FURTHER NOTES ON SAMARITANTYPOGRAPHY

ALAN D. CROWN

I N my recent study of Samaritan typefaces^ I was able to trace the history anddevelopment of some of the more important of these on the basis of the evidence thenavailable to me. That study stimulated some interest among both historians oftypography and librarians. Through the kindness of Brad Sabin Hill of the BritishLibrary, who has drawn my attention to specimens which I would not otherwise haveseen, including examples from both the British Library and the Tychsen collection in theUniversity Library at Rostock, and of Nigel Roach of the St Bride Printing Library,London, I have been able to refine some of the ideas about the history of the Samaritantypefaces which were developed in the original work and make corrections to opinionsthen offered. I have also been made aware that one of the allegedly lost English faces,the first Enghsh Samaritan types to be cut, found its way to Sheffield where it nowremains.^ Additionally, it is now possible to draw attention to a number of otherSamaritan typefaces of which I was not previously aware.

Both the British Library and the St Bride Printing Library have several examples ofthe foho texts produced in Italy for the celebration of special occasions such as weddings,anniversaries and accessions to the throne and promotions within the Church, and of thetypes that were prepared for these occasions.^ It was the custom on these occasions todemonstrate the glories of Italian typography by the printing of folio presentationvolumes as pohshed examples of the printer's art. From time to time, we find that thetype was either a copper engraving, a woodcut block or even moveable wooden type cutspecially for the volume. Such seems to have been the case with the type set by G. B.De Rossi* who, in 1768, apparently used moveable wood type for both his Arabic andhis Samaritan poems in praise of the new Archbishop of Turin. The Samaritan poemmixes both Aramaic and Hebrew in true Samaritan style with a less than elegantresult.

The St Bride Printing Library and the British Library provide examples of the fontscut by the eighteenth-century type-founder, Giambattista Bodoni, which escaped ourattention in the earlier study. In a brief disquisition on the Samaritan typefaces used inother books,^ Bodoni says that we have three types of Samaritan type faces. The first ofthese is that used for the printing of Scaliger's De Emendatwne Temporum;'^ the secondwas cut by the Propaganda Fide;^ the third is the face used for the Walton Polyglot.^

SAMAUITANO

• >

-5:^2

I. Sul Silvio, a. Sul Soprasilvio.

Fig. I. The Lord's Prayer in two Samaritan fonts cut by Bodoni, in his Manuale Tipoprafico volii (Parma, 1818). 59.C.19

Bodoni continues that he cut two Samaritan typefaces. We can see these presented in hisManuale (see fig. i). **

The first, which he calls Sul Silvio, is quite evidently none of the faces discussed inhis text but is a paradigm of the Dutch-German faces, which could scarcely be confusedwith the English faces by a skilled punch-cutter like Bodoni. It is readily recognizableas a new font for it is lighter in style than the fonts of which it is a caique, and seemsto echo the lightness of the remainder of Bodoni's fonts in the nevi Italianate style of hisera. ^ It is on a wider body than any of the other Dutch-German fonts, so that whencompared with the same text in a face of the same size (for example the JohnChamberlayne version of the Lord's Prayer which is printed in a twelve point Samaritanfont) the first two words are spread over if inches instead of the i\ inches inChamberlayne's text. The face would appear to be that of a twelve point font on afourteen point body.^^ Word-dividing dots and full stops are remote from the precedingwords and may be separated by en quadrats. The letters qiiph and dalet are both sodifferent from any other Dutch-German version that they provide a ready means ofidentification. The quph has a stylization of the fulcrum point to the left of the stem thatis normally found in the Samaritan script-form of quph and which is invariably omittedin other versions of the face. While it could be argued that Bodoni had either taken adviceabout the manuscript form of the letter or else had consulted a manuscript, there aregood reasons for suggesting that he was influenced by the Propaganda Fide font and itsquph form. The head of the dalet to the right of the stem appears to be an extension ofthe vertical rather than the head stroke. Other aspects of the script, such as the Gothicdiamond on mem and kaph, indicate clearly the model used. In every case the changesmade to the characters are towards stylization and away from manuscript reality, whichis in clear contradiction of the import of the recutting of the quph form (on which, seebelow). This may well have been in keeping with the move away from the influence ofmanuscripts, noted for the period, in the cutting of type faces. ^

This cannot have been Bodoni's only attempt at cutting this Dutch-German style face.While Bodoni was court printer for the Duke of Parma, G. B. De Rossi published hisremarkable Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti,^^ in which there were several sections inSamaritan. The Samaritan face in this work is readily identifiable as being in the styleof Bodoni except that it is on a narrower body and there are some subtle differences.Since this style appears at this period in Parma and nowhere else, we connect this fontdirectly with Bodoni and argue that he cut the face twice. The changes in somecharacters indicate that for his own specimen Bodoni recut the punches and left the olderpunches in the royal printing shop when he moved away. In recutting he was able toimprove the font. The differences are the distinctive quph noted above, the neck ofsamekh which, in the Bodoni specimen is more elegant than in the De Rossi face, and thelower junction of mem and its footstroke which is more cleanly managed in the Bodonispecimen than the De Rossi version. Bodoni has utilized the same forms for theremainder of his letters, but the face in his specimen is neater and more elegant than theface he cut for his royal master, with a better distinction between hairline and stem

strokes especially noticeable in nun and dalet. If one does not accept Bodoni as the cutterof both faces then one has to consider him a plagiarist and identify a punch-cutter of thesame period and the same places, working with orientals. There is no indication that sucha person exists.

The second font, identified in the Manuale as Sul Soprasilvio, is obviously inspiredby and imitates the 'detto Testo' Propaganda Fide face. ^ It is far more elegant than thePropaganda face but, like the Sul Silvio font, moves in the direction of stylization andaway from the manuscript hand on which the model was based. This can be seenespecially in the enlargement of the counters in the fulcrum knots of het, tsade and,presumably, samekh (of which we have no sample on the specimen) away from theirmanuscript form in which the fulcrum is solid ink. In virtually every character there isa refinement of the face in the Italianate style that sees the stem strokes lightened andprovided with a mixture of thick and hair line strokes, apparently imitating the ductusof European hands rather than Samaritan scribal practice. The fulcrum knot of quphappears again, but in this case its source is clear as it is a stylization of the Propagandaquph so that a counter appears in the centre of the fulcrum, and we can see here thesource of the anomaly in his Dutch-German paradigm.

Also from an Italian press is Athanasius Kircher's Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Rome, 1652).Kircher's earlier work, Prodromus Coptus (Rome, 1636), was printed with PropagandaFide fonts. Although the later work seems to make use of the Propaganda 'detto Testo'Samaritan, though the text is not printed by the Propaganda Fide but by the house ofVitalis Mascardi, apparently with permission from the Vatican, it is not the Propagandafont but a close caique of it. This later printing reopens the question of the Voskens (18point) 'Text Samaritaans' on the specimens issued by his widow in Amsterdam between1695 and 1710/^ The work by Kircher and the brief Voskens specimen seem to showthe same face, that is essentially the Propaganda Fide face with some of the punchesrecut. However, the time difference between the works suggests that it was not Vgskenswho cut the 'Text Samaritaans' as I have argued elsewhere,^^ but rather that therecutting was done in Rome for the publication of the work by Kircher, and that this wasthe font that later found its way to Holland for the use of the Voskens foundry.

We can see that the font used for the printing of the Samaritan in Kircher's later work(fig. 2) has recut versions of two characters of the Propaganda Fide Samaritan. Thesewere the aleph and the tav, the latter being unsuccessful in the Propaganda specimens.The new tav was brought into line with the manuscript form in which the upper andlower strokes from the transversal tend to be curved rather like the strokes of the aleph.The aleph was modified so that the lovi er of the two arms to the right of the transversalintersected the stem a little way from its foot, again as in the manuscript form. We donot know whether the new punches were cut for the Propaganda Fide before the font wascast from new matrices for Mascardi, or whether Mascardi had the new punches cut forhimself. The balance of probability favours the latter, for subsequent Propagandaspecimens (for example, the specimen of 1771) show the unchanged form of the alephand tav. Whatever the case, despite the care taken to provide a better lav for the printing

Fig. 2. Dedication to Emperor Ferdinand III, from A. Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Rome,1652). 87.1.4

• iiZ • '=[nT <Tr • AZ *•AZ * : iTrtiJTP 'Zv •^'or^i'^t'V «

'AZ^. 3. Excerpt from the Ten Commandments, from Chr. Cellarius, Horce Samaritance (Zeitz,

1682), p. 33. 1014.C.21

Fig. 4. The Samaritan alphabet, from Thomas Bang, Exercitationes Philologico-Philosophicae(Cracow, 1691), p. 125. 8i9.f.ii

KZ

^. 5. Edward Bernard's Samaritan elegy, from Pietas Universitatis Oxoniensis...Regince Marice(Oxford, 1695). ii2.f.6

of Kircher's work, perhaps at the request of the scholar hfmself, the letter was regularlyset upside down or was cut with the nick in the wrong place so that it was set upsidedown. That the latter was more likely is indicated by the appearance of the samecharacter upside down in the Voskens specimen.

Of the Dutch-German faces the British Library supplies several specimens. One ofthese obliges us to revise our opinion of the Wittenberg printings^^ and fonts, andenables us to correct an error in the previous survey of Samaritan typefaces. It also raisesa number of fresh problems which cannot be resolved here. Johann Wilhelm Hilliger,[Misharo di~leshan arami], sive Summarium Linguce Aramcece (Wittenberg, 1679) ^ statesin his introductory comments to the Samaritan and Syriac alphabets that he is aware ofboth majuscule and minuscule scripts in Samaritan manuscripts and that the former isbest represented by the face of the 'Anglican Bible' which was used by Castell, Bochartand Hottinger. *^ He did not say whether his preference led to a new face being cut, buthis work displays a different Wittenberg font, one very clearly cut by a continentalpunch-cutter whose completed Samaritan face, self-evidently, is of the Dutch-Germanschool. Unlike the font employed in earlier Wittenberg printings this is not derived fromthe punches originally cut by Schmidt, nor can it be from another set of matrices struckfrom the same punches. The font, in fact, is that used in the printing of Cellarius's HorceSamaritancE (fig. 3). ^ In first discussing it I suggested, incorrectly, that it is identicalwith the font cut by A. Janson as shown on his specimen sheet. ^ In fact the face is notidentical but is a new face that can now be identified in several other works hithertounknown to me.^^ In erroneously attributing the font to Janson I argued against thetradition that it was specially cut for Cellarius but suggested that his was the first bookto be printed in the new font. The appearance of Hilliger's work in 1679, three yearsbefore that of Cellarius in 1682, clearly demonstrates that the Zeitz printing wassubsequent to that at Wittenberg. However, it reopens the question of whether the facewas cut for the book planned by Cellarius and before the printing of that book, a set oftype being provided for the academic typographer at Wittenberg who printed the bookfor Hilliger's publisher, or whether, alternatively, it was cut at Wittenberg, perhaps atthe Zinche foundry, with type being supplied to Zeitz for the printing of Cellarius'swork.

Apart from the fact that the new face produces a lighter impression than those cut bySchmidt or Janson, there is a remarkable similarity with the Janson face. Thefundamental differences are that 'ayin has a thinner left hand stroke in the new face, witha larger counter than the Janson 'ayin. In some of the examples of 'ayin through theHilliger text the counter has one or two ink marks as though the matrix from which thefont was cast had some deposit in it. These marks may have some connection with thediacritical point in 'ayin found in the Schmidt faces. The second difference is that thereis a wedge or tag on the right beard o^ shin whereas the Janson font has an unornamentedor unenlarged stroke at this point. The foot/beard of het in the Janson face is curvedwhereas in the new face it is wedged. Quph is closer to that in the font used for theprinting of Acoluthus's De ...Aquis Amaris^^ than any of the other German faces, with

6

a weighted body to the right of the stem stroke. The Janson specimen is too brief to allowfor further comparisons to be made but other letters are remarkably close to the new face,not allowing us to make judgements about them.

A peculiarity of the face, which aids in its recognition and the tracing of its history,is that some examples of the bet in Hilliger's text have a diacritical point in the counter.This error is not casual. It seems to have arisen because the text is a comparativegrammar in which Syriac, Hebrew and Samaritan Hebrew are compared, and thediacritical point usually appears where bet is in parallel with a Hebrew form whichnaturally would carry the diacritical point known as dagesh lene.^^ It is evident that twopunches must have been cut for bet, one with the diacritical point, which would implythat this font was cut for the Wittenberg printing and supplied to Cellarius's printer,rather than the reverse. In any event, in one place in Hilliger's text,^^ a bet with adiacritical point and a bet without one were accidentally interchanged, where thecomparison with Aramaic and Syriac makes it clear that the appearance of the diacriticalpoint is unintentional. This diacritical point is important in tracing the subsequenttransmission of the font for we see it reappearing in a number of specimens, whereas ithad not been noted previously.

This same type face is used in a sample of scripts from Berlin, in a collection byAndreas Muller of Greiffenhagen of seventy different languages and about one hundredversions of the Lord's Prayer in differing types.^^ As far as is known there was no faciUtyfor type cutting in Berlin until 1743^^ so the description of the printer as 'mercatorem'probably represents the situation accurately, namely that he was a trader rather than apunch-cutter. The Berlin specimen has one example of bet with a diacritical point in thecounter in its printing of the Lord's Prayer and another example in which it appears thata diacritical point may have been displaced. However, none of the substitute charactersthat we find in later printings in which this face is employed are yet in evidence. ^

The 1743 specimen from the Gessner foundry leaves us in no doubt that Gessner'snew Samaritan is the same typeface as the example discussed above. However, like otherspecimens noted in the earlier study he has substituted a nun forpe, and a 'square bracketwww' (i.e. a new punch with a modified lower portion, which gives it a resemblance to anelongated bracket) for nun. We cannot tell from our alphabet table alone^^ whether thebet with the diacritical point in the counter was employed for the printing of the Lord'sPrayer in this early specimen. Certainly this peculiarity is evident in the 1748 Gessnerspecimen, and is repeated in his specimen of 1769. ^ This diacritical point is not to befound in every example of the letter. In his version of the Lord's Prayer^^ severalexamples of bet are found without the diacritical point, and those which appear are notin any position where they would represent the Hebrew dagesh lene. It is evident thatGessner had a typeface which included both versions of bet and he had no way ofknowing how the two versions should be used. We are inclined to assume that Gessnerwould not have published his specimens unless he had matrices, at least, in his possessionand possibly even punches, though this is less likely for reasons indicated below. It maywell be that by the time either a type set or matrices found their way to the Gessner

foundry one punch had been mislaid, and it was decided to use the nun for the lostletter/matrix of pe and a substitute was made for nun. Whether the substitute was cutin the Gessner foundry or whether it was supplied to him from elsewhere is unclear. Thefact that we have yet another specimen of the face without either the diacritical pomt ofbet or the substitute nun and pe from a half century later would suggest that the origmalpunches were still in existence and the modified punches were made in the Gessnerfactory to supplement a defective set of matrices.

The later example of the face appears yet again in a specimen book of Herdingh endu Mortier (Leiden, 1793). ^ It is clear that the original punches have been used to strikeanother set of matrices from which fresh type has been cast for this printer. The font ofthe 1793 specimen has the appearance of freshness and lightness as if it had not beenused, supporting the view that we have here a set of new font from a new matrix. The'Mediaan Samaritaansch' of this type specimen shows none of the odd characteristics ofthe previous examples: it lacks any trace of a diacritical point in the bet and there is nosubstitute nun. Unfortunately the specimen does not include any example of pe so wecannot say whether a substitute would have been needed. The evidence of the originalnun being used properly as nun instead of substituting for something else would testifyagainst the likelihood of a pe not being available to the printer.

The Gessner variety of the face with the substitute letters but without the diacriticalpoint in bet is known to us from Copenhagen. A collection put together by thenineteenth-century typographer, J. C. N. Heie,^^ includes a Samaritan alphabet, with noadditional text, identified only as ' Samaritansk Alphabet' (see fig. 6). However his set wasas doubly defective as that of Gessner, lacking a pe and having a nun as a substitute forpe. The 'square bracket' form was used for the nun itself. The face which appears inHeie's specimen is clean and sharp. It is a type set which appears to have been newly castand which has never been put to work.

One final appearance of the same typeface, surprisingly, still with a diacriticalpoint in one of the samples of bet, is in the E. J. Brill specimen of the Monotype fontsavailable to the firm in 1970. ^ The text set is the now traditional Lord's Prayer; online six the word davar carries a diacritical point in bet in a position where it should nothave one even by normal Hebrew canons. The Monotype specimen like its hand-setversion has preserved two different forms of the bet and, likewise, two forms of nun, oneof them the normal version as it should appear, as for example in the first word of thepiece, avmu, and the other, the substitute 'square bracket nun' in the defectively spelledhatsiienu, line 10. It would seem that the modern printers have preserved the fontcharacteristics and problems of the hand-set type even in the mechanized forms of type

setting.Yet another version of the same variant of the Dutch-German series is also from

Leiden in the text of David Mill's 'Dissertatio de causis odii Judaeos inter atqueSamaritanos', in his Dissertationes selectae...et Antiquitatis Orientalis Capita (Leiden,1743), printed by Conrad Wishoff and Georg Jacob Wishoff. This face has the sameappearance as the Chamberlayne face but the 'ayin has a diacritical point indicating that

8

Samaritansk Alphabet

A , Aleph

5 , Beth b

1 , Girael g

'y, Daleth d

He

Vau

Zain

Cheth

Teth

nr,

h

V

z

ch

t

j

, Koph k

Lamed

Mem

Nun

1

m

n

Samech s

V, t:iv.ph

VHi . . . (starkt) Z

P, Kuph q

'^, Risch r

***, Schin sch

A , Thau th t

Fig. 6. The Samaritan alphabet, from the collection by J. C. N. Heie, io forskjelHge Alphabeter(Copenhagen, 1869), p. 14. Han. 583

the Dutch-German faces have a far more complex history than hitherto established. Theface used in this text supports the conclusion that the type used by Goereus for printingChamberlayne's Oratio Dominica (Amsterdam, 1715) had originally an ''ayin with adiacritical point like that in the Schmidt and Rolu specimens, but that this was removedafter the punches were cut for the new version.^^ However, we are in no wise helped bythis new specimen in establishing who cut the face. All that we can say is that a versionof the Dutch-German faces was created between 1700 and 1715 and went through themetamorphosis of having the ''ayin modified after the punches were cut. However, atleast some matrices were struck from the unmodified punches and type was cast and soldto printers in Leiden, where it reappears at a later date.

The later Dutch-German faces seem to be centred on the Drugulin factory at Leipzigand the Staatsdruckerei at Vienna. The 1844 and 1859 Friedrich Ballhorn's specimens,Alphabete Orientalise her und Occidentalischer Sprachen, show a Samaritan face which isalmost identical with that in A. Auer's specimen of 1853, in the 'Tafeln zu demVortrage' of his Der Polygraphische Apparat der K. K. Hofund Staatsdruckerei zu Wien.^"^At first sight the faces give the impression of being cast from a differing set of matricesof the same punches, but there are some subtle differences. In the Ballhorn face the beardof gimel is straightened whereas in Auer it has a minute curve to the junction with thestem. The beards of dalet and resh in the Auer specimen are slightly rounded at the leftside, whereas in Ballhorn they are straight lines. The Ballhorn face is thus slightly more

y/> 7 Panegyric celebrating the end of the Napoleonic Wars, rendered in Samaritan by theRostock orientalist Tychsen, from the second issue of Barth's Pacis...Monumentum (Breslau,

10

stylized and less rounded than the Auer face and both faces are produced from differingsets of punches.

A most unusual font, never before encountered by the present writer, is that whichappears to have been cut by or under the aegis of Johann August Barth who, with hispartner Grass, was official state and university typographer at Breslau.^^ Barth publisheda volume to celebrate the end of the Napoleonic Wars and, in particular, to praise theleaders of the anti-French coalition. His work was entitled Pads Annis MDCCCXIV etMDCCCXV Foederatis Armis Restitutae Monumentum orbis Terrarum de Fortuna ReduceGaudia... and was printed at Breslau (Vratislava), with no date, but clearly in 1816; asecond issue appeared in r8i8. Barth publicized his project and sought subscriptions ina flyer dated 3 August 1816. His stated intention was a display of German prowess inprinting at a time when the fortunes of Germany were being restored, demonstrating toa wider world that after a major and savage war one could anticipate the restoration ofcivilized life in Europe.

The Samaritan text, labelled simply ' Samaritanice' (fig. 7), is a version by OlufGerhard Tychsen, the Samaritanologist of the late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies, of a poem, the German of which is: 'Triumph / die Tyranney / istbezwungen / Heil / den guten Fursten / Alexander, Franz II / und Friederich WilhelmIII / Volker begluckend, / vereint im Bunde / mit Albion / gaben sie der Welt / denlang entbehrten / Frieden zuriick / im Jahr 1814.' (The original letter from Barth toTychsen, requesting the latter's translation of these lines, is preserved in the UniversityLibrary, Rostock, MS. Or. 284(12).) The very inclusion of Samaritan in a volume of thisnature should not be considered too unusual, for Samaritan was often included in'glorification volumes' for weddings of princes and the like, especially in Italy. Becauseof its origin the font should doubtless be considered to belong to the Dutch-Germanschool, for it manifests the Gothic lozenges on the stems of kaph and mem and hassomething of the elaborate stylization of most letters of the Dutch-German faces.However, it has the angularity of the English faces in the nun and pe and this may be aresult of Tychsen's scholarly influence moving the font towards a manuscript form. Sofar as the writer is aware the face was never used for printing any other text.

A specimen of Edward Bernard's Pietas Universitatis Oxomensis in ObitumAugustissimae & Desideratissimae Reginae Mariae (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1695)gives us the chance to examine anew the face described by several writers as the secondEnghsh Samaritan font which was cut by 1685 (see fig. 5). ^ In the work it follows aSyriac script labelled 'Item elego Syriaco' and appears under the label 'Adhuc idemSamaritice' and is identified as having been used by Edward Bernard. Since several of theworks which used this font were connected with his name, *' it may well have been underBernard's influence that this script was originally cut, perhaps by Pieter Walberger, aliasPeter de Walpergen. Bernard had a long-standing interest in Samaritan literature andmanuscripts and had been working for some time on materials for his various catalogues.However, the specimen in Pietas Universitatis has some strange errors both in printingand in content which are inappropriate for a Hebraist of Bernard's reputation. The text

I I

which translates as *the king who was not afraid of the multitude of enemies and of theFrench artillery, fell before the bier of his dead wife and declared his love for the smallcorpse', has two spelling mistakes in the Hebrew (in the word ribebot, i.e. multitude,which is spelled defectively without its vav; yar'e, to be afraid, spelled yareh, with heinstead of a/f/)A; and ish, a man, is spelled aleph-shin, i.e. without its mandatory jfzi). The'ayin is also printed upside down. A Hebraist who could render so complex a statementinto the unaccommodating Samaritan could not have read his proofs before printing.

It is not surprising that the font described by Rowe Mores as the Great Primer withthe English face was soon superseded, sometime within the eighteenth century. It wasused in print for only five works. It is an i8 point type body of 3.5 mm in height whichmust have been of little use for most printing purposes other than to show off in worksof the type described, or for versions of the Lord's Prayer. It was without elegance, hadlittle resemblance to the Samaritan manuscripts, and showed an uncommon variationbetween casts of the same letter. The fulcrum knot on the base of mem is different fromletter to letter and the type must have worn very unevenly to produce such a result orwe must conjecture that, even with so new a typeface, some attempts were made tomodify punches and/or strike a new matrix for one or two letters. Alternatively, a notuncommon factor was the cutting of two sets of punches and the use of two or more setsof matrices. One or other hypothesis is almost certain to be considered as the cause ofthe letter variation.

In two other matters discussed in our previous study new evidence from the BritishLibrary constrains us to change our views. The first is in the matter of the Samaritanwhich appears in J. Johnson, Typographia (London, 1824), which I wrongly identifiedas Long Primer."^^ The face can be seen in detail in a very curious book by Robert Young,the scholar-printer of Edinburgh. This book, entitled Sefer Hinukh la-yeladim ketanim,apparently printed in 1852 {}), was part of a series of several pamphlet-size versions ofthe Shorter Catechism (another of which was in Hebrew, and still another in Judaeo-Arabic). This little volume is entirely in Samaritan characters;'*^ only the words 'RobertYoung, Publisher, Edinburgh', which follow the colophon on the last page (see fig. 8),appear in Latin type. As noted in the British Library Catalogue entry, the text is aSamaritan-character transcription of the Hebrew version of the Catechism, and not atranslation into Samaritan, as the title-page indicates. The book is very neatly printed ina very small face which appears to be larger than Nonpareil but is certainly smaller thanLong Primer. It is, perhaps, a Brevier or Bourgeois equivalent for which we have noother evidence in England. Young's published works are first recorded in 1852 whereasthe Typographia appeared in 1824, so the face could not have been cut for Young. In myprivate notes, unsourced, I observe that the face was the work of Edmund Fry. This nowappears to me to be unlikely as the letter shapes are very different and judgement aboutthe origins of the face should be suspended pending further evidence.

The second matter is in regard to the listing of faces for which no further informationcould be gathered. One such face is the pica Samaritan which appears in Isaac Taylor,The Alphabet (London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1883). ^ For want of any information about

12

KOBERT YOUNG, TUBLISIIER, EDINnUllGII.

Fig. 8. Colophon to Robert Young's Samaritan-type version of the Westminster Catechism, SeferHinukh la-yeladim ketanim (Edinburgh, [1854]), p. 24. 3506.b.47 (2)

its origin this face was not noted in the previous study. However, it appears also inanother book issued earlier by the same press, Charles Kent's Corona Catholica ad Petrisuccessoris pedes oblata de Summt Pontificis Leonis XIII Assumptione Epigramma (inqumquagintis linguis) (London, 1880). Why the author should want to render intoSamaritan

Through the Cross on Cross of Pius,As through Mary's Dolours SevenLo! from Death what Life emerges,Joy from anguish. Light from Heaven.

is as obscure as the origin of this version of the English face.In conclusion we may notice several specimens from various places which were

excluded from the original study because they were woodcut or because they were notat that time known to me. One specimen from late seventeenth-century Poland, ThomasBang's Exercitationes Philologico-Philosophicae (Cracow: impensis J. Laurentii, 1691),shows a single Samaritan alphabet (see fig. 4) said in the text to be in the style used byMorin, in his Exercitatio V. Clearly it is not a copy of the font used for printing Morin'sworks which were executed in France by Anton Vitray.*^ The latter printed Morin'sworks with the type used for the Paris Polyglot.^^ The Polish face is rather larger thanthe French face and shows but the slightest resemblance to it. If indeed it is set inmoveable type we see a face which is not known to have been used for any other printingand must be considered a maverick. Since the only repeated item in the single alphabet,the word-separator dot, is not standard but varies in every instance, it is most likely tohave been engraved as a plate or cut as a wooden block. It is possible that Samaritan fontswere not yet easily acquired in late seventeenth-century Poland.

It remains true that a presentation of every woodcut type would be difficult toassemble, but their very existence shows the interest of scholars in Samaritan studies.The use of woodcut rather than cast type is at least helpful in narrowing down the

13

number of scholarly centres which possessed cast type. Two examples show that wSamaritan scholarship was intensely developed in Central Europe, especially in tneGerman States, typography was relatively slow in meeting the challenge of creating a lullrange of oriental exotics. While the Samaritan was well established at Wittenberg in theseventeenth century for Hilliger's printing (as noted above) it was simply not availableat Jena or at Altdorf in the same era.

At Altdorf, Cristopher Crinesius was obliged to rely on woodcut blocks for his LinguaSamaritica (1628). The title-page gives us a clear impression of a crude but very readableSamaritan Aramaic translation of the Latin title, Lashon shamrayta. Christian Hoffmann'sUmbra in Luce ran through two editions towards the end of the seventeenth century(Jena, 1667 and 1680) and for both editions the printer and typesetter, Johann JacobBauhofer, was obliged to use a 36 point block for his title-page. The Samaritan lettersin the fore-title, Telal be-nahar, were clearly based on one of the Propaganda Fidespecimens of earlier in the century.

1 'Manuscript, Cast Type and Samaritan Palae-ography', Bulletin of the John Rylands UniversityLibrary of Manchester, Ixxii (1990), pp. 87-130(hereafter, MCTSP). This is summarized inmy 'Typefaces and Script', in A. D. Crown,R. Pummer and A. Tai (eds.), A Companionto Samaritan Studies (Tubingen, 1993), pp-239—40. Early printers of Samaritan are ident-ified in my A Bibliography of the Samaritans(Metuchen, N.J., and London, 1993).

2 At the historic typefoundry Stephenson, Blakeand Co., Ltd., Sheffield. See MCTSP, p. 114.

3 D. B. Updike, in Printing Types. Their History,Forms and Use: A Study in Survivals, 2 vols.(Cambridge, Mass., 1962), speaks rather harshlyof these folios. Despite the criticism some ofthem were quite elegant.

4 G. B. De Rossi, Francisco Lucerna-Rorengo de-Rora ... Carmina Orientalia (Turin, 1768), p. 10.

5 See, for example, Manuale tipografico del cava-liere Giambattista Bodoni (Parma, 1818), vol. i,pp. 1-2.

6 Vol. i, pp. lix-lx.7 See MCTSP, pp. 96-9, for a discussion.8 See MCTSP, pp. i20-3> for ^ discussion.9 Ibid., pp. 110-20, for a discussion of the English

faces.10 Vol. ii, p. 76- , ^ , ^ -11 For a discussion of the general development of

the Italian faces and the lightening of the stylesin Bodoni's faces, see Updike, Printing Types,vol. i, ch. 13.

12 It is interesting that the 'Sul Silvio' size is notnoted in the comparative table in Updike'sPrinting Types, p. 27.

13 Updike elaborates on this process in PrintingTypes, vol. i, passim.

14 G. B. De Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testa-menti, 4 vols. (Parma: ex Regia Typographia,1784-8).

15 This is seen on the style sheet AlphabeticumHebraicum addito Samaritano et Rabhinico(Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1771).

16 MCTSP, p. 121. For the Voskens specimen, cf.J. G. Dreyfus, Type Specimen Facsimiles(London, 1963). ^

17 MCTSP, p. 122.18 Ibid., p. 108.19 'Sumptibus haered. D. Tobiae Mevii & Elerti

Schumacheri, per Matthaeum Henckelium,Academ. Typogr'.

20 But not in his Heidelberg or Zurich printings. InSmegma Orientate he used no Samaritan at all.

21 C. Cellarius [Keller], Hora Samaritans (Cizae[Zeitz]: Sumtibus Io. Bielckii, 1682).

22 MCTSP, p. 104.23 I am grateful to Brad Sabin Hill for calling my

attention to various specimens of this font foundin books held in the British Library.

24 Andreas Acoluthus, De Me ha-marim ha-me'arerim, sive Aquis Amaris... philologema(Leipzig: typis Justini Brandl, 1682); see alsoMCTSP.

25 For example, see p. 29.

26 p. 50, line 14.27 A kai 0 Alphabeta ac Notae Diversarum Ling-

uarum... Versiones Orationis Dominicae...(Berlin: apud Johannem Liebermann, Merca-torem, 1727).

28 According to Updike, Printing Types, vol. i, p.

29 Mliller, p. 10.30 Of the 1743 specimen we have only the alphabet

tables on p. 40. More evidence might be availableif there were a solid text for consideration.

31 Orientalisch und Occidentalisches A B C Buch(Hamburg and Zeitz, 1769), p. 169.

32 Ibid., p. 65.33 Proeve van Letteren welke Gevonden worden ter

Boekdrukkerye van Herdmgh en du Mortier, teLeyden (Leyden, 1793).

34 10 forskjellige Alphaheter med Navne og Betyd-ning, Runer, Islandsk, Hebraisk, Syrisk, Arabisk,Sanskrit, Copttsk, Grask, Samaritansk og Russisk,... (Copenhagen: Chr. Steen & Sons Forlag,Louis Kleins Bogtrykkeri, 1869), see p. 14.

35 Specimens of Type Faces (Leiden: E. J. Brill,1970), p. 142, listed as type size 11.

36 See the discussion in MCTSP.

37 The British Museum Library's copy of theEnglish version of this work, entitled ThePolygraphic Apparatus, published in the sameyear, was destroyed in the bombing of theMuseum during the War.

38 See U. Th. Hartmann, Oluf Gerhard Tychsen(Bremen, 1818), vol. ii, p. 294. In describingTychsen's role in the translation of the Samar-itan, Hartmann gives some details of the Barthpublication. Thanks are due to Heike Troger fordrawing this material to our attention.

39 See the discussion in MCTSP, p. 114.40 Ibid., p. 115, n. 113.41 Ibid., p. 115.42 Thus the title-page is entirely in Samaritan

characters; indeed, this is the only book printedin Europe entirely in Samaritan characters. It isrecorded in The British Library General Cata-logue to 197S} vol. xcix (London, 1981), p. 2219.BL pressmark 35o6.b.47.(2.).

43 P- 243.44 See J. Morin, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in

utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris:Anton Vitray, 1631).

45 MCTSP, pp. i26f.