Emilie -- Thank you for the post and review of this book. I've heard of this book, and am with those whom are hoping for an English version.

We have a copy of the book (it is set, somewhat bizarrely, in the titling weight of Ross' 1530 Garamond), but I don't know enough French to read it. I seem to recall Jean-Fran

By the way, people were burned for holding and refusing to repent of heretical beliefs, which were expressed in their Bible translations and in other books. The idea that somehow these people were martyrs to intellectual freedom, i.e. that they were burned because they wrote books and translated Bibles, is a modern anachronism. These people had no concept of intellectual freedom, and were just as quick to burn Catholics as Catholics had been to burn them, as seen in Calvin's Geneva.

Actually you're right about the book using Ross' Garamond for reasons explained in the preface. If I remember well, I recall they said it might be an exact copy of the original but it's tough to prove.

They're not sure if the original was actually done by Garamond himself or his master Antoine Augereau. Although they believe the italic was made by Garamond.

As for being burnt for translating Bibles, I meant that they didn't translate them the way the Church would have wanted them to. Of course if they had translated in a way that would please the Church, I doubt they would have been burnt.

I agree with you the type isn't really working there. It's just another average story book and I'm not sure if using that font really helps although it's somewhat justified by the content.

As for the story, it's not going to give you an inner revolution (although I'm not finished) but it's one of the few stories that involve typography...and it will certainly inspire you to create a few letters. =)

I wish I had my books in Finland. One of them had material about this very subject. The book was published in the early seventeen hundreds so rather frail. The illustrations had rather striking wood cuts. It is an

My understanding of the people being burnt was not that it was about content so much as translating the bible from latin to a laymans language.

(Posted from St Bride Library, London!)
I have this book and currently read it. Its not so bad as I imagined. Take it as a novel, no more. It give the ambiance of the century and Paris V quarter at the time. For that, it very fascinating to suddenly be with them everyday. The main voice on this book is Claude Garamond.

I'm very disapointed by the type layout on the version I have (the French "Stock" publisher version), the Swiss (French too, by "Payot" publisher) seems better designed?

Daniel,

I believe you are correct. http://www.lanstontype.com/TitlePageScribes.html The text dealt with the trouble from about the new printing technology. Nothing in the text itself discussed burnings or beheadings. But there had been material I had seen while researching when designing which alluded to the reluctance of the church to provide materials in laymans language. Also when I was young sermons at the Catholic Church were still only in Latin.

I am unaware if that is still the case.

My understanding of the people being burnt was not that it was about content so much as translating the bible from latin to a laymans language.

I think this is a Protestant myth, as is the idea that the Church did not encourage the 'black art' of printing. The earliest surviving objects printed from moveable type in Europe are certificates of indulgences for the Bishop of Mainz. Gutenberg's Bibles and the F-S Psalter were purchased almost exclusively by churchmen; indeed, you could argue that at the beginning the Church was the only encourager of printing. The first roman types were cut by Schweynheim and Pannartz at the monastery of Subiaco, where they printed for many years before moving to Rome to be closer to their patron: the Holy See. During the spread of Protestantism, printing became all the more important to the Church, and the Council of Trent produced a huge wealth of Catholic publishing in refutation of Protestant teaching. I cannot think of a single time when the Church discouraged printing and publishing (although they certainly denounced specific products of the presses).

I have yet to find any evidence of anyone condemned for translating scripture into vernacular languages per se. In every case, the issue was with the nature of the translation and the heretical teachings of the translator or the community to which he belonged. The Catholic response to Protestant Bible translation was not condemnation of all translation, but a substantial programme of publishing approved Catholic editions in the vernacular tongue, such as the famous Douay-Rheims English Bible which is still the translation of choice for many traditionalist Catholics.

Also when I was young sermons at the Catholic Church were still only in Latin.

When was that? To my knowledge, homilies have never been delivered in Latin to the laity. All the readings of the traditional Mass are in Latin, but the homily is delivered in the vernacular. That is the whole point of the homily: to explain and explicate the text of the readings, which many priests repeat in vernacular at the beginning of the homily, even though most of the congregation has already read the translation in their missals.

"When was that?" When I was young, nothing other than Latin was spoken. The Priest forgot the homily and now I get to go to hell. John I was just not into getting lectured from a pompous potentate wearing a dress. I was a bad kid.

I don't believe the church objected to the sale of the Bible to churchmen. Most of those knowing Latin would be either rulers or churchman, often one and the same. But what if you were not a churchman but just went to church? To "the common man" it was merely gobbly gook, still is. Just ask me!

The Gutenberg Bible contains the Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, mainly the work of Jerome (c.342-420 AD) who translated some biblical texts from the originals and in other instances revised older Latin translations."

I believe the problems John would be losing control over the masses. Endangering the Status Quo.

.....
"I cannot think of a single time when the Church discouraged printing and publishing (although they certainly denounced specific products of the presses)."
.....

John, the so called famous Douay-Rheims English Bible was one hundred years after the invention of printing. It simply does not cut the mustard for open source material. Considering in the first fifty years of printing there were over 2,000 different books published this feeble attempt to appease the masses is more than pathetic.

So what did Gods little children read in the meantime?

Three hundred and fifty years after the Douay-Rheims English Bible I was suffering through Mass in "Latin". Was I supposed to wait for the second coming?

So what was that about? What are "we" not supposed to know? Well it worked because I don't have a clue.

I think though, not to dilute the point. "Censor by murder" by the "spiritually enlightened" is a "big turn off".

[This is long, but arguably on-topic for this forum because it deals with the relationship of text to religion.]

Gerald, my point about the Douay-Rheims translation was in reference to translation of the scriptures into the vernacular not publishing in general. Luther translated the New Testament into German in 1521, and the Old Testament in 1534. William Tyndale's first English New Testament was produced in 1525, although the first significantly disseminated English Bible was Coverdale's 1535 edition, the first complete English Bible. The most popular and widely read Protestant Bible in English prior to the King James edition was the Geneva Bible, published in 1560. The first Douay, Catholic English edition was published in the 1580s (for the record, I am not claiming that the Douay translation is a very good one: but it is the first English translation of the complete ancient canon of scripture including the Deuterocanonical books removed by the Protestants). And yes, during that 55-60 year gap between Tyndale and Douay, the Church did resist the publication of translations in the vernacular in general; although they did not, as far as I am aware, hand over anyone to imprisonment or death anyone for translation alone, but only for the crime of obstinate heresy.*

One should also understand why the Church was concerned about translation of scripture into the vernacular, within the context of an opposing, specifically Protestant theology and culture of personal Bible reading. Protestants believe in a doctrine of sola scriptura, that everything that a man needs to know for his religious life is contained within the Bible, that he in fact needs nothing other than his Bible. This is a purely Protestant doctrine, without precedence, and we should recognise the radicalness of it in light not only to the teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions dating back to the early Church, but also of Jewish tradition. The irony of this doctrine of sola scriptura is that it is not supported by scripture. The Hebrew scriptures of the Tanach (the Christian Old Testament) presume the existence of both the Torah Shebiksav (the written Torah) and the Torah Sheb

John I was just not into getting lectured from a pompous potentate wearing a dress.
...

So what was that about? What are "we" not supposed to know? Well it worked because I don't have a clue.

Gerald, do you not see the irony of these two statements? You blame the Church for what you do not know, while declaring that even as a kid you dismissed what the Church was trying to teach you.

I wrote above 'the first significantly disseminated English Bible was Coverdale's 1535 edition, the first complete English Bible.'

I should have said the first complete Protestant English Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments as recognised by Protestants. Of course, I don't think it was actually complete because it lacked the Deuterocanonical books.

John,

John it was the pompous potentate wearing the skirt that I dismissed. For reasons I think should not be discussed on the forum.

Accusing people of going against "Church Dogma" when the teachings are delivered in Latin is mean spirited and sheer idiocy. Unless, which one might suspect, "Church Dogma" was other than the teachings of the Bible. A book the common man was "prevented from reading".

But as you can see there is some conflict in your thoughts. You say . .

"I think this is a Protestant myth, as is the idea that the Church did not encourage the 'black art' of printing."
......

Then . .

......

The Catholic Church already knew that personal interpretation was unacceptable, and had never taught sola scriptura, and so was unwilling to encourage private, personal reading of scripture in the vernacular because the Catholic religion is not a private, personal religion."

.....

Would this have been the Church fear