The study of book development is in correspondence with the history of printing, and the first association evokes Gutenberg and his invention of printing presses. Consequently, the name of Gutenberg’s become, in some respects, synonymous with the term for book and printing at the same time. And amongst the Serbian nation, was long been known for the contrivance of Gutenberg. Thus in one old manuscript from monastery Zupa Niksicka, stands that “од домишлениа књиге штамповати” from the year of 1715 there is 275 years [6].

The modernity of the late middle Ages and reproducing of books and documents of all sorts leads to better understanding in the process of book writing. According to F. Barbie tree different categories represent that structure: 1) striving for specialization; 2) а contrario, inevitably a simplification; 3) book can become an object of social extraction, and society’s emphasis. Considering the specialization, many books now emerged among the new scholars, and all that leads toward occurring a new form of handwriting which becomes much faster, and also different acronyms and a usage of paper. Written texts and books now more and more enters the wider audience, not very big in size, nevertheless the one who is rising. During that process a language that is used in a book now becomes more            comprehensible to the masses, because those books have been published on people common languages. Since the 12th and especially during 13th century very large reproduction is developing in the secular scriptoriums, which were in towns and had been working in the name of        the court and elite public figures who loved novels and historical tales. The Gutenberg’s discovery marks the “book revolution” in the middle of the 15th century, but also the significance of earlier changes cannot be forgotten, which brought the term of “scribal Renaissance”, which highlight happened in the 13th century. It was the time of great book production, application of intellectual curiosity and different artistic forms.

Due to the increased demand, universities were the first to establish an original system of book multiplication:  peace. A special commission was checking the text quality of the refereeing manuscript (exemplar), and after that it was administered to a specialist for books. Parts of the exemplars were entrusted to some students or professional scrivener, so several scribes could, at the same time, make more copies.  When in terms of the paper, it was discovered in China, and trough Arabs have come to the offices on Sicily in the late 11^th century, while in Genovese scribes it was known since the 12^th century. Fabriano paper workshops were well known to be, since the 13^th century, center for technical innovations. Paper production starts in, since 1400, Basel, Alsace, Nurnberg, Chemnitz and on the lower Rhine. Paper as a basis for writing was less expensive up to ten times compared to parchment, and in the future demonstrated to be very useful for printing methods [1, p. 96-102].

On the eve of Gutenberg’s invention, in the early 15th century this contraption was on the verge of entering the light of day. In Prague, Constance, Nurnberg, Rhine valley, Harlem and Avignon, inventors are working on improvement for applying different techniques: paper production, mirrors making, gemstones polishing, new method for text multiplication, engraving techniques etc. Technician Waldfogel, silver smelter, was one of the main figures who participated in creation of printing presses. He made a business deal, as scribe official Jacques de Bried noted, with a locksmith  Girard Feros from Trier diocese. The last one very well knew the “mechanical writing”, so he pledged himself not to train someone within twelve miles surrounding the city. In Low Countries also, attempts were made on improving printing techniques, and there is a document been preserved where Jean Le Robert, abbot of St. Obera in Kambreu, 1455, orders a book from Brigue, in such manner that we can conclude that they had been manufactured with the technique of imprints [1, p. 102].

Older news concerning  Gutenbergs’s printing office and a description of his epochal discovery, as described by humanistic works,  represent a curiosity for researchers in book history. A valuable account of Gutenberg’s discovery comes from a humanist Franz Guilliman (1568-1612) [3, p. 299] in his book “History of Strasbourg bishops”, printed in Freiburg, Germany, in the year of 1608 [4]. If we compare this data with one, an undoubtedly more important fact in printing history, which comes from hronique of Cologne from Ulrich Cel from 1499, we will realize, that during the age of humanism, it has been known for printing even before Gutenberg, so we question the origins of printing itself [1].

Raiden’s history of bishops, one of his main works and it is also a representative work  for the history of Catholic reforms. Author of the book made it to be a part of the setting considering time and space and also the spirit of Catholic reformation. Through history of this ancient bishopric of Strasbourg he imposes upon his readers the importance of continuity and foundations of the Catholic Church in the town in whom, during the first half of 16^TH century, reformation took on and won. He opposed hard arguments upon those men who introduced “novelties” and disturbed Eclecsical order, and who were the majority of the time in Strasbourg. The idea which absolutely dominates in this book is the one where the glorification of important figures in the Catholic Church is a must, in a time when that institution was shaken by reformers. “History of Strasbourg bishops” is published in Latin and it has 320 pages, it was printed in Freiburg, 1608 [7, p. 281].

A work of Raiden in the translation of the title is: “Of Strasbourg bishops, history is dedicated to reverend and most sacred Leopold, Archduke of Austria, and a bishop of Strasbourg and Passau” [5, p. 44]. Him as the official historian of the house of Habzburgs, in the title of his book, devoted an inscription to Leopold as one of the most renown representatives of the family at the time  [4]. The Archduke of Austria, Leopold V Ferdinand, was a bishop in Passsau for a while then he moved to Strasbourg, both these towns had the oldest catholic bishoprics in the region. The son of archduke Carlo II (1540-1590), a grandson of Imperator Ferdinand I (1556-1564) and the youngest brother of emperor Ferdinand II (1619-1637), as such he was in favor of the emperor Roudolf II who planned for a time to appoint him for his ear.  Without a monastic rank, he becomes a bishop of Passau in 1598 and in 1607 for a bishop of Strasbourg, where he remained on duty until the year of 1626. Reason for which Guilliman starts his research of Alsace is his view on the importance of the region throughout European history. Guilliman has definitely had interests in new areas, which could give a researcher a chance to truly get to know the essence of specific processes of history and civilization movements, through whose processing came to light the causes for hole historical processes. It’s about the territory which separates two great European civilizations, German and French. Guilliman recognizes the importance and symbolism of this region and its ability to represent a good field for European research and in doing so, also can help in understanding the history of printing development [4].

The book consists of two main parts, first examines the history of the foundation of Strasbourg, [2, p. 11-14] who was written in ten chapters. The town played a significant role in the time of the Merovingians and Carolings, and the main subject is the spread of Christianity in Alsace, and also first Christian missionaries who were spreading Christendom on this territory. It is the time of the foundation of the diocese as an important center of consolidation of Christianity among the German tribes. In those days first monastic communities were established in the area of Alsace [4, p. 26].

The book “History of Strasbourg bishops”, by its conception is beyond the scope of basic themes, according to information provided by the author. In his book, he gave us, through the role of Strasbourg bishops in the history of Europe, a description of a large number of historical events during the medieval period. Of particular value is the fact that the book describes the discovery of the Gutenberg press, and Guilliman referred him as the resident of Strasbourg. He refers to the work of the  reformist historian  Jakob Vimpfeling, who mentions among others that, at the the time, a resident of Strasburg, Johan Genflais, called Gutenberg, revealed, “although incomplete,” but a very important skill of printing. Guilliman emphasized that Gutenberg was a resident of of Strasbourg, which is a historical fact, because it’s known that he worked as a technician and smith in Strasbourg, during the time between 1434 and 1444. Here he seems to be mastered the technique of printing with movable letters. In the year of 1438 he and tree others men from Strasbourg become partners in order to produce mirrors into cast molds and then sell those to pilgrims in the town of Ahen. [4, p. 425].

This kind of production necessitated obtaining the knowledge about metal smelting which leaded to movable letters printing technique. From the same period, there is an account in the documents, in autumn of 1438, on one of their deals, which was strictly held secret, so there is doubt that it is related to the matters of printing [2, p. 41-42].  In the year of the 1448 Gutenberg went back to Mainz and get in touch with a  few other printers who used the same technique under the leadership of a certain person called Johan Fust, who used it to print the first printed Bible which is assumed to be appearing in 1455. In Mainz, Gutenberg technique was mastered completely, as Raiden informs us that was “everlasting merit of German nation”.

Guilliman also gave us the source of his claim considering the year of Gutenberg’s invention of printing, he found it  “In a short statement of Germanic history”, where stands that in the year of 1440, during the reign of Roman Imperator Fridrih III (1440-1493), something big and important for the whole of the world was discovered, that Johan Gutenberg from Strasbourg “discovered a new way of writing, in fact he invented printing”. Based upon his researches, Raiden claims that Gutenberg made the discovery in Strasbourg, and later moved to Mainz, and successfully improved his technique. Guilliman’s review on Gutenberg’s printing office bring us one dilemma. Whether he with his claim, that the discovery actually happened in Strasbourg, wants to emphasize the significance of this town during that period, which is to be to benefit to his history of Strasbourg bishops and its subject theme altogether? However, he is precisely naming his sources according to which that claim is set forth and other contemporary works also deal with this issue. According to that Guilliman’s claim was well based, it is a part of the mosaic in which historiography tries to put all the pieces, in its attempt to shed light on this epochal discovery [4, p. 425-426].

The interpretation of Guilliman’s claim concerning Gutenberg’s revelation on printing, tell us that the facts he is using are historically accurate. Chronology of events presented by Guilliman corresponds to the chronological scale of modern historiography. Gutenberg was born in 1400 as a son of a nobleman and a trader Fril Genflais in Mainz, where he also dies in February 3th, 1468. Latter on, by the custom of the day, he changed his name according to the name of his family seat “Gutenberg’s residence”. One of the most important episodes during his life is the one when he makes the deal with the rich trader Johan Fust, who invests in his project 600 guldens with a 6% interest rate. So they founded the first printing office, where this new technique could be applied. It is considered to be, that the printing of a Bible was their first job, called Bible in 30 lines, because of the lesser number of lines on page, and a greater number of sheets. Nevertheless, this was not the first known printed work by Gutenberg. He and his associates, were earning their money on printing books for learning Latin. After the dispute considering the share of profits from printing, partnership fell apart. The commercial success of the Gutenberg project couldn’t justify enormous investments in it. In business books there is an account on November 5^th , 1455, about the partners exact dispute. Fust lent the money in the amount of 1.550 florins for book printing, but a part of that sum was spent on other uses, so Fust demanded repayment. Because Gutenberg couldn’t repay his amends,  partnership company is dissolved. However, Gutenberg managed to secure for himself a part of their materials and was able to continue the work in Mainz, so it’s presumed that in 1460, he published Balbus Catholicon. After the town of Mainz was seized by Adolf of Nassau in 1462, Gutenberg opened his office in Etvile. Gutenberg died in his hometown Mainz on February 3th, 1468, and he was buried in the Franciscan monastery. Most important part of Gutenberg’s discovery wasn’t printing press itself, but instead the machine for letter casting and smelting technique which allow all that to happen. Also, the main innovation is the possibility of serial production of standardized letters. Principle of linear analyses is applied which follows alphabetical order and with a limited number of elements give countless combinations. The printing press was known also in earlier times, but the Gutenberg one was improved, and on it horizontal and vertical movement could be applied. Gutenberg technique remained unchanged until the industrial revolution in the second part of the 18^th century [1, p. 104-108].

The interesting fact is that his ex-partners Fust and Shefer took over his office in Mainz and reopened it under the name of  “Zum Humbrecht”. They were the first printers who had their own typographic address, while the published works of Gutenberg had none, either date or address. They published in 1457, Psalter of Mainz, the first book which had dated on it, and after that published Bible in 48-lines, in 1462, and the work of Ciceron’s “De Officiis” in 1465. After the death of Fust, 1466, Shefer continued printing for a while, and then turn his attention only on printing equipment and selling other’s people’s publications. [1, p. 108-110].

Gutenberg’s invention was a turning point, it changed the course of civilization, and added new power for development of humanism. Thanks to this improved technique of printing, the epoch of the time will leave behind masterpieces of culture and science, which will lead Europe into one new phase of development. So Guilliman highlights that Gutenberg discovered in Strasbourg “genius masterpiece for the whole of world”. Story of Gutenberg and his finding remains ongoing up to the present day and every new information concerning this momentous event is valuable for everyone who had interests in history related to books and printed word. That is the reason why is this work of Franz Guilliman “History of Argentinian bishops” so interesting. Through it we can understand the essence of of Gutenberg’s discovery in a time of late humanism, when printed books were in full momentum, and consequently collectors and bibliophiles are also there to study the development of printed books.

At this course, Deletic’s monograph The Study of History has been created, which is the sublimation of recent results of his work on the study of the methodological problems of historiography. In the book, the author upgraded his research, and his university and research experience with the methodological thoughts of leading contemporary Serbian and Yugoslav methodologists of history. Also, opinions of well-known foreign methodologists, whose works were translated into the Serbian language, were incorporated in this professional text [2].

The book The Study of History is conceived as a monograph and textbook for the master’s and doctoral study programs, written on the basis of extensive literature; the chapters cover the basic issues of the study of methodology, with elements of textbook literature. However, the book has all the characteristics of a monograph; it has a scientific apparatus, i.e. it quotes scientific literature. Professor Deletic quotes well-known methodologists to approach the issue to students, allowing them to compare the different perspectives on the same scientific question.

The monograph begins with the chapter on methodology, i.e. general and specific scientific methods. A separate chapter is devoted to the historical method as the system of rules of empirical research of the past, whose focal point is criticism of sources. For professor Deletic, history as the science of the past “studies the history of people and society, reveals the causes of historical events, phenomena and processes in various fields of human activity, explains their course and essence, connections and consequences of historical events” [2]. We should take into account the interpretation of the historical method provided by one of the leading specialists for this issue on Yugoslav territory, Mirjana Gross, who concludes that “the term historical method means either only one of these processes, or all of them together” [1, 363].

One of the central points in the monograph The Study of History is the question of the formation and operation of historical consciousness, whose essence is to describe in what way individuals, groups or nations perceive themselves in time and space, in what they believe, what they say or write about their past and durability. Professor Deletic rightly connects the concept of historical consciousness with the notion of identity [2].

The place of a historian in the study of history is discussed in the chapter entitled “Historian: The Product and Producer of History.” The following factors limit the historian’s work: the subject of research, preserved and available resources, his intellectual and professional abilities, and social environment. The modern historian, according to Professor Deletic, can strive to be non-engaged, however, his results are being used against his will and intentions, depending on the way in which individuals or groups are using them.

In the monograph, considerable attention is paid to historical sources, source types, limits and source criticism as an important element of historical methodology. A separate chapter interprets the classification of history according to time, space, issues, methods, and scientific value. The book explains the relationship of history and auxiliary historical sciences and the relationship of history and social sciences [2]. It is an open theoretical and methodological issue, to which European science also pays attention as one of the problems of historical science. So, well-known philosopher of science Helmut Seiffert said that the term “historical science” as a rule implies only a part of the “historical sciences.” In fact, it implies historical sciences concerned with “political history” and areas that are directly adjacent to it, such as church history, history of law, economic and social history. According to this narrowed interpretation, so-called “philology” and the science of art, i.e. the disciplines that study the history of languages, literature and art do not belong to “historical sciences” – not to mention the history of natural sciences, technology, medicine, etc. [3, 70-71]. On the other hand, a great part of theories on society, especially in economy, is devoted to explaining rather limited fields of human activity. John Tosh believes that it is often somewhat artificial and impartial method, so that the application of such social theories to history can lead to increased blinker effect, to which historians, especially those who specialize in a particular area, are prone. Another problem is the alleged lack of interest in history by social sciences [5, 260].

Monograph The Study of History introduces the reader to the ways of communicating research results, i.e. the types of historiographical texts. We emphasize the usefulness of this methodological lexicon, which provides an overview of methodological terms. The monograph will be useful to everyone who studies the past, we can say, from multiple aspects and through various social and humanistic disciplines. It will be the most useful to history students of all levels, and therefore it is recommended to them as essential reading in the study and understanding of “life’s teacher.”

While the king was moving his palace from Vienna to Prague, on the other side Cologne War started (1583-1585). The occasion was the crossing of the Cologne Archbishop Gebhard Truhseza 1583 in Protestantism, in order to get married to Agnes of Mansfield. Peace of Augsburg was prescribing celibacy for bishops, and forbade his attempt of secularization, that the church’s property now falls in his hands. The situation was particularly bad for the internal state issues as the Archbishop of Cologne was one of the menus, which are chosen by the emperor. Besides,  the political situation on the Rhine was important for the emperor because of the French and Dutch issues. The Catholics, led by Ernst Vitelsbaha, took the advantage in Cologne War. The marginalization of the Emperor and highlighting Vitelsbaha clearly shows changes and posture of Catholic nobility in Empire [17, 95-96].

Cologne conflict was the initiator of a new religious conflict that began in Strasbourg about the predominance of Protestants and Catholics over the diocese. The conflict reached its peak in 1592 by double selection of bishops, Protestant candidate, Johan Georg and Catholic Karla Lorraine. In 1599, the emperor ended the conflict by putting aside the Catholic candidate and his own ordination. But the Protestant candidate, Johan Georg, gave up the pretense in 1604 with the monetary compensation.

This was one of several small victories of Catholics in the Empire, which in the overall situation had some great reverb. These examples clearly show that the emperor has no longer played a leading role in the Empire but it passed on to other forces, especially in Catholic Bavaria which was the forefront. Modern historiography considers that this situation was the result of passive policy of Rudolf II caused by his health condition [17, 106; 2, 340-346].

The Ottomans ,who caused constant skirmishes and who were responsible for establishing military border in the first half of the 16th century in which the refugees were resettled (the Serbs mostly),  were a constant threat to the Empire. However, the situation with the population of the Military Frontier has also caused some difficulties, maintenance of border fortifications cost a lot of money, and there was also a threat  that such military border without nobility, for peasants of other Habsburg countries can become an alternative. According to Karl Focelki, intensified propaganda against the Turks was initiated precisely to forestall such an eventual resettlement of peasants from other parts of the country. Surely those were not the only reasons for the demonization of the Ottomans in the pamphlets, who were accounted for opponents worse than they really were. One of the reasons the campaign was hiding in an attempt of the Roman Catholic Church to present the Ottomans as a punishment for the sins of Christians, by which the population has led to obedience to ecclesiastical and civil authorities [18, 14]. Apart from constant minor skirmishes on the border, there was a major military clashes with the Ottomans between 1592 and 1606, in the famous Long War. The mood for the war against the Empire grew in Istanbul but also in the border regions of the Ottoman Empire, particularly in Bosanski pashaluk, headed by Telli Hasan Pasha. In 1593 the war took on a more serious character, especially the Battle of Sisak 22 June 1593, in which the Christian forces took away a decisive victory in defense of the further penetration of the Ottomans [10, 224-225; 8, 11-17].

The greatest threat to the Empire marked the loss of the fortress Gyori who was in the general area of ​​Vienna and was considered a key bulwark against the Ottomans. Sinan Pasha with 40,000 people came before the fort, which was unprepared for serious assault. The commander of the fort Ferdinand Harden surrendered the fort in exchange for the free withdrawal, which took him to a military court and then scaffold in Vienna. Fort Gyori was restored on 25 March 1598, when it was conquered by surprise by Adolph Schwarzenberg and Nicholas Palfi. The propaganda of that feat presented Rudolf II as the central event of his reign, and a large number of works of art was devoted to this topic. Returning of the Győr overshadowed the surrender of Kanjiza in 1600. The success of imperial policies represented a contract with Prince Sigismund Bathory of Transylvania from 1595. Bathory expressed his willingness, after he was inducted into the Order of the Golden Fleece, and since he got the hand of Princess Maria Cristina to replace the Principality of Transylvania for Opel and Ratibor in Silesia. However, reforms that were conducted by the imperial general Transylvania did not yield results, and the population was not won over to the side of the Habsburgs. Bathory was soon disappointed with his decision and returned to Transylvania. When it comes to the war with the Ottoman Empire, neither the emperor nor sultan did not have the strength for decisive military actions [10, 181-182].

Rudolf II did not rush to end the war, especially when he realized that the war distracts people from internal state problem. He tried through diplomatic channels to establish a coalition against the Ottoman Empire; he negotiated with Persia, Russia, Poland and the Italian states. The war ended in 1606, against the will of Rudolf II, at the initiative of his brother Matthias; Peace was signed in Žitvatoroku, and itscircumstances deepened discord among brothers. Thanks to this peace, it was the first time that a Christian ruler is recognized by the Sultan, who does not call Rudolf II his son in the contract ,but his brother, by which he affirms the equality [15, 120-121]. In parallel with the final phase of the Long War, Stefan Pockaja’s uprising rebel took place in Hungary, which has greatly influenced the policy of the Empire in this area. The conflict was supported by the Ottomans, and was resolved by the prince Matija on 23th June 1606, by Vienna peace [15, 121; 5, 313-315; 16,102].

Social conflicts that were present from the time of the late middle aged peasants’ rebellions, especially from the time of the Great German Peasant War, were raging during the Long War. The financial burden during the war was growing, taxes and expenses were transferred from the landlords, the nobility and clergy, to the peasants. Besides this, in the border zone towards the Ottoman territory where the threat from the intrusion Turkish army was high, were formed the special forms of peasant units. Depending on the intensity of danger, each thirty or tenth was included in these units and sometimes when it was about great danger, even every third person; which approximately meant that three peasants were obliged to equip one  soldier  for the war. With fiscal and military burdens, re-Catholicizing caused the dissatisfaction , forced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Habsburgs. It led to a general uprising of the peasant’s rebellion in Upper and Lower Austria, riots started back in 1595 as a protest against the induction of Catholic priests instead of Protestant preacher, and an increase in forced labor. The emperor was forced to react 1597 and reduce forced labor in fourteen days. Mercenary army engaged by the Archduke Matthias, conducted a terrible reprisals against the rebels. The rebels were treated by horrific punitive expedition that threatened to turn them into martyrs, thus the authorities have sought to criminalize peasants, in order to seem like they were punished for other offenses [1, 118-119; 5, 306-312; 4].

The antagonism between the emperor and his brother Matthias was getting more powerful, Matthew was only five years younger, and therefore his chances to succeed his brother were minimal. He has been devoted to the priestly career, but he was not satisfied with it and tried to strengthen its position in the Empire. After the death of Prince Ernst, who was close to Rudolf II because they grew up together at the Spanish court, Matija was appointed for shtathalter of Upper and Lower Austria, as well as in-Chief at war with the Ottomans. Matija continued to strengthen its influence in the Kingdom in cooperation with one of the most influential people in the country at that time Kleslo Melchior (1553-1630), who was a prince’s chancellor and first counselor from 1599 [5, 298-299, 331]. Boundless ambitions of Prince Matthias, supported by the gray eminence of Kleslo led to conflict between brothers and asking questions of succession to the crown. Rudolf II was opposed about launching the issues of succession of Empire, despite the fact that he was not married and had no legitimate children, not wanting to hear for the opportunity to be inherited by his hated brother [18, 114-115].

The animosity between brothers went towards the formation of an open alliance against the Emperor and on the same side of his brother, which was publicly demonstrated at the assembly in 1600 in Šotvin. After the conference in Linz [12, 137], princes conspired against the emperor and in a document published in 1606, Matthias was listed as the head of the house of Habsburg. In contrast, the agreements which the latter has signed with the Ottomans and Bockaj, Rudolf II did not want to admit. Matthias was able to form an alliance in 1608 among the majority of Protestants of Austria and Hungary, also joined by the Moravian estates. The Emperor has approached to the Czech estates, and allowed to all classes in Sovereigns privilege [6, 115-116] in 9th July 1609, freedom of religion, and all the provisions against Protestants were repealed [10, 186; 19, 146-147; 13, 194-195].

Strengthening the position of Rudolf II, caused the prince Matija organize a march against Prague in 1608 , which ended with the contract in Liben by which the emperor had to leave him Moravia, Hungary, Upper and Lower Austria. However, the overall political situation made it strengthen the position of the emperor. He didn’t also escalate the conflict over succession of Julis Kleveberg in 1609. [15, 424-425]. that threatened to cause serious conflicts. Only one of the princes of the House of Habsburg who supported the emperor was Archduke Leopold V (1586-1632), who was  appointed of Bishop of Passau and later Strasbourg ,without having monastic rank, by Rudolf II  [10, 186]. However, unraveling was slowly approaching, in the spring of 1610; it was supposed to convene the Assembly in Prague. In the historiography there is the opinion that the compromise could have been found, but Matthew did not want to miss the opportunity, he marched in Prague and on 23 May 1611, was crowned for Czech king. Rudolf II remained nothing but the Prague palace that his brother left him out of pity, in which it has spent the last months of life, soon ended by the death on 20th January 1612. [5, 328-330; 10, 147-148].