The Bulgarian printed book began to develop dynamically only at the beginning of the 19th century. The delay in printing in the Bulgarian language for almost 350 years led to the accumulation of a number of peculiarities related to the material and textual aspects of the Bulgarian book. On the one hand, these peculiarities are related to the strong influence of the contemporary 19th century Bulgarian manuscripts; on the other hand, those peculiarities differ depending on the divergent foreign influence—Austrian, Russian, etc. The article discusses how peculiarities in the Bulgarian books produced during the Revival period (1806-78) are obstructing the creation of the Digital Database and Information Retrieval System.
Between 1615 and 1736 31 Jesuit publications on China appeared in the Dutch Republic, in Dutch, French, German, Latin and Spanish. The most original and important is the Novus atlas Sinensis by Martino Martini, printed for the first time in 1655, in Latin and Dutch.
Karina de la Garza-Gil
What was the relationship between the printing technology available to early printers in Cologne and the printing practices? I can demonstrate that the regular conceptions of setting method and printing practice, printing page-by-page with a one-pull press and setting text seriatim, are contradicted after the evaluation of material evidence of, so far, at least one Cologne: one of the first in-folio format editions in Cologne, printed by the first printer of the city, Ulrich Zell.
Frans A. Janssen
Translator Nynke Leistra
Jeremiah Romano Mercurio and Daniel Gabelman
Although scholars have paid increasing attention to textual marginalia and their role in the consumption and production of texts, they have largely overlooked the phenomenon of doodling and its parallel role in reading and writing. Doodles trouble their accompanying texts; they record inattention, whimsical digression, critique, and sometimes outright hostility toward those texts, revealing the complexity of readerly response and exposing authors’ visions as less unified than they seem. By attending to doodles in manuscripts, notebooks, and published literature, scholars can gain insight into the subconscious and occasionally contradictory forces at play in textual genesis and reception. This article examines doodles and closely related drawings by three author-artists from the long nineteenth century: Max Beerbohm, G. K. Chesterton, and an amateur illustrator named E. Cotton. Their work demonstrates the importance of doodling to their respective authorial enterprises and reveals the (sometimes ambiguous) generic boundaries between doodles and related graphic forms.