Re-discussing several basic concepts about the origin of typography
We are a big printing company in Shenzhen China . We offer all book publications, hardcover book printing, papercover book printing, hardcover notebook, sprial book printing, saddle stiching book printing, booklet printing,packaging box, calendars, all kinds of PVC, product brochures, notes, Children's book, stickers, all kinds of special paper color printing products, game cardand so on.
For more information please visit
http://www.joyful-printing.com. ENG only
http://www.joyful-printing.net
http://www.joyful-printing.org
email: info@joyful-printing.net
In June last year, "Guangdong Printing" published a series of "Several Basic Concepts on the Origin of Printing", which produced a certain response in the field of printing history. A well-respected and well-respected old predecessor wrote: "Da Wen's "Several Basic Concepts on the Origin of Printing" is new, reasonable, and convincing." In fact, the basic concepts related to the origin of printing are still far away. More than that. In view of the fact that there are still some vague understandings in the history of printing history that contradict these basic concepts, it is necessary to further explain and discuss these basic concepts. Due to space limitations, it can only be summarized. If it is not appropriate, please ask the family for advice.
First, Printing is a technology, belonging to the field of science and technology.
Printing is a technology, belonging to the field of science and technology. In the study of printing history, it is a fundamental problem. It is the basis for the study of printing history and the transformation of writing from the history of books to the history of science and technology. It has basically reached consensus in the academic world. This is a remarkable achievement for the study of printing history. The reason is that the research and writing of Chinese printing history has long been restricted by the history of the book, and it is difficult to extricate itself in the misunderstanding of the history of printing. So far, there are still people who think that "printing is printing, printing; printing is a printed matter, and printing is not a printed matter." It is difficult to study printing history in a series of problems such as the origin of printing and the history of modern printing. progress. I remember a few years ago, a famous Taiwanese scholar wrote a letter suggesting: "Is it possible to use the history of ancient printing as a cultural history, and the history of modern printing into the history of science and technology to solve the problem of the attribution and positioning of printing history." This reflects the academic world. Confusion in the attribution of printing and printing history. It can be seen that in the academic field, "printing is a process technology, which belongs to the category of science and technology; printing history is the history of printing, which belongs to the category of science and technology history", although basic consensus has been reached, it still exists on some specific issues. There is disagreement. Therefore, this basic concept needs to be further understood and understood.
Second, the source and flow length
Usually people talk about printing, always praised by the "long source." However, in the long history, what is the source and how long is the flow? What is the boundary between the source and the stream? How should the terms of origin, source and invention in the source be understood? This series of questions, seemingly simple, is extremely confusing and needs to be interpreted as a basic concept on the origin of printing.
"The source is long and long" is an idiom, the meaning of the water source, the length of the water, often used for metaphor history. The origin and development of printing is far from the "source" of the "origin" before the invention of printing, and the "flow" of the development after the invention is very long. In the meantime, it is bounded by the "invention" of printing. The origins of printing have a head and tail, and the development of printing has a head and tail. The origin of typography originates from the "source" and the tail is "invention"; while the head of the printing process is the invention, and the tail is not yet known. The reason is that the "source" has become a thing of the past, and the "flow" is still evolving. It is hard to say when this flow will flow. The development of printing is constrained by the level of technological development. When the new technology is used for printing, which leads to a qualitative leap in printing and can no longer be called printing, the term "printing" is reputed and returned home. The author believes that it is not helpful to clarify these basic concepts and study the origin and development of printing.
Third, the origin of printing is a long-term evolution process
The invention of printing is not accidental because it requires a long-term preparation process. In this regard, the academic community has reached a consensus. However, there is still disagreement as to how long this preparation process is and where the source is. Some scholars said: "The invention of printing is just like our research project today. There are no major items in the past 100 years. How many years have it been? How many years have the invention of laser phototypes been used?" I don’t know, the invention of printing (origin) It is a long-term evolution process. No one has given it a project. It is even less likely to be organized, planned, funded, targeted, and roughly like the “Seven-April Project”, a national key research project for laser phototypesetting. Time to do research and scientific research, everything is in the natural evolution, and even the term "printing" is also the Song Dynasty in the golden age of engraving and printing. How can we use our scientific research to ask our ancestors? It seems that to solve this problem, we must also return to the most basic position of printing technology.
As a process technology, printing has several basic elements:
First, from the material point of view, it has three elements of printing plate, transfer material and substrate, which is a process technology for transferring the graphic on the printing plate to the substrate through the transfer material.
Second, from a technical point of view, it is a transfer reproduction technique. In terms of traditional printing, it consists of two major technical systems: hand-engraving and transfer-replication. Therefore, the appearance of hand-engraving and transfer reproduction is regarded as the "source" of the origin of printing, and there is no doubt. A large number of unearthed cultural relics prove that hand-engraving and transfer replication technology as the core technology of printing began at the end of Neolithic. At that time, people invented a process technology that “printed” the pattern pattern through the pottery to the pottery because of the need to beautify the life. This technique has three meanings for the origin of printing: the pattern on the pottery (template) used is hand-carved, similar to the plate engraving in printing; second, the printed pottery The pattern on the top is the imprint of the pattern on the pottery shot by pressure (printing), which is the first to open the transfer and copy; third, the printed pottery at the end of the Neolithic period, many of which are painted pottery, must give Multi-color overprinting in printing is enlightened. It is not difficult to see that no matter from the technical point of view, or from the principle and assumptions, it is true that the painted pottery is the source of printing and is in line with historical facts.
The further development and history of hand-engraving and transfer-copying was to sculpt the characters on the tortoise-bone bones during the Shang Yin period; the Western Zhou Dynasty used the Fan-style splicing technique to cast text and patterns on the bronze vessels; The development of the letterpress printing; the fabric printing, stamping and stamping bricks prevailed in Qin and Han; the rubbings appearing on the basis of the stone carving since the Eastern Han Dynasty... all these, the hand-engraving and transfer-replication technology is becoming more mature and Superb. At the same time, the physical conditions of pens, inks, fabrics, papers, engravings, and printing tools have also developed and matured. The so-called pregnancy in October, after a long period of preparation, printing has been delivered to the ancient and civilized Chinese land, it is inevitable.
Fourth, printing, printed matter and printed books
To study the origin of typography, we must first understand what is printing. In recent years, in the face of the reality of different opinions on the invention of printing, more and more scholars in the academic world have realized the necessity and urgency of giving an accurate definition of printing. The author also published in 1990, "Printing Magazine" in Shanghai, "On Several Issues in the Study of Chinese Printing History", clearly stated that "the next accurate definition for printing is to study the era of printing invention." Prerequisites. However, due to the wide range of applications in printing, scholars who study printing history come from multidisciplinary and multi-disciplinary fields such as printing, publishing, books, archaeology, etc., and people often consider problems from different angles, resulting in opinions on the definition of printing. not exactly. This requires everyone to master the same scale, returning to the basic concept of printing technology, and to define the printing technique in a high degree. Based on this understanding, the author believes that this definition should be based on the three elements of printed matter, which is summarized as: “The process of transferring the graphic on the printing plate to the substrate through the transfer material” is appropriate. Waiting for the advice of Fangjia. With printing, there must be printed matter; products printed with printing are all printed matter. This is a common sense without explanation. The kind printed on paper is a printed matter. If it is not printed on paper, it is not a printed matter. It is obviously inappropriate to print that the printed matter is a printed matter, and that it is not a matter of reading a printed matter.
With printing, there must be prints; with prints, there may not be printed books. This concept has been accepted by most scholars. The reason is that the printed matter can only be called a printed book if it is bound into a book by the "binding" process. Here: the printed matter is first, the printed book is behind; there is a printed matter, and then there is a printed book; if there is no printed matter, there is no printed book. Moreover, in the early days of printing, only a few simple printed materials could be printed, which was impossible to print. Printed matter is different from the concept of printed book and cannot be regarded as equivalent. As for some people intentionally or unintentionally confusing it, it is nothing more than trying to put on a printed book with the earliest "existing earliest" or "the earliest known", which is the earliest printed matter, and then the time and place of the book. Cheng was the time and place of the invention of printing. It can be seen that printing and printing, printed matter and printed books have different meanings. In the study of printing history, it is not insignificant. I hope that scholars pay more attention to it.
Fives, The earliest existence, the earliest known and the earliest similarities and differences
In the study of printing history and writings, the two words “the earliest existing” and “the earliest known” are often appeared. Among them: the earliest existence is for cultural relics, and the earliest known is mainly the written records in the literature. When people talk about the earliest existing or the earliest known, they often ignore the reality of "objective earliest". Objectively, only the earliest objective is the exact time and place of the invention of printing. Obviously, it is unscientific and wrong to judge the time and place of the invention of printing by the earliest existing or known knowledge as the earliest objective. Because the earliest existing and the earliest known, not necessarily the earliest objective, there is always the possibility of being replaced by newly discovered documents and cultural relics. For example, in the past, people thought that the Diamond Sutra, which was engraved in 868, was the earliest extant print. Later, with the earlier prints and printed Buddhist scriptures, such as the Tufa Lianhua Sutra, unearthed from Turfan, People have to add the qualifier "with a clear date" before the "existing earliest". How long can this laurel with a qualifier be worn, it is hard to say. Because the "Chinese Paintings and Calligraphy Catalogue" published by Christie's auction house in New York, USA on November 30, 1983, contains the "Wooden Carvings and Coloring Buddha Statues" which were engraved in the three years of the Great Arts (607 years), which not only have clear date records, but also Tang Xiantong’s "The Diamond Sutra" was 261 years old. It can be seen that no matter whether it is the earliest or the earliest known, it can not be equated with the objective earliest that we can hardly find, but can exist objectively. Understand this truth, it is crucial to study the origin of printing, especially the time and place of research on the invention of printing.
Six, The words of books, writing, painting, and painting are in ancient literature.
Special meaning in the cultural relics
Words such as books, writing, painting, and painting are used in ancient and modern paintings and calligraphy. Its meaning is mainly writing and painting. Therefore, whenever people refer to the words of book, writing, painting, and painting, they naturally associate these words that are directly related to writing and painting, such as writing, writing, writing, painting, painter, album, and drawing. . This is especially true in ancient and modern paintings and calligraphy. It is no wonder that some of our scholars often use the words "writing" and "painting" in ancient books and paintings to categorically deny that it is a printed matter. As everyone knows, the early prints in China were engraved, and the prints on the plates used in engraving were written first and then drawn, that is, the first draft or draft was drawn, and the manuscript or draft was reversed. On the board, then carved. In the engraving process, writing and drawing are the first process. Therefore, it is not surprising that words such as writing, drawing, book, and painting appear on the prints of ancient and modern calligraphy and painting. What's more, there are many words and paintings printed in engraving. I don't know that later generations will copy them as originals when writing, writing, painting and painting. It is not difficult to see that some scholars use the words printed and painted on ancient printed documents and cultural relics as the basis, and it is not appropriate to break the practice of not being a printed matter. E.g:
In "Old Tang Book • Dongyi", there is a paragraph as follows:
"The first year of the dragon, the spring and autumn, the call of his son Taifu Qing Famin....Famin to open the first year of the dynasty, his son is abducted. In the second year of the arch (686 years), the political ambassador sent to the DPRK, because In the above table, please ask a piece of Tang Li, and a miscellaneous article. Then the Secretary of the Heavenly Order writes the "Good fortune", and in the "Literature of the Library", the words are used to rule the rules, and they are awarded 50 volumes."
This passage records that Silla Wang Zhengming sent a request to the Wu Zhou Empress Wu Zetian to ask for "Tang Li" and other books in 686 AD. If Wu Zetian gave the Silla King a copy instead of a print, why should he use the word "Le"? Here, the word "le" is used to search many words, and its meaning is not "engraving". What's more, the engraving and printing process invented in China is written first and then engraved? Obviously, because there is a "write" in front of the word "Le", it is debatable to say that the fifty books given to King Silla are written.
Another example: the existing three-year woodblock prints of the United States, "The Best of the South," is published in the "Chinese Paintings and Calligraphy Catalogue" published by Christie's auction house in New York, under the title "Dunhuang woodcuts and colorful Buddha statues". It can be seen that this ancient artifact was auctioned in the United States with woodcuts engraved in the post. The famous printing historian Zhang Xiumin is discussed on the 21st page of "Chinese Printing History". It was only because Mr. Zhang Lao had not seen this painting at the time, and there was another word for "respecting painting" on this painting. Therefore, it is believed that "the painting is called "respecting painting" rather than "respecting printing", then it is not known to be printed." Mr. Feng Pengsheng said in the "Chinese woodblock watermark overview": "Everyone knows that all the woodblock prints of the past were created by the painter and then entered into the engraving and printing. Still, if the original or the frame is not taken care of. Whether there is trace of printing, and simply relying on the size of the painting, it is rash to deny the idea of being non-printed. According to the picture, the inscription in the lower part has the sign of double-filling the ink, that is, the font first. Printing the ink line and then filling the ink. This is probably a printing method in the immature stage of printing." The author believes that: Judging whether this three-year woodblock print is a print or a painting, you should listen more to the woodblock watermark for many years. The opinions of the engineering and technical personnel. Because only they know the difference between painting and engraving, their opinions are the most authoritative. Mr. Feng Pengsheng has been working on the woodblock watermark for decades, and has the approval and support of the contemporary woodblock watermark masters Wang Ronglin and Sun Shumei. It is clear that Mr. Feng’s opinion is credible. Besides, if there are written, drawn, booked, painted and other words on the screen, it is determined that it is not a printed matter, then Beijing Rongbaozhai, Shanghai Duoyunxuan and other woodblock watermarkers have copied a large number of originals. The ancient and modern famous paintings with the original inscriptions and names and the words of writing, books, paintings, paintings, and works have been preserved. After thousands of centuries, what should the future generations think? The reason is obvious.
Seven, printing and binding
The definition of printing has been mentioned before. The definition of binding, "Xi Hai" interpretation is "the general name of the process of processing printed matter from printed sheets into a book"; the interpretation of "New Modern Chinese Dictionary" is "to process scattered book pages or paper." Visible, printing and binding are Two completely different and independent process technologies. As we all know: binding is a post-press processing for printing; binding for printed materials, some without binding; prints can be bound, and non-printed paper, handwritten books, calligraphers and painters can also be bound; The printing factory, some have binding, some are not bound; in the printing-related enterprises, there is an independent binding factory; two thousand years ago, the binding, the bamboo slip into a "strategy", writing or painting on the raft The paintings and calligraphy are bound into "scrolls"; ... These numerous examples focus on one problem, that is, there is no causal relationship between printing and binding. It is obviously wrong to use binding as a prerequisite for printing inventions and to think that there is no printing without binding.
In short, the author believes that: research on the history of printing, especially the origin of printing, there should be a basic consensus and a unified scale in research methods and basic concepts. First and foremost, it is necessary to recognize that printing is a technological process and belongs to the field of science and technology; printing history is the history of printing and belongs to the category of scientific and technological history; the invention of printing requires long-term material and technical preparation, so it is a long-term evolution process. The research and writing of printing history should focus on the development of printing technology, as well as printing equipment, equipment, scientific research, education and other related fields. Only in this way can our study of printing history truly go out of the wrong line and get on the right track: in order to be closer to the reality of history and achieve healthy and long-term progress.