---
title: "History of printing"
chunk: 10/16
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_printing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:00:12.806227+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Theory of movable type transmission ==
According to a tradition in Feltre and Lombardy, an Italian engraver named Panfilo Castaldi (1398–1490) introduced movable type to Europe after having seen Chinese books brought by Marco Polo. Inspired by the Chinese prints, Castaldi started using wooden movable type and he printed several broadsides at Venice in 1426. The tradition tracing movable type to Castaldi also states that Johannes Gutenberg's wife saw Chinese printing blocks in Venice, which inspired their own invention of printing. This story was recorded by Robert Curzon citing a news article written by a doctor from Feltre dated 1843. Henry Yule (1820–1889), who translated Marco Polo's works, viewed the story with skepticism but believed that Chinese wood blocks could have been transferred via travelers.
Guido Panciroli (1523–1599) disputed the theory of European movable type originating in China. Panciroli stated that Gutenberg's movable type was different from that of China and was a "modern thing" although he did not specify what the differences were. André Blum based the difference on the production of movable characters made from a fusible metal. This required three things: "a matrix or mould in which the letter is engraved in intaglio, an alloy cast in the matrix, and a reproduction of the character in relief on the punch". However, a similar metal casting method was used in Korea as noted by G. F. Hudson. According to Hudson, the Korean movable type preceded the European process and he argues that the burden of proof rests on those who assert an independent European invention of movable type. Other historians such as Frances Gies and Joseph Gies and A. Hyatt Mayor hold similar stances that printing was likely transmitted from China to Europe.
As with woodblock printing, Joseph P. McDermot considers the theory of transmission for movable type to be untenable and disputes that European movable type was transmitted from China. He points out that "No text indicates the presence or knowledge of any kind of Asian moveable type or moveable-type imprint in Europe before 1450. The material evidence is even more conclusive." Gutenberg's production process, with the exception of the metal type, had no counterpart in traditional East Asian technology. Type molds are not described in any pre-Gutenberg Chinese record while metal-type frames in Korea were more primitive than in Europe. There are no texts indicating knowledge of Chinese movable type in Europe before 1450. There is also no archaeological evidence of Asian movable type west of Dunhuang and Turfan prior to 1450. McDermott considers both the transmission of woodblock and movable type printing to Europe to be highly conjectural. However, French scholar Henri-Jean Martin described Korean metal movable type as "[extremely similar] to Gutenberg's". 
Some scholars claim that movable type was not an original invention at all and was nothing more than previous methods of creating impressions such as seals, hand stamps, and the combining of movable letters as suggested by Cicero and Jerome. John Bagford (1650/51 – 1716) argues that because they did not know of the Chinese in the past, it was more likely that they took inspiration from Ancient Roman medals, seals, and marks or names at the bottom of sacrificial pots. Douglas Crawford McMurtrie argues Europeans may have learned of printing as an idea from Asia but not the process of printing.

== European movable type (1439) ==