The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His AssociatesDe Vinne, Theodore Low
History
The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His Associates
De Vinne, Theodore Low
Incunabula -- Bibliography; Printing -- History -- Origin and antecedents
It is not strange that the block-book printers should have imitated the
work and the mannerisms of the typographers. It was easier to transfer
the letters than to draw them; easier to cut the letters for a book
of twenty or thirty pages than to cut the punches, make the moulds,
and cast and compose the types. The blocks having been engraved, the
block-printer had the superior advantage. His blocks, like modern
stereotype plates, were always ready for use. He could print a large
or small edition at pleasure. And what was of much more importance,
he could print more legibly from his smooth plates of wood than the
amateur typographer could from his uneven surface of lead.
The significance of the fact that letters were engraved by
block-printers after typographic models will be more plainly seen when
we examine the editions of the _Speculum Salutis_, [p262] a book which
has been claimed by Dutch historians as the first production of the
newly invented art of typography.
The irregular manner in which all the early xylographers drew and
engraved letters on the block is fairly shown in this fac-simile of
the imprint of Conrad Dinckmut, of Ulm, who affixed it to a _Donatus_
printed by him in 1480. It will be seen that parallel lines ruled
between the printed lines would interfere with almost every ascending
or descending letter.
[Illustration: Reduced Fac-simile of the Imprint of Conrad Dinckmut.
[From De la Borde.]]
The _Donatus_ clearly shows the retrogressive tendencies of the
teachers of that age. It was originally written for scholars who spoke
in Latin, and who, when the book was first placed in their hands, knew
the meaning of almost every word. In the fifteenth century Latin was
a dead language, but the book that had been written a thousand years
before received no modification adapting it to the capacities of the
German or Dutch boys, to whom Latin was as strange as Chinese.[131]
The [p263] rules and the explanations, as well as the text, were in
Latin. The boy who began to study the book was compelled to translate
the words and rules before he knew the simplest elements of the
language. The difficulty of the task will be understood if we imagine
an American boy beginning the study of German, not with a German
grammar in which the explanations are in English, but with the grammar
that is now used in the schools of Germany. We find no trace of any
other school-book in the form of a block-book. There was no other
book of equal popularity. To the scholar of the middle ages there was
no science that could be compared with Latin; there was no knowledge
like that of the words of the dead language. Words were held of more
value than facts. The teachers of the fifteenth century clung to this
obsolete book, and compelled their pupils to go through the same barren
course of study that had been used in the fifth century. In this fixed
purpose we see something more than the force of habit: there was a
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account