In the advertisement of his edition of the _Poems of Goldsmith and Parnell_,[687] printed in 1795 and dedicated to the Messrs. Boydell and Nicol, the founders of the Shakespeare Press, Bulmer thus bears testimony to the talents of those who had contributed to the performance:—“The present volume, in addition to {332} the _Shakespeare_, the _Milton_, and many other valuable works of elegance which have already been given to the world through the medium of the Shakespeare Press, are (_sic_) particularly meant to combine the various beauties of printing, type founding, engraving, and paper making; as well as with a view to ascertain the near approach to perfection which those arts have attained to (in) this country, as to invite a fair competition with the typographical productions of other nations. How far the different artists who have contributed their exertions to this great object have succeeded in the attempt, the public will now be fully able to judge.” In all these encomiums, Martin claims a share; and, regarded simply as type specimens, the productions of the Shakespeare Press justify his reputation as a worthy disciple of his great master Baskerville. His Roman and Italic types were cut in decided imitation of the famous Birmingham models; although Hansard points out with disapproval that in certain particulars he attempted unwisely to vary the design. “As to the type”, he says, “the modern artist, Mr. Martin, has made an effort to cut the ceriphs and hair strokes excessively sharp and fine; the long ſ is discarded, and some trifling changes are introduced; but the letter does not stand so true or well in line as Baskerville’s, and, as to the Italic, the Birmingham artist will be found to far excel.”[688] The Shakespeare Press, along with all the other presses of the land, had to bow before the revolution which in the closing years of last century swept aside the beautiful old-face Roman, and set up in its stead the modern character; and Hansard’s strictures above-quoted doubtless refer to Martin’s endeavour, while adhering to the Baskerville form as his model, to modify it so as to conform to the new fashion. We are among those who deplore the change thus inaugurated; but at the same time it must be admitted that Martin succeeded as well in the new departure as any of his contemporaries. Nor did he confine himself to Roman and Italic. He produced several founts of Greeks and Orientals, which eventually came to form the most valuable part of his collection.[689] His Greek character, however, like the Greeks attempted by Baskerville and Bodoni, was not a success; and the otherwise beautiful edition of _Musæus_, printed in 1797,[690] and bearing on the title-page his name as the cutter of the type, is marred by the cramped and inelegant effect of that character. {333}