Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gutenberg's 'scriptorium'

Gutenberg's 'scriptorium' ERNST BRACHES Gutenberg's 'scriptorium' THE NOMANSLAND BETWEEN MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED BOOK Has there been any bridging of the gap between the study of the printed book and that of manuscripts in recent years? The opposite seems to be the case. In 1927-8 that first instructor in analytical bibliography, Ronald B. McKerrow, hardly recognised its importance. Nearly half a century later, in 1972, Gaskell seems to have widened the gap even further.2 This is evi- - dent from the omission from his title in his own new 'Introduction to Bibliography' of McKerrow's specification 'For Literary Students'. McKenzie's criticism of 1969 can also be seen at work here.' The commo- tion it caused proves that McKenzie was not alone in having forgotten that textual criticism in printed books must first of all attend to that which has been the basis of textual criticism in manuscripts for ages: that copying of a text is essentially done by a single person. I have not yet come across a bibliologist who has reached my own conclusion: that throughout five cen- turies of printing the compositor's errors are in almost every case the same which the copying scribe already made centuries before.4 4 But http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quaerendo Brill

Gutenberg's 'scriptorium'

Quaerendo , Volume 21 (2): 83 – Jan 1, 1991

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/gutenberg-s-scriptorium-9xMTd1MJhX

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1991 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0014-9527
eISSN
1570-0690
DOI
10.1163/157006991X00075
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ERNST BRACHES Gutenberg's 'scriptorium' THE NOMANSLAND BETWEEN MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED BOOK Has there been any bridging of the gap between the study of the printed book and that of manuscripts in recent years? The opposite seems to be the case. In 1927-8 that first instructor in analytical bibliography, Ronald B. McKerrow, hardly recognised its importance. Nearly half a century later, in 1972, Gaskell seems to have widened the gap even further.2 This is evi- - dent from the omission from his title in his own new 'Introduction to Bibliography' of McKerrow's specification 'For Literary Students'. McKenzie's criticism of 1969 can also be seen at work here.' The commo- tion it caused proves that McKenzie was not alone in having forgotten that textual criticism in printed books must first of all attend to that which has been the basis of textual criticism in manuscripts for ages: that copying of a text is essentially done by a single person. I have not yet come across a bibliologist who has reached my own conclusion: that throughout five cen- turies of printing the compositor's errors are in almost every case the same which the copying scribe already made centuries before.4 4 But

Journal

QuaerendoBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.