Re: The King is Dead, Long Live the New King
I don't take that view of history. I see the events of history are far
more unique than that. That something happened does not mean it was
For instance, what if Morris had not attended the lecture? Would the
revival have taken place in quite the way it did? Would it have been
as influential as it turned out to be?
The young Tschichold happenstance saw an exhibition of Kelmscott books
in a storefront window and it changed his life. If there was no
exhibition in the window would his life/career have taken the path it did?
But we could go on and on with such speculations and they would yield
us very little.
At any rate, I'd side more with your colleague's way of thinking.
--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Per Werme <per.w@w...> wrote:
> Agree on the importance of this lantern slide lecture in London. Now
> Emery Walker was the guy who re-activated "lettera antica", the roman
> speaking with a lucid and ingenuous voice. But if he didn't promote
> it, somebody else would have done, don't you think?
> I have a colleague persisting in the Janson types would not to be
> found if Updike didn't brought it from Leipzig back home to US in the
> early 20th. Rubbish of course, but the pivot man Updike made it
> public to the American hemisphere. If Updike didn't promote it,
> somebody else would have . . .
> Per Werme
I cut off the last of my post to you by mistake. I think the date of
Schöffer's entry into the project is fairly accurate primarily because
somewhere was a reference to his being in Mainz prior to the fall of
Constantinople (1493), which was of considerable concern to the