Comments on: 18th Century Typography & Illustration: Diver’s Proverbs by Nathan Bailey

By: Perla Berenice Jiménez Méndez

Perla Berenice Jiménez Méndez — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:26:57 +0000

HELLO

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAK YOU FOR THIS INFORMATION, CURRENTLY I’M STUDYING A TYPOGRAPHY MASTER, IN MEXICO, AND I’M INVESTIGATING ABOUT THE 18TH CENTURY, THIS INFORMATIONS IS GOLD FOR ME!!!

THAK YOU AGAIN!!!

By: Jesse N.

Jesse N. — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:46:51 +0000

Thanks for the insight Christopher, and you may well be right. It’s true that the type and composition is more “fanciful” than most of what we see coming from the 1700s. I think we’ve established that the printing here was done in 1917, which is why the title page says it was printed by Yale University Press, MDCCCCXVII, which would translate to 1917.

However, based on the style, I think it is too quick to say that it wasn’t a reprinting of the original, or at least a copy or imitation of the original. As I said, it is more “fanciful,” but if we look at some of the more playful printing of the 18th century, we can see many similarities. For an example, I’ve attached a page from “A Little Pretty Pocket-Book, Intended for the Instruction and Amusement of Little Master Tommy,” Published by Isaiah Thomas, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1787.

As you can see, there is much similarity in the structure of the page, the slight uneven quality of the types’ baselines and x-heights (resulting from the letterpress used), the body typeface, the anachronistic short s, and the drop caps. As you see, it almost looks like it could’ve been printed by the same publisher. In the Diver’s Proverbs, I do believe that the use of the black letter was probably a 20th century excess (along with the title page), but the general structure of the body spreads seem to pay much homage to the original.

Regardless, due to the fact that it was printed in 1917, and seems to carry some 20th century styles, it would only make sense for me to retitle this to indicate that it is early 20th century typography referencing 18th century style. Though it would be a shame for me to change it if it were a duplicate of the original, which it very well could be.

By: Christopher Fahey

Christopher Fahey — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:35:23 +0000

It seems almost impossible to imagine that this typography is from the 1700s at all. It has all the hallmarks of turn-of-the-century art nouveau graphic design, and looks very little like the printing of, say, Benjamin Franklin who was quite active in 1721. I’m not an expert, but I’ve been spending a lot of time lately browsing through printing from the 1700s, and this work is far too slick and modern looking to be even inspired by 1700s design — with the exception, as you note, of the anachronistic extended lowercase s.

Still, a lovely find.

By: Jesse N.

Jesse N. — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:11:18 +0000

Thanks Liam, and thanks for maintaining your excellent collection. From my experience, the typography here looks like it was taken from the original. Especially from the style of the typeface and the use of elements that were outdated by 1917 (such as the long s). If it isn’t 18th century, then it was crafted to look like it was in an interesting retro style. If anyone comes up with more information on this, I would love to hear it.

By: Liam Quin

Liam Quin — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:50:57 +0000

It’s not actually clear to me how much of the typography was from the 1700s and how much was from the 1917 “fac simile”; I think the woodcuts are probably from 1917. Bailey’s Universal Etymological Dictionary did use blackletter for proverbs, though.

Liam