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
The four editions of the _Speculum_ are, of themselves, presumptive
evidence that each edition was printed from types. It is improbable
that the printer would re-engrave blocks for a second edition when
those of the first were in existence. If the first edition had
been printed from types, and the types had been distributed, as is
customary, the printer was obliged to reset them in order to make the
second edition.
These four editions were certainly the work of the same printing
office, and, without doubt, of the same printer, for [p275] the
engravings are the same, and the types, ink, paper, and workmanship
have similar defects and peculiarities. The first edition shows pages
of types only; the next edition has types and blocks, but the types are
like those of the first; then comes a third edition in the same types,
but with two pages of types differing somewhat as to body and face;
lastly an edition entirely in the old types, in a worn condition. Each
edition has more or less connection with the others.[137]
[Illustration:
English.
Two-line Brevier.]
The body or dimension of the types used in the _Speculum_ approximates
the size known to all British and American printers as English; but
it is rather larger than any of the modern standards. It is really
intermediate between the body English and the little-used body of
Two-line brevier or Columbian.[138]
The appearance of twenty engraved pages in the second edition of the
_Speculum_ cannot be explained with satisfaction. Bernard thinks that
these pages are the relics of an earlier edition engraved, or at least
attempted, on wood, which, for some unknown reason, were temporarily
substituted for types. [p276] No trace of this imaginary edition
has been discovered. It has been claimed that the engraver of these
xylographic blocks was the probable inventor of typography. It is
supposed that he matured the ideas he had cherished about movable types
when he was engraving and printing the first edition of the book; that
when he became fully convinced of their feasibility, he stopped the
engraving of the blocks, and finished the work with types which were
made for the purpose. This hypothesis is not reasonable. If the printer
of the book suddenly abandoned blocks for types, the change would be
abruptly marked in his work. The twenty pages at the beginning of the
book would be xylographic, and all following would be typographic. But
it will be perceived that the twenty pages are scattered, without any
order, throughout the book. Instead of being the relics of an earlier
edition, it is demonstrable that these xylographic blocks were cut from
transfers obtained from a typographic edition. A traced drawing upon
transparent paper, taken with accuracy from the first edition of the
_Speculum_, and carefully laid over a corresponding xylographic page
in the second edition, will show an agreement in the length of lines,
in the abbreviation of words, and in the copying of little errors or
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