2.- Specimen illustrating the variations in the face of type, produced by bad casting 5-A 15th century type. From M, Madden's Lettres d'un Bibliograpde 6-A 15th century type. From Ziber de Laudibus...Marie, cire, 1408... 7.--Roman letter. From the Sopkologium, Wiedenbach? 1405-707 8.-Roman and Black letter intermixed. From Traheron's Exposition of St. John, 1552 9.-Robijn Italic, cut by Chr, van Dijk. From the original matrices 10, --Gothic Type or Lettre de Forme, civ, 1480. From the original matrices 12.-Lettre de Civilité, cut by Ameet Tavernier for Plantin, cire, 1570. From the original matrices 90 92 95 5+ 50 So face 8. 104 105 109 115 17.-Black letter, supposed to be De Worde's. From Palmer's History of Printing 39.-Ethiopic, bought by Oxford University in 1092. From the original matrices } 153 156 152 147 154 174 face 178 194 196 194 ... 200 ... ... ... 47.-Nonpareil Rabbinical Hebrew in Andrews' Foundry. From the original matrices ... ... ... ... ... 204 236 58.-View of the Interior of Caslon's Foundry in 1750. From the Universal Magazine 77.—Two-line English Roman, cut by Vincent Figgins, 1792. From the original matrices 78.—Samaritan, cut by Dummers for Caslon, circ. 1734. From the original matrices... 71.-Greek, cut by Baskerville for Oxford. From the Oxford Specimen, 1768-70 face 258 262 268 face 274 face 276 ... ... ... 289 face 298 ... ... 304 ... 304 face 316 face 326 F PRINTERS. OR four centuries the noise of controversy has raged round the cradle of Typography. Volumes have been written, lives have been spent, fortunes have been wasted, communities have been stirred, societies have been organised, a literature has been developed, to find an answer to the famous triple question: "When, where, and by whom was found out the unspeakably useful art of printing books ?" And yet the world to-day is little nearer a finite answer to the question than it was when Ulric Zel indited his memorable narrative to the Cologne Chronicle in 1499. Indeed, the dust of battle has added to, rather than diminished, the mysterious clouds which envelope the problem, and we are tempted to seek refuge in an agnosticism which almost refuses to believe that printing ever had an inventor. It would be neither suitable nor profitable to encumber an investigation of that part of the History of Typography which relates to the types and typemaking of the fifteenth century by any attempt to discuss the vexed question of the Invention of the Art. The man who invented Typography was doubtless the man who invented movable types. Where the one is discovered, we have also found the other. But, meanwhile, it is possible to avail ourselves of whatever evidence exists as to the nature of the types he and his successors used, and as to the methods by which those types were produced, and possibly to B arrive at some conclusions respecting the earliest practices of the Art of Typefounding in the land and in the age in which it first saw the light. No one has done more to clear the way for a free investigation of all questions relating to the origin of printing than Dr. Van der Linde, in his able essay, The Haarlem Legend,1 which, while disposing ruthlessly of the fiction of Coster's invention, lays down the important principle, too often neglected by writers on the subject, that the essence of Typography consists in the mobility of the types, and that, therefore, it is not a development of the long practised art of printing from fixed blocks, but an entirely distinct invention. The principle is so important, and Dr. Van der Linde's words are so emphatic, that we make no apology for quoting them : "I cannot repeat often enough that, when we speak of Typography and its invention, nothing is meant, or rather nothing must be meant, but printing with loose (separate, moveable) types (be they letters, musical notes, or other figures), which therefore, in distinction from letters cut on wooden or metal plates, may be put together or separated according to inclination. One thing therefore is certain: he who did not invent printing with moveable types, did, as far as Typography goes, invent nothing. What material was used first of all in this invention; of what metal the first letters, the patrices (engraved punches) and matrices were made; by whom and when the leaden matrices and brass patrices were replaced by brass matrices and steel patrices; . . . all this belongs to the secondary question of the technical execution of the principal idea: multiplication of books by means of multiplication of letters, multiplication of letters by means of their durability, and repeated use of the same letters, i.e., by means of the independence (looseness) of each individual letter (moveableness).”—P. 19. If this principle be adopted—and we can hardly imagine it questioned-it will be obvious that a large class of works which usually occupy a prominent place in inquiries into the origin of Printing, have but slight bearing on the history of Typography. The block books of the fifteenth century had little direct connection with the art that followed and eclipsed them.2 In the one respect of marking the early use of printing for the instruction of mankind, the block books and the first works of Typography proper claim an equal interest; but, as regards their mechanical production, the one feature they possess in common is a quality shared also by the playing-cards, pictures, seals, stamps, 1 The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing by Lourens Fanszoon Coster, critically examined. From the Dutch by J. H. Hessels, with an introduction and classified list of the Costerian Incunabula. London, 1871. 8vo. 2 Xylography did not become extinct for more than half a century after the invention of Typography. The last block book known was printed in Venice in 1510. |