ShareThis Page
‘Gutenberg’s Apprentice’ tells how the printed Bible came to be |

‘Gutenberg’s Apprentice’ tells how the printed Bible came to be


The world is about to change.

Europe in 1450 is a godly place, and books are sacred and scarce. Each is hand-lettered by a scribe, directed by the hand of the Almighty.

In Alix Christie’s telling of how Johann Gutenberg’s revolutionary printed Bible took form, overcoming the idea of a mechanically produced holy book is a serious concern. Peter Schoeffer, a young scribe who is the apprentice of the book’s title, views the idea as the work of the devil.

Schoeffer, an actual historical figure who was one of the three men responsible for bringing the book from vision to reality, has, in Christie’s imagining, some serious soul searching to do. Printing (gasp!) a Bible (gasp!) is clearly sacrilegious, and he wants no part of it. But as the adopted son of Johann Fust, the wealthy Mainz merchant who’s underwriting the project, he is obligated.

Eventually, he comes to believe that the hand of God is manifest in this project. He convinces himself (or does God convince him?) that there is artistry in the designing of typefaces, in the maddening process of producing metal and developing ink able to withstand the abuse of Gutenberg’s primitive press. (Convincing his God-fearing fiancee proves more problematic.)

For Gutenberg, it’s not about divine inspiration; it’s about money and recognition. As Christie tells it, the man is a secretive, scheming, mercurial, manipulative, two-faced hustler — hardly a person whose invention would rock the foundations of society. But Gutenberg simply sees himself as a pragmatist. He insists on utter secrecy for the years it takes to bring his Bible to reality — from everyone but himself. He demands scrupulous honesty — from everyone but himself. He demands utter loyalty, but undertakes printing contracts for papal indulgences without telling anyone on his crew, save one.

To Peter, this jeopardizes the divinely inspired mission. To Gutenberg, it’s a feint that keeps prying, greedy ecclesiastical eyes diverted from his true objective.

Meanwhile, Fust sees himself being bled dry by Gutenberg, and tension with the free-spending inventor builds to the point of threatening the project. Peter, loyal to both but at odds with each, is squeezed in the middle.

Christie has a huge task in immersing us in the tumultuous 15th century. The powers in Mainz were struggling to shed the corrupt, coffer-draining yoke of the church; the guilds were chafing against the city’s elders; Christianity was rocked to its core as Constantinople fell to Muslim attackers and talk of another Crusade circulated. There’s much history for the reader to absorb, and, at times, it’s too much. The head swims.

Perhaps, because the task is so overwhelming, Christie’s writing never leaps off the page. I never got swept along by her prose as I longed to be. Still, she tries hard, and her writing is unobtrusive.

I also wished for greater depth of character. Not that Peter isn’t introspective, or that we’re unaware of the complexity of Gutenberg. But perhaps Christie has come at the characters a bit too head-on, telling rather than showing.

Christopher Wienandt is a staff writer for the Dallas Morning News.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.