. Questo avvincente giallo storico è stato risolto a Torino, dal professor Bruno Fabbiani […]”. Translated

directly from: www.cna.to.it/CNA/corriere/archivio/Cat98/Notizie/News1460. 17

www.apogeonline.com/2006/libri/88-503-1044-7/ebook/pdf/abstract.pdf. 18

EDUARD KRIEGER, Kontroverse um Johannes Gutenberg, Kontroverses, July 17, 2012. Read in

www.johannes-gutenberg.com/kontroverses/kontroverse-um-johannes-gutenberg.

11

Sitography

www.apogeonline.com/2006/libri/88-503-1044-7/ebook/pdf/abstract.pdf

www.cna.to.it/CNA/corriere/archivio/Cat98/Notizie/News1460

www.hdemia.it/docs/gutenberg.pdf

www.johannes-gutenberg.com/kontroverses/kontroverse-um-johannes-gutenberg

library.oxfordjournals.org/content/s5-IV/4/282.full.pdf

www.mentelocale.it/9674-processo-a-gutenberg

www.torrossa.it/digital/sam/2006/SERRA/2242639_SAM.pdf

www.zeit.de/2005/08/Die_Druckerfehde