FURTHER NOTES ON SAMARITAN TYPOGRAPHY

ALAN D. CROWN

IN my recent study of Samaritan typefaces^ I was able to trace the history and development of some of the more important of these on the basis of the evidence then available to me. That study stimulated some interest among both historians of typography and librarians. Through the kindness of Brad Sabin Hill of the British Library, who has drawn my attention to specimens which I would not otherwise have seen, including examples from both the British Library and the Tychsen collection in the University 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 Samaritan typefaces which were developed in the original work and make corrections to opinions then 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 now remains.^ Additionally, it is now possible to draw attention to a number of other Samaritan typefaces of which I was not previously aware. Both the British Library and the St Bride Printing Library have several examples of the 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 the types that were prepared for these occasions.^ It was the custom on these occasions to demonstrate the glories of Italian typography by the printing of folio presentation volumes as pohshed examples of the printer's art. From time to time, we find that the type was either a copper engraving, a woodcut block or even moveable wooden type cut specially 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 and his Samaritan poems in praise of the new Archbishop of Turin. The Samaritan poem mixes both Aramaic and Hebrew in true Samaritan style with a less than elegant result. The St Bride Printing Library and the British Library provide examples of the fonts cut by the eighteenth-century type-founder, Giambattista Bodoni, which escaped our attention in the earlier study. ^ In a brief disquisition on the Samaritan typefaces used in other books,^ Bodoni says that we have three types of Samaritan type faces. The first of these is that used for the printing of Scaliger's De Emendatwne Temporum;'^ the second was 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 vol ii (Parma, 1818). 59.C.19 Bodoni continues that cut two Samaritan typefaces. We can see these presented in his Manuale (see fig. i).^** The first, which he calls Sul Silvio, is quite evidently none of the faces discussed in his text but is a paradigm of the Dutch-German faces, which could scarcely be confused with the English faces by a skilled punch-cutter like Bodoni. It is readily recognizable as a new font for it is lighter in style than the fonts of which it is a caique, and seems to echo the lightness of the remainder of Bodoni's fonts in the nevi^ Italianate style of his era.^^ It is on a wider body than any of the other Dutch-German fonts, so that when compared with the same text in a face of the same size (for example the John Chamberlayne version of the Lord's Prayer which is printed in a twelve point Samaritan font) the first two words are spread over if inches instead of the i\ inches in Chamberlayne's text. The face would appear to be that of a twelve point font on a fourteen point body.^^ Word-dividing dots and full stops are remote from the preceding words and may be separated by en quadrats. The letters qiiph and are both so different from any other Dutch-German version that they provide a ready means of identification. The quph has a stylization of the fulcrum point to the left of the stem that is normally found in the Samaritan script-form of quph and which is invariably omitted in other versions of the face. While it could be argued that Bodoni had either taken advice about the manuscript form of the or else had consulted a manuscript, there are good reasons for suggesting that he was influenced by the Propaganda Fide font and its quph form. The head of the dalet to the right of the stem appears to be an extension of the vertical rather than the head stroke. Other aspects of the script, such as the Gothic diamond on and , indicate clearly the model used. In every case the changes made to the characters are towards stylization and away from manuscript reality, which is in clear contradiction of the import of the recutting of the quph form (on which, see below). This may well have been in keeping with the move away from the influence of manuscripts, 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 his remarkable Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti,^^ in which there were several sections in Samaritan. The Samaritan face in this work is readily identifiable as being in the style of 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 font directly with Bodoni and argue that he cut the face twice. The changes in some characters indicate that for his own specimen Bodoni recut the punches and left the older punches in the royal printing shop when he moved away. In recutting he was able to improve the font. The differences are the distinctive quph noted above, the neck of which, in the Bodoni specimen is more elegant than in the De Rossi face, and the lower junction of mem and its footstroke which is more cleanly managed in the Bodoni specimen than the De Rossi version. Bodoni has utilized the same forms for the remainder of his letters, but the face in his specimen is neater and more elegant than the face he cut for his royal master, with a better distinction between hairline and stem strokes especially noticeable in and dalet. If one does not accept Bodoni as the cutter of both faces then one has to consider him a plagiarist and identify a punch-cutter of the same period and the same places, working with orientals. There is no indication that such a person exists. The second font, identified in the Manuale as Sul Soprasilvio, is obviously inspired by and imitates the 'detto Testo' Propaganda Fide face.^^ It is far more elegant than the Propaganda face but, like the Sul Silvio font, moves in the direction of stylization and away from the manuscript hand on which the model was based. This can be seen especially in the enlargement of the counters in the fulcrum knots of het, and, presumably, samekh (of which we have no sample on the specimen) away from their manuscript form in which the fulcrum is solid ink. In virtually every character there is a refinement of the face in the Italianate style that sees the stem strokes lightened and provided with a mixture of thick and hair line strokes, apparently imitating the ductus of European hands rather than Samaritan scribal practice. The fulcrum knot of quph appears again, but in this case its source is clear as it is a stylization of the Propaganda quph so that a counter appears in the centre of the fulcrum, and we can see here the source 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 Propaganda Fide 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 of Vitalis Mascardi, apparently with permission from the Vatican, it is not the Propaganda font but a close caique of it. This later printing reopens the question of the Voskens (18 point) 'Text Samaritaans' on the specimens issued by his widow in Amsterdam between 1695 and 1710/^ The work by Kircher and the brief Voskens specimen seem to show the same face, that is essentially the Propaganda Fide face with some of the punches recut. However, the time difference between the works suggests that it was not Vgskens who cut the 'Text Samaritaans' as I have argued elsewhere,^^ but rather that the recutting was done in Rome for the publication of the work by Kircher, and that this was the 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. These were the 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 and lower 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 transversal intersected the stem a little way from its foot, again as in the manuscript form. We do not know whether the new punches were cut for the Propaganda Fide before the font was cast from new matrices for Mascardi, or whether Mascardi had the new punches cut for himself. The balance of probability favours the latter, for subsequent Propaganda specimens (for example, the specimen of 1771) show the unchanged form of the aleph and 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^

'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 regularly set upside down or was cut with the nick in the wrong place so that it was set upside down. That the latter was more likely is indicated by the appearance of the same character upside down in the Voskens specimen. Of the Dutch-German faces the British Library supplies several specimens. One of these obliges us to revise our opinion of the Wittenberg printings^^ and fonts, and enables us to correct an error in the previous survey of Samaritan typefaces. It also raises a number of fresh problems which cannot be resolved here. Johann Wilhelm Hilliger, [Misharo di~leshan arami], sive Summarium Linguce Aramcece (Wittenberg, 1679)^^ states in his introductory comments to the Samaritan and Syriac alphabets that he is aware of both majuscule and minuscule scripts in Samaritan manuscripts and that the former is best represented by the face of the 'Anglican Bible' which was used by Castell, Bochart and Hottinger.^*^ He did not say whether his preference led to a new face being cut, but his work displays a different Wittenberg font, one very clearly cut by a continental punch-cutter whose completed Samaritan face, self-evidently, is of the Dutch-German school. Unlike the font employed in earlier Wittenberg printings this is not derived from the punches originally cut by Schmidt, nor can it be from another set of matrices struck from the same punches. The font, in fact, is that used in the printing of Cellarius's Horce SamaritancE (fig. 3).^^ In first discussing it I suggested, incorrectly, that it is identical with the font cut by A. Janson as shown on his specimen sheet.^^ In fact the face is not identical but is a new face that can now be identified in several other works hitherto unknown to me.^^ In erroneously attributing the font to Janson I argued against the tradition that it was specially cut for Cellarius but suggested that his was the first book to be printed in the new font. The appearance of Hilliger's work in 1679, three years before that of Cellarius in 1682, clearly demonstrates that the Zeitz printing was subsequent to that at Wittenberg. However, it reopens the question of whether the face was cut for the book planned by Cellarius and before the printing of that book, a set of type being provided for the academic typographer at Wittenberg who printed the book for Hilliger's publisher, or whether, alternatively, it was cut at Wittenberg, perhaps at the Zinche foundry, with type being supplied to Zeitz for the printing of Cellarius's work. Apart from the fact that the new face produces a lighter impression than those cut by Schmidt or Janson, there is a remarkable similarity with the Janson face. The fundamental differences are that ' has a thinner left hand stroke in the new face, with a larger counter than the Janson 'ayin. In some of the examples of 'ayin through the Hilliger text the counter has one or two ink marks as though the matrix from which the font was cast had some deposit in it. These marks may have some connection with the diacritical point in 'ayin found in the Schmidt faces. The second difference is that there is a wedge or on the right beard o^ whereas the Janson font has an unornamented or unenlarged stroke at this point. The foot/beard of het in the Janson face is curved whereas in the new face it is wedged. Quph is closer to that in the font used for the printing 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 allow for 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 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 comparative grammar in which Syriac, Hebrew and are compared, and the diacritical point usually appears where bet is in parallel with a Hebrew form which naturally would carry the diacritical point known as lene.^^ It is evident that two punches must have been cut for bet, one with the diacritical point, which would imply that 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 a diacritical point and a bet without one were accidentally interchanged, where the comparison with Aramaic and Syriac makes it clear that the appearance of the diacritical point is unintentional. This diacritical point is important in tracing the subsequent transmission of the font for we see it reappearing in a number of specimens, whereas it had not been noted previously. This same type face is used in a sample of scripts from Berlin, in a collection by Andreas Muller of Greiffenhagen of seventy different languages and about one hundred versions of the Lord's Prayer in differing types.^^ As far as is known there was no faciUty for 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 a punch-cutter. The Berlin specimen has one example of bet with a diacritical point in the counter in its printing of the Lord's Prayer and another example in which it appears that a diacritical point may have been displaced. However, none of the substitute characters that 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's new Samaritan is the same typeface as the example discussed above. However, like other specimens noted in the earlier study he has substituted a nun forpe, and a 'square bracket www' (i.e. a new punch with a modified lower portion, which gives it a resemblance to an elongated bracket) for nun. We cannot tell from our alphabet table alone^^ whether the bet with the diacritical point in the counter was employed for the printing of the Lord's Prayer in this early specimen. Certainly this peculiarity is evident in the 1748 Gessner specimen, and is repeated in his specimen of 1769.^^ This diacritical point is not to be found in every example of the letter. In his version of the Lord's Prayer^^ several examples of bet are found without the diacritical point, and those which appear are not in any position where they would represent the Hebrew dagesh lene. It is evident that Gessner had a typeface which included both versions of bet and he had no way of knowing how the two versions should be used. We are inclined to assume that Gessner would not have published his specimens unless he had matrices, at least, in his possession and possibly even punches, though this is less likely for reasons indicated below. It may well 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 lost letter/matrix of and a substitute was made for nun. Whether the substitute was cut in the Gessner foundry or whether it was supplied to him from elsewhere is unclear. The fact that we have yet another specimen of the face without either the diacritical pomt of bet or the substitute nun and pe from a half century later would suggest that the origmal punches were still in existence and the modified punches were made in the Gessner factory to supplement a defective set of matrices. The later example of the face appears yet again in a specimen book of Herdingh en du Mortier (Leiden, 1793).^^ It is clear that the original punches have been used to strike another set of matrices from which fresh type has been cast for this printer. The font of the 1793 specimen has the appearance of freshness and lightness as if it had not been used, 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 of the previous examples: it lacks any trace of a diacritical point in the bet and there is no substitute nun. Unfortunately the specimen does not include any example of pe so we cannot say whether a substitute would have been needed. The evidence of the original nun being used properly as nun instead of substituting for something else would testify against the likelihood of a pe not being available to the printer. The Gessner variety of the face with the substitute letters but without the diacritical point in bet is known to us from Copenhagen. A collection put together by the nineteenth-century typographer, J. C. N. Heie,^^ includes a Samaritan alphabet, with no additional text, identified only as' Samaritansk Alphabet' (see fig. 6). However his set was as doubly defective as that of Gessner, lacking a pe and having a nun as a substitute for pe. The 'square bracket' form was used for the nun itself. The face which appears in Heie's specimen is clean and sharp. It is a type set which appears to have been newly cast and which has never been put to work. One final appearance of the same typeface, surprisingly, still with a diacritical point in one of the samples of bet, is in the E. J. Brill specimen of the Monotype fonts available to the firm in 1970.^^ The text set is the now traditional Lord's Prayer; on line six the word davar carries a diacritical point in bet in a position where it should not have one even by normal Hebrew canons. The Monotype specimen like its hand-set version has preserved two different forms of the bet and, likewise, two forms of nun, one of them the normal version as it should appear, as for example in the first word of the piece, avmu, and the other, the substitute 'square bracket nun' in the defectively spelled hatsiienu, line 10. It would seem that the modern printers have preserved the font characteristics 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 atque Samaritanos', in his Dissertationes selectae...et Antiquitatis Orientalis Capita (Leiden, 1743), printed by Conrad Wishoff and Georg Jacob Wishoff. This face has the same appearance as the Chamberlayne face but the 'ayin has a diacritical point indicating that 8 Samaritansk Alphabet

A, Aleph Lamed 1 5, Beth b Mem m 1, Girael g Nun n 'y, Daleth d Samech s He h V, t:iv. Vau V ph

Zain z VHi . . . (starkt) Z Cheth ch P, Kuph q Teth t '^, Risch r nr, j ***, Schin sch , Koph k 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. The face used in this text supports the conclusion that the type used by Goereus for printing Chamberlayne's Oratio Dominica (Amsterdam, 1715) had originally an ''ayin with a diacritical point like that in the Schmidt and Rolu specimens, but that this was removed after the punches were cut for the new version.^^ However, we are in no wise helped by this new specimen in establishing who cut the face. All that we can say is that a version of the Dutch-German faces was created between 1700 and 1715 and went through the metamorphosis of having the ''ayin modified after the punches were cut. However, at least some matrices were struck from the unmodified punches and type was cast and sold to printers in Leiden, where it reappears at a later date. The later Dutch-German faces seem to be centred on the Drugulin factory at Leipzig and the Staatsdruckerei at Vienna. The 1844 and 1859 Friedrich Ballhorn's specimens, Alphabete Orientalise her und Occidentalischer Sprachen, show a Samaritan face which is almost identical with that in A. Auer's specimen of 1853, in the 'Tafeln zu dem Vortrage' 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 matrices of the same punches, but there are some subtle differences. In the Ballhorn face the beard of is straightened whereas in Auer it has a minute curve to the junction with the stem. The beards of dalet and in the Auer specimen are slightly rounded at the left side, 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 the Rostock 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 differing sets of punches. A most unusual font, never before encountered by the present writer, is that which appears to have been cut by or under the aegis of Johann August Barth who, with his partner Grass, was official state and university typographer at Breslau.^^ Barth published a volume to celebrate the end of the Napoleonic Wars and, in particular, to praise the leaders of the anti-French coalition. His work was entitled Pads Annis MDCCCXIV et MDCCCXV Foederatis Armis Restitutae Monumentum orbis Terrarum de Fortuna Reduce Gaudia... and was printed at Breslau (Vratislava), with no date, but clearly in 1816; a second issue appeared in r8i8. Barth publicized his project and sought subscriptions in a flyer dated 3 August 1816. His stated intention was a display of German prowess in printing at a time when the fortunes of Germany were being restored, demonstrating to a wider world that after a major and savage war one could anticipate the restoration of civilized life in Europe. The Samaritan text, labelled simply ' Samaritanice' (fig. 7), is a version by Oluf Gerhard Tychsen, the Samaritanologist of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, of a poem, the German of which is: 'Triumph / die Tyranney / ist bezwungen / Heil / den guten Fursten / Alexander, Franz II / und Friederich Wilhelm III / Volker begluckend, / vereint im Bunde / mit Albion / gaben sie der Welt / den lang entbehrten / Frieden zuriick / im Jahr 1814.' (The original letter from Barth to Tychsen, requesting the latter's translation of these lines, is preserved in the University Library, Rostock, MS. Or. 284(12).) The very inclusion of Samaritan in a volume of this nature should not be considered too unusual, for Samaritan was often included in 'glorification volumes' for weddings of princes and the like, especially in Italy. Because of its origin the font should doubtless be considered to belong to the Dutch-German school, for it manifests the Gothic lozenges on the stems of kaph and mem and has something 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 a result of Tychsen's scholarly influence moving the font towards a manuscript form. So far 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 Obitum Augustissimae & Desideratissimae Reginae Mariae (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1695) gives us the chance to examine anew the face described by several writers as the second Enghsh Samaritan font which was cut by 1685 (see fig. 5).^^ In the work it follows a Syriac script labelled 'Item elego Syriaco' and appears under the label 'Adhuc idem Samaritice' and is identified as having been used by Edward Bernard. Since several of the works which used this font were connected with his name,^*' it may well have been under Bernard's influence that this script was originally cut, perhaps by Pieter Walberger, alias Peter de Walpergen. Bernard had a long-standing interest in Samaritan literature and manuscripts 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 printing and in content which are inappropriate for a Hebraist of Bernard's reputation. The text

II which translates as *the king who was not afraid of the multitude of enemies and of the French artillery, fell before the bier of his dead wife and declared his love for the small corpse', 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 he instead 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 statement into 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 with the English face was soon superseded, sometime within the eighteenth century. It was used in print for only five works. It is an i8 point type body of 3.5 mm in height which must have been of little use for most printing purposes other than to show off in works of the type described, or for versions of the Lord's Prayer. It was without elegance, had little resemblance to the Samaritan manuscripts, and showed an uncommon variation between casts of the same letter. The fulcrum knot on the base of mem is different from letter to letter and the type must have worn very unevenly to produce such a result or we must conjecture that, even with so new a typeface, some attempts were made to modify punches and/or strike a new matrix for one or two letters. Alternatively, a not uncommon factor was the cutting of two sets of punches and the use of two or more sets of matrices. One or other hypothesis is almost certain to be considered as the cause of the letter variation. In two other matters discussed in our previous study new evidence from the British Library constrains us to change our views. The first is in the matter of the Samaritan which appears in J. Johnson, Typographia (London, 1824), which I wrongly identified as 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 of the 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 'Robert Young, 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 a Samaritan-character transcription of the Hebrew version of the Catechism, and not a translation into Samaritan, as the title-page indicates. The book is very neatly printed in a very small face which appears to be larger than Nonpareil but is certainly smaller than Long Primer. It is, perhaps, a Brevier or Bourgeois equivalent for which we have no other evidence in England. Young's published works are first recorded in 1852 whereas the Typographia appeared in 1824, so the face could not have been cut for Young. In my private notes, unsourced, I observe that the face was the work of Edmund Fry. This now appears to me to be unlikely as the letter shapes are very different and judgement about the 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 information could 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, Sefer Hinukh 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 in another book issued earlier by the same press, Charles Kent's Corona Catholica ad Petri successoris pedes oblata de Summt Pontificis Leonis XIII Assumptione Epigramma (in qumquagintis linguis) (London, 1880). Why the author should want to render into Samaritan Through the Cross on Cross of Pius, As through Mary's Dolours Seven Lo! 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 not at that time known to me. One specimen from late seventeenth-century Poland, Thomas Bang'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 by Morin, in his Exercitatio V. Clearly it is not a copy of the font used for printing Morin's works which were executed in France by Anton Vitray.*^ The latter printed Morin's works with the type used for the Paris Polyglot.^^ The Polish face is rather larger than the French face and shows but the slightest resemblance to it. If indeed it is set in moveable type we see a face which is not known to have been used for any other printing and 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 to have been engraved as a plate or cut as a wooden block. It is possible that Samaritan fonts were not yet easily acquired in late seventeenth-century Poland. It remains true that a presentation of every woodcut type would be difficult to assemble, 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 w Samaritan scholarship was intensely developed in Central Europe, especially in tne German States, typography was relatively slow in meeting the challenge of creating a lull range of oriental exotics. While the Samaritan was well established at Wittenberg in the seventeenth century for Hilliger's printing (as noted above) it was simply not available at Jena or at Altdorf in the same era. At Altdorf, Cristopher Crinesius was obliged to rely on woodcut blocks for his Lingua Samaritica (1628). The title-page gives us a clear impression of a crude but very readable Samaritan Aramaic translation of the Latin title, Lashon shamrayta. Christian Hoffmann's Umbra 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 Jacob Bauhofer, was obliged to use a 36 point block for his title-page. The Samaritan letters in the fore-title, Telal be-nahar, were clearly based on one of the Propaganda Fide specimens of earlier in the century.

1 'Manuscript, Cast Type and Samaritan Palae- 12 It is interesting that the 'Sul Silvio' size is not ography', Bulletin of the John Rylands University noted in the comparative table in Updike's Library of Manchester, Ixxii (1990), pp. 87-130 Printing Types, p. 27. (hereafter, MCTSP). This is summarized in 13 Updike elaborates on this process in Printing my 'Typefaces and Script', in A. D. Crown, Types, vol. i, passim. R. Pummer and A. Tai (eds.), A Companion 14 G. B. De Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testa- to Samaritan Studies (Tubingen, 1993), pp- menti, 4 vols. (Parma: ex Regia Typographia, 239—40. Early printers of Samaritan are ident- 1784-8). ified in my A Bibliography of the Samaritans 15 This is seen on the style sheet Alphabeticum (Metuchen, N.J., and London, 1993). Hebraicum addito Samaritano et Rabhinico 2 At the historic typefoundry Stephenson, Blake (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1771). and Co., Ltd., Sheffield. See MCTSP, p. 114. 16 MCTSP, p. 121. For the Voskens specimen, cf. 3 D. B. Updike, in Printing Types. Their History, J. G. Dreyfus, Type Specimen Facsimiles Forms and Use: A Study in Survivals, 2 vols. (London, 1963). ^ (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), speaks rather harshly 17 MCTSP, p. 122. of these folios. Despite the criticism some of 18 Ibid., p. 108. them were quite elegant. 19 'Sumptibus haered. D. Tobiae Mevii & Elerti 4 G. B. De Rossi, Francisco Lucerna-Rorengo de- Schumacheri, per Matthaeum Henckelium, Rora ... Carmina Orientalia (Turin, 1768), p. 10. Academ. Typogr'. 5 See, for example, Manuale tipografico del cava- 20 But not in his Heidelberg or Zurich printings. In liere Giambattista Bodoni (Parma, 1818), vol. i, Smegma Orientate he used no Samaritan at all. pp. 1-2. 21 C. Cellarius [Keller], Hora Samaritans (Cizae 6 Vol. i, pp. lix-lx. [Zeitz]: Sumtibus Io. Bielckii, 1682). 7 See MCTSP, pp. 96-9, for a discussion. 22 MCTSP, p. 104. 8 See MCTSP, pp. i20-3> for ^ discussion. 23 I am grateful to Brad Sabin Hill for calling my attention to various specimens of this font found 9 Ibid., pp. 110-20, for a discussion of the English in books held in the British Library. faces. 24 Andreas Acoluthus, De Me ha-marim ha- 10 Vol. ii, p. 76- , ^ , ^ - me'arerim, sive Aquis Amaris... philologema 11 For a discussion of the general development of (Leipzig: typis Justini Brandl, 1682); see also the Italian faces and the lightening of the styles MCTSP. in Bodoni's faces, see Updike, Printing Types, 25 For example, see p. 29. vol. i, ch. 13. 26 p. 50, line 14. 37 The British Museum Library's copy of the 27 A kai 0 Alphabeta ac Notae Diversarum Ling- English version of this work, entitled The uarum... Versiones Orationis Dominicae... Polygraphic Apparatus, published in the same (Berlin: apud Johannem Liebermann, Merca- year, was destroyed in the bombing of the torem, 1727). Museum during the War. 28 According to Updike, Printing Types, vol. i, p. 38 See U. Th. Hartmann, Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (Bremen, 1818), vol. ii, p. 294. In describing 29 Mliller, p. 10. Tychsen's role in the translation of the Samar- 30 Of the 1743 specimen we have only the alphabet itan, Hartmann gives some details of the Barth tables on p. 40. More evidence might be available publication. Thanks are due to Heike Troger for if there were a solid text for consideration. drawing this material to our attention. 31 Orientalisch und Occidentalisches ABC Buch 39 See the discussion in MCTSP, p. 114. (Hamburg and Zeitz, 1769), p. 169. 40 Ibid., p. 115, n. 113. 32 Ibid., p. 65. 41 Ibid., p. 115. 33 Proeve van Letteren welke Gevonden worden ter 42 Thus the title-page is entirely in Samaritan Boekdrukkerye van Herdmgh en du Mortier, te characters; indeed, this is the only book printed Leyden (Leyden, 1793). in Europe entirely in Samaritan characters. It is 34 10 forskjellige Alphaheter med Navne og Betyd- recorded in The British Library General Cata- ning, Runer, Islandsk, Hebraisk, Syrisk, Arabisk, logue to 197S} vol. xcix (London, 1981), p. 2219. Sanskrit, Copttsk, Grask, Samaritansk og Russisk, BL pressmark 35o6.b.47.(2.). ... (Copenhagen: Chr. Steen & Sons Forlag, 43 P- 243. Louis Kleins Bogtrykkeri, 1869), see p. 14. 44 See J. Morin, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in 35 Specimens of Type Faces (Leiden: E. J. Brill, utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris: 1970), p. 142, listed as type size 11. Anton Vitray, 1631). 36 See the discussion in MCTSP. 45 MCTSP, pp. i26f.