It's a manuscript that's been erased and written over.

This is just a wild guess, but the dots look like Hebrew to me, but the script like Arabic, which I don't know at all, though some of the characters could be Hebrew also. In the 'golden era' of Spain a large percentage of Jews were Arabic speakers - Maimonides wrote 'Guide to the Perplexed' in Arabic with Hebrew characters. So it could be from that era.

Sorry for the delay. A couple of people sent me e-mail with guesses, but no one got it quite right.

You are correct, William, in noting that the document is a palimsest: an earlier text has been erased and the new text written over it.

The language of the text is Hebrew, but written in with Arabic letters. This is the direct reverse of the normal interaction between language and script, e.g. Yiddish, Ladino and Judaeo-Arabic, in which Jewish communities develop a dialect of majority local language(s) but write it using Hebrew letters. This example is stranger still, because although the text is written with Arabic consonants, the vocalisation is written with Hebrew nikudot (vowel marks). The text is Biblical (Exodus 1:12-22) -- which makes the use of Arabic letters even more remarkable -- and also include te'amim (accents or cantillation marks). I wish I had a colour image: the letters are black, the nikudot are red, and the te'eamim are green. I'm not sure what colour the Arabic shadda marks are. The original manuscript is in the British Library, so I'll go look at it next time I am there.

The likely history of this document is fascinating. It dates from the 10th or 11th century, and is a product of Karaitic Judaism, the anti-Talmudic competitor to Rabbinic Judaism. Colette Sirat notes: 'Certain Karaites considered the original written text to be identical with the true tradition of reading: it is not reasonable to think that certain of the divine words were written down in a certain way but must be read in another, as the masorah maintains. So as to remove any further ambiguity, some people decided to write the Bible in Arabic characters without the masorah, thus giving the only text that they considered authentic.' It takes some doing to wrap one's head around this reasoning: only the original Hebrew consonantal text is authentic, and to better isolate this from latter readings we're going to write it in Arabic letters.


See also:

Sirat, Collette. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages. Cambridge, 2002. pp.49-51.

Hoerning, R. Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters. London, 1889. [Cited by Sirat.]

Interesting. The Karaites are a side story in Jewish history I don't know a lot about, Ms. Sirat's reasoning doesn't quite make sense to me.

I believe Collette Sirat relies on R Hoerning for the explanation, but will need to find the latter book for more information. At the time the manuscript was produced, the Karaites were anything but a 'side story': numerically, they were as strong as the followers of Rabbanite Judaism during the 10th-12th centuries. In Persia, Iraq and the Byzantine Empire it was probably the dominant form of Judaism. [Ankori, Z. Karaites in Byzantium: the formative years, 970-1100. New York, 1959.]

>they were as strong as the followers of Rabbanite Judaism during the 10th-12th centuries

I don't think this is correct. Even at their peak, they were a minority according to my check in Solo Baron's 'Social and Religious History of the Jews.' (1957) Intellectually, Maimonides is in the 12th Century, and much more important than any Karaite thinker.

Just checking on this in a cursory way, the Karaites were depleted in numbers by being murdered by Christians in the Crusades, and then by Maimonides, who intellectually overpowered them in the Arabic speaking world.

But Judaism is fundamentally Rabbinic Judaism - something generally not understood by Christians and even by many contemporary Jews. In particular, the achievements of the Tanna'im who created the Mishnah were as great as the Prophets, and they in fact invented the religion on which later Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based.

The Karaites, from the little I have read, are very thin gruel by comparison

Generally, I agree with you. The 12th century is the end of the period of Karaite prominence in the Middle East, their principal base. Their lasting impact is clearly very small. Sirat estimates that there are about 20,000 Karaites in the world today.

Judaism, as we typically encounter it, is indeed Rabbanite through-and-through. I disagree, though, with the idea with this statement: '... they in fact invented the religion on which later Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based.' Catholic (and by extension Orthodox) Christianity precedes Rabbanite Judaism, and can be seen as having more in common with Temple Judaism (specifically in the primacy of liturgical sacrifice, as against the primacy of the text in Rabbanite Judaism, Islam and Protestantism). This was a point first made to me by a Jewish friend.

Actually, the three major religions owe much more to Zoroastrianism than they like to admit.

hhp

>Christianity precedes Rabbanite Judaism

This is only correct in a technical sense that the same outlook was called the Pharisee view before the fall of the Temple, and Rabbinic afterwards. Otherwise, it is not correct. The ethics of Jesus comes directly from the outlook of Hillel, a generation before, and the combination of the ethics of peace and kindness, and belief in afterlife judgment and resurrection - both of which are not typically biblical, but are Pharisee - were adapted by Christianity. This was understood by the Christian scholars G.T. Herford and G.F. Moore in the early twentieth century. They actually bothered to study the Talmud and therefore saw what is obvious if you know the literature.

The Christian views of sacrifice I think are more derived from and bear more resemblance to the pagan religions that Paul grew up among than the Temple sacrifices. (The general Jewish view is that Paul invented Christianity.) No doubt there are strands of first century Judean religions that survive in Christianity and not in Judaism and visa versa. They both came out of the same pot, but the stew already had a huge amount of Pharisee ingredients.

I suspect that, as I guess Hrant means to indicate, the ideas of resurection and the end of days came into Judaism during the Bablyonian exile, with exposure to Zoroasterianism. These these became Jewish with the Pharisees, then part of Christianity, and finally Islam. The point is that the synthesis of the Biblical, Greek and Zoroasterian elements that make up the Rabbinic outlook was in place probably well over a hundred years before Jesus.

But this doesn't have much to do with type design!

Which three major religions, Hrant? A key feature of this history is, I think, the differentiation of what are typically lumped into single categories. This is the sort of thing that should appeal to you: the complexity of religious and cultural identity, as against a simplifying homogeneity. As William pointed out, Rabbanite Judaism is distinct religion from earlier Judaism: distinct on the basis of practice and teaching: a religion remade for a new condition. Of course, this too is a simplification.

A religion is not a set of philosophical propositions that are believed or not believed. It is something that is lived (Catholics are practising, Jews are observant, but the emphasis is the same: it is about doing, not just believing). Christians presumably agree on the divinity of Christ; beyond that the range of both belief and practice make it ridiculous to speak about Christianity as a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Orthodoxy is a religion. Protestantism is half a dozen religions. It makes no sense to suggest that when I attend Mass I am practicing the same religion as a Baptist.

The Christian views of sacrifice I think are more derived from and bear more resemblance to the pagan religions that Paul grew up among than the Temple sacrifices.

I don't disagree with your characterisation of the progress from Pharisetical to Rebbanite Judaism, but I do disagree with the above statement. The Christian view of sacrifice is directly related to that of the Jewish sin-offering or sacrifice of atonement. There isn't anything like this in Paganism, in which the whole concept of sin is largely missing. In Paganism you sacrifice because you want something or believe you need to placate an angry power. The idea of the Mass as re-presenting memorial and atoning sacrifice is directly related to distinctly Jewish belief and practice: the Passover Seder and the sin-offering. The unique aspect of the Mass -- distinct from both Pagan and Jewish sacrifice -- is that as a bloody sacrifice it happens only once, on Calvary. Every other Mass is a participation in that single sacrifice.

Anyway, as you say this doesn't have anything to do with type design. I just wanted to share this remarkable image of Hebrew written with Arabic letters and Hebrew vowels.

John writes: "Christians presumably agree on the divinity of Christ; beyond that the range of both belief and practice make it ridiculous to speak about Christianity as a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Orthodoxy is a religion. Protestantism is half a dozen religions. It makes no sense to suggest that when I attend Mass I am practicing the same religion as a Baptist."

I can do nothing but differ. I believe the common understanding of the terms is that Christianity is one religion with a large number of Churches. Roman-Catholics are one Church, Lutherans another Church, Calvinists yet another, Orthodox yet another etc. In Germany, Protestants (mostly Lutherans) and Catholics consider themself to be one religion in two Churches. They organize joint events and even common services. Being a Roman-Catholic, when I attend a Lutheran service, I do find myself practicing the same religion.

Adam

From the point of view of a non-Christian, the Christian denominations do share a great deal, but also differ greatly.

They share not only the belief in the divinity of Jesus, but also in original sin from which Jesus supposedly is needed to save us. This sets up a framework of thought that is shared, as well as the text of the New Testament as a sacred text, and the history of its interpretations and meaning.

However, there are no doubt profound differences not only between Catholicism and Protestantism, but also among different Catholics and Protestants.

Personally, I find that how individuals interpret their religion is often more important than the theoretical content of the religion. I think it is easy to find Jews, Christians, and Muslims who resemble one another more in the realities of their beliefs than they do other of their co-religionists.

I believe the common understanding of the terms is that Christianity is one religion with a large number of Churches.

It is perhaps a common mis-understanding. It is certainly contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Adam, I suggest you go ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith how many Churches there are. They will tell you there is one Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic, as the Nicence Creed says). Or ask them whether you are fulfilling your Sunday or Holy Day obligation by attending a Lutheran service. If you think you are practicing the same religion as a Lutheran, consider what the gifts of grace mean in the theology of those two very different religions. Since gifts of grace are received in the sacraments, it is obvious that Catholic and Lutheran sacraments are not the same thing (quite apart from the fact that Catholics have seven sacraments and Lutherans have two). When Catholics and members of other religions meet together in ecumenical services, those services are expressly not sacramental in nature, unless the non-Catholics are explicitly attending a Catholic service as non-participating guests (as when the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch attended Mass at St Peter's recently). And of course non-Catholics are not permitted to receive Catholic sacraments. The fact that some people in Germany -- and elsewhere, I know -- confuse ecumenism with syncretism shouldn't cloud the very clear teaching of the Catholic Church on all these matters.

If Christianity were a single religion, I would not have felt the need to make the very difficult conversion from comfortable Anglicanism to far more demanding Catholicism. Perhaps some people raised in predominantly Catholic countries take their religion for granted, and don't grasp just how huge the gap is between Catholicism and other Christian denominations, because they've never had to step across that gap.


William, again, I define religion in terms of practice as much as belief. Of course, belief informs practice -- or should --, and practice reflects belief -- or should. I too have found that faithful and observant people of different religions may have more in common with each other, in terms of temperament and values, than with weak-faithed and neglectful members of the same religion. But this is a interesting observation precisely because they are members of different religions. The faithfulness and observance is in the practice of the religion. I find it much easier to admire the Orthodox Jews I see walking many blocks to the synagogue on Shabbat than I do the Catholics who show up for Mass half an hour late and bolt out the door as soon as they've received communion. In that sense of 'how individuals interpret their religion', I agree with you, but as my exchange with Adam should indicate, I think there are clear limits on the degree to which religion is a matter of personal interpretation. There are Protestant sects for people who want to make it up as they go along, but this is not Catholicism nor, as I understand, Judaism.

To segue not too abruptly back to the discussion of type, perhaps someone can tell me what this typeface is?

That "a" looks sort of JvK. But the ascender serifs are out of character for him.

Looking at the "f", and the poor spacing, maybe a Linotype hotmetal face?

hhp

Yes, I'm guessing Linotype. The Missal was published in England, by Burns & Oates, in 1912.

To me the a looks nothing like van Krimpen's typefaces.

It looks like a version of Antique Old Style (the basis for Bookman) or Old Style, but which I don't know. There is a reference in Jasper, Berry & Johnson to a English linotype version called Bookprint, but they don't show it.

On religion, there are many more other serious variations within religious denominations in addition to level of observance of ritual.

For example there are numerous devout hypocrits who keep to ritual but are vicious to others while feeling superior in their piety. And there are those in whom religious belief supports a modesty, integrity, and good will that is impressive and touching.

There are also politically left and right members of the same denomination, including Catholicism, who both see their views as an extension of their religious beliefs. And there are all kinds of different adaptations to englightenment rationlism, both within and among different denominations.

Overall, theological beliefs have proven to be much more elastic when applied to real life and new circumstances than the faithful in any denomination generally want to admit.

On religion, there are many more other serious variations within religious denominations in addition to level of observance of ritual.

I certainly didn't intend to equate practice of religion simply with observance of ritual. It is indeed possible to be slavishly observant of ritual yet lack charity or develop spiritually or, as a friend put it, to know all the rubrics yet live like an animal. I maintain that what determines a religion is form and matter (which is a particularly Thomistic way of looking at it, I'll admit). The form and matter of Catholicism differs so completely from that of, for instance, Presbyterianism, that I think it is ridiculous to try to lump them together into a single Christian religion. The problem of this discussion may be, simply, that we lack a sufficient terminology to describe, at once, an historical set of shared beliefs and, in some cases, similar practices (what Adam calls religion) and also the very clearly distinct set of formal practices and material beliefs (what I call religion). I'm certainly not denying that both of these phenomena exist. Without the former, there wouldn't be any point in praying for Christian unity, but on the other hand how would you know such unity if you saw it? As agreement in form and matter. If, as Adam has, you apply the term religion to the shared beliefs, rather than to the distinct matter and form, you are left without a good term to label that which is distinct within this 'religion'. You can, as Adam has, fall back on the term 'churches', which is certainly a common currency in Protestantism, but this is a terminology that runs directly counter to the explicit teaching of at least one of the distinct entities to which you are trying to refer. [And I admit being disturbed to see Adam at once describing himself as a Roman Catholic and stating a Protestant conception of multiple churches that is completely counter to Catholic teaching, and this is the only reason I'm going on at such length.] The fact that a religion invented in Germany in the 16th century inherited some core beliefs from the Catholic religion that it expressly sought to attack and undermine in every moral, social, economic and spiritual sphere, does not make them one religion. There's a lot of Judaism in all the Christian religions; that doesn't make a single Judaeo-Christian religion. There's a lot of both Judaism and Christianity in Islam; that doesn't make one big religion. It is the differences that define the religion.

Going off on another tagent, strictly formalist, here is an interesting "palimpsest" I came across the other day.

One of the great architectural palimpsests in Vancouver, for many years, was the Buddhist Monastery on Hastings Street. High on the fa�ade, behind the red Chinese characters, one could still plainly see the pale ghost of SALVATION ARMY.

One of the most important palimpsests, if not the most important is the one containing Archimedes Method. Here Archimedes explains how he made his great discoveries. The Archimedes was erased to write a prayer (!) and thus a precious historical record was almost lost. Someone saw the erasures at the end of the nineteenth century and realized what it was. Recently they have been able to recover more of it using infrared technology etc.

Archimedes is arguably the most original scientist in history, and his proof of the area under a parabola is just mind blowingly inventive. This was the first breakthrough to the calculus - done geometrically! In the same generation as Archimedes works were translated into latin in Europe, the scientific revolution took off. They, such as Galileo and Newton's teacher Isaac Barrow were his disciples, referring to him as the 'divine Archimedes'.

Oh yes, and the conic curves are the basis of splines in true type!

Great article, William. This quote, in particular, is a gem:

A manuscript is rather like a planetary probe. The results of a single probe are tantalizingly incomplete, yet they are also uniquely significant.

This is a nice pair with the formulation I made during my presentation on ancient texts in Thessaloniki: a manuscript is a text in conversation with other texts, even if those other texts no longer exist. You are aware of the conversation even if you can hear only one side of it.

John & Hrant,

Two questions.

Did you get the boxer kind or the black elastic kind?

Well, three.

John, what point size it that showing?

"To segue not too abruptly back to the discussion of type, perhaps someone can tell me what this typeface is?"

Hrant

". . . and the poor spacing, . . . "

One would think it most difficult to achieve "rich" spacing with only 4 words to the line. Or do you mean the "set width". That's what you meant to say isn't it?

Let's make it four.

Miss me?

Gerald, I don't have a point rule handy, but the height from the top of the ascender to the bottom of the descender is 2.5mm, so the type is 7 or 8 point. The printing is a bit uneven, and the 2-column justified layout for bilingual text results in bad rivers, but the type is very readable.

The descenders are too long for a 7 pt font.

hhp

Thanks John,

I was just thinking about the airy fit. At 7 or 8 point a little more air would be added. It is part of optical scaling. This enlargement make it a "very loose fit ", even for Linotype. So I must ask you. At a glance�looking at the actual printed page�does the fit draw attention to itself?

Hrant suggests it could be Linotype because of the( f).

I suggest however, that it is not�Linotype and certainly�not Monotype.

What is the date of publication? How many printings?

������������

Hrant
The descenders are too long for a 7 pt font.


Not necessarily, also, it could be 7 on 8 point.

Whatever it is, I like it. Sturdy. A bit
of grunt to it. Chunky Chilli ;-)

John,

Do you know what typeface this is?

John --

Sorry I didn't look in on this earlier. I don't have my early Lino references here at TypeCon with me, but off the top of my head this looks like Old Style Number Seven (or possibly Number One, sometimes I confuse them). If you can send me a larger sample (off-forum and today or tomorrow, while I still have high-speed access) I can compare it when I get home next week.

(BTW, I'm really sorry not to be seeing you here this year.)

Hrant, the descender length would have been determined by the Standard Alignment adopted by Lino. It doesn't move linearly across sizes. I can't remember what it is exactly for 7 or 8 point. I'd have to check.

Gerald, this 1912 sample would have pre-dated Griffith. And I don't think it was until after Griff that they started messing around with designing faces with longer descenders made on one alignment but meant to be cast on one-size-larger slugs. But I could be mistaken.

-- K.

Kent,

"Gerald, this 1912 sample would have pre-dated Griffith. And I don't think it was until after Griff that they started messing around with designing faces with longer descenders made on one alignment but meant to be cast on one-size-larger slugs. But I could be mistaken.

I am sure you would know more about that then I would. The systems were not the same.

What do you make of the vu in vultum? Top serif of the v is almost touching? Pretty thin matrice walls for either 7 or 8 point.

Kent,

I'm on dialup at the moment. I won't be able to send you the larger photograph for a while.

J.

Gerald -- true, that is awfully tight for a Lino matrix. Perhaps this is before they realized how quickly that would break down and adopted the wider minimums. But that's just a guess.

John -- Then let's coordinate after I return home on Monday night. I'll send you a different e-mail that I use through my new employer, where I can get a T1 connection.

-- K.

The Missal type does have a Bookman-ish quality--similar to Cushing as well.

Really wishing I was at TypeCon,
Addison

Kent,

I am not sure we should assume it was set on a Linotype. For that matter, without a study, how does Hrant, John, and yourself know this was not set on a Unitype, Typobar, Munson? Or even hand set with self spacing type. In other words, how many people have been jailed because the prosecution is too lazy. With three hundred "typesetting sytem suspects" why assume it was only one. Especially where there is evidence that contradicts the mechanics of a Linotype.

Unlikely it would have been set on a Paige. There were only three of those made and all three remained in America. One still sits in the basement of Mark Twain's house, another was donated to the war effort by American Linotype. I am not sure of the other. But for good reason I suspect it was not set on a Paige Typesetting machine.

That said, I have viewed this setting and determined by reason of mechanics, which system(s) it most likely was set on. Linotype is not impossible, just unlikely, very unlikely. Unless the word was cut, shaved and reassembled. That did happen, sometimes.

But I am glad you are all here. What do you see in this illustration http://lanstontype.com/BurgessSetting.html
that clearly indicates typemaking in progress?

In the McGrew book showing of Old Style Antique, Old style No. 1, No. 3 and No. 7, the 'a' is most similar to Old Style Antique. It doesn't show a full alphabet though, and the sizes of the Old Style numbers are 14 and 12 point. This is why I couldn't give a definite ID. The Wizards over at the type ID section might be able to crack it in short order if you want to post it there.

William,

With this in mind my friendship with McMrew lead me to believe his expertise was hot metal faces in America.

Unless mistaken, John says,
Yes, I'm guessing Linotype. The Missal was published in England, by Burns & Oates, in 1912.

I only know, or have "knowledge of" the legal dealings between American Monotype and English Monotype which at one time shared the same name. Are you suggesting that there was a "different understanding with Linotype in American and Europe? Mike Parker indicates otherwise.

William,

I have always thought highly of your opinion. Believe that or not I do. I would really appreciate your thoughtful comment on my previous post.

What do you see in this illustration http://lanstontype.com/BurgessSetting.html
that clearly indicates typemaking in progress?

>Are you suggesting that there was a "different understanding with Linotype in American and Europe?

I don't know the relations between the two. I do know from two reference books that there were many versions of Old Style, more than shown. In my earlier posting I mentioned that I checked Jaspert's book, which is English. They refer to 'Bookprint,' not shown, as an English Linotype version. None of the showings of Lino Old Style have the characteristic 'a'. But McGrew's showing of 'Old Style Antique', which I guess is a foundry type - the foundry is listed as 'Keystone'- does indeed have the 'a'. But it doesn't have a full alphabet. Someone with more reference books than I have will crack this. I don't have the info on hand, or the knowledge of this stuff.

William,

They refer to 'Bookprint,' not shown, as an English Linotype version. None of the showings of Lino Old Style have the characteristic 'a'. But McGrew's showing of 'Old Style Antique', which I guess is a foundry type - the foundry is listed as 'Keystone'- does indeed have the 'a'."

William thank you.

William,

Still I want an opinion on this. This is not a trick question. I feel any digital type developer will come to identical interpretation of what is shown.

What do you see in this illustration http://lanstontype.com/BurgessSetting.html
that clearly indicates typemaking in progress?

Gerald:
Are you talking about the right sidebearing of the "a"?

John,

You get big points for that observation.