Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Summer reading....
Yes, script and sculptural forms were "wildly different" and there is certainly, as you point out, abundant artifacual evidence of this. I suspect, though, regarding your last comment, that the thought of printing from the cast letters, or of applying casting technique to printing, might have taken a giant leap for the Romans. I suspect the reason has less to do with potential than it does with established practices. I offer here some thoughts on why this may be the case. Though, of course, this is only speculation.
Throughout the history of western letterforms, from the time of the Egyptians up into the middle ages, there seems always the potential for casting letterforms and printing with or from them. The Phaistos Stone, as an isolated and aside example, was a casting of symbols or possible letterforms that were seemingly repeatedly punched into the mold with a carved device. But nothing further than this artifact has been found. (Replications of carved forms have even been found in cave paintings and early textile work.)
The problem of "transfer" may not have been one of technical restrictions (or even the ephemeral nature of materials) as much as cultural restrictions. Casting technology was fairly restricted to medallions, coins, etc and written technologies were restricted to pliable and "mobile" substratum. I've really not found much historical consideration at all about why the connection was not made.
But it would seem that Tradition (and the restrictions held in this regard) kept sculptural and script like letterforms quite separate. Artifactual evidence reveals that the Egyptians had three sets of the written language, each had its own usage in the social/cultural hierarchy and each with its own separate technique/process for delivery. This hierarchical separation can be seen to be carried along into other cultures that evolved from this, including the Greek and Roman cultures, as well as into medieval Europe. Script like faces were always at the lowest stratum, but somehow managed to persevere through the ages,
probably because of this.
It would seem that important early European political/religious documents were to be written in a certain hand on papyrus rather than parchment, later on, parchment rather than paper. This had little to do with the quality of the technique/process/substratum. But rather, tradition. The early split editions of printing, using both parchment and paper, are part of this. Even though it was much more difficult to print on parchment and it is not well suited to the process, the practice continued. The parchment edition, though often not as well printed, was considered the traditional method of choice for the higher end market. Perhaps also because the illuminated manuscripts, which held the high end book market for near a century following the development of printing, were themselves commonly produced on parchment.
With the development of paper in Asia, there was early on some successful castings of letterforms that were printed. But the problem there, not faced by the Romans, was that the character set required was far too large to allow the process to take hold and have universal application.
In regard to your previous statement on the roman alphabet, it may very well be that the evolvement backward of the textura into the roman letterforms as seen in the transitional work of the early printers during the period of incunabula, had very little to do with the sculptural forms surrounding them (the letterforms on the columns seem to have had little influence or effect on the local populace for well over the previous millennium!!!), but rather that the marriage of the Carolingian minuscule and Roman majuscule is more a case of working with, and emulating, Renaissance manuscript materials (which themselves reveal a consideration of the Roman majuscule form).
>Intriguing that the Romans had
>learned to cast metal letters but never thought of printing from them.