Um ad bas primum Exercitationes dejcendi elabor andas , id ope¬
ra pretium putajfe , unumque hoc fpeiïaffe fateor , ut eorum , quœ
in Plinium olim adnotaveram, fpecimen aliquod in medium dar em y
ас ve luti gußum proponerem, fepofitis tantifper, quas in mente
ac manibus habebam in varia Ter tulliani opera, in Eliberini Con¬
cila cañones у atque univerfam prifca Ecclefia ritualem hißoriam
Commentationibus. Atque is erat tum mearum rerum fiatus fa
ratio, ut mutata in totum forte prißina vita, fic ferentibus fatis,
feceßk ruris ad tempus eleSlo, animo, ut decuit, remifßore, ас
laxius feriante nihil curis gravioribus loci dare pojfem, utpote qui vix levibus his ас ludicris
ßudiis par efifem. In ilio tarnen otio rußicano quando illa qua meditabar agere non vacabat,
tarn male mihi effe nolui pati, ut ißa faltem curare non licer et, qua me ab heluco, veterno-
que, cui defidia mea tum maxime patebat, vindicarent. Ceterum cum illa cogitano inquie-
tum animum exerceret, tarn vaßam earn atque infinitam concipere non libuit, ut Plinium to¬
tum, qualis quantufque eß, in partem hanc cura ßudiique reciperem, cui labori пес vires unius
hominis quantumlibet diligentts fuppetere, nee vitam quantumvts longavi fuffeere poße rebar.
Quod autem faceré intender am, ultra unius anni, aut ad fummum duorum fpatium extendi
nolebam. Ingentem itaque illum Plinii Oceanum, qua qua navigatur, pervolitare confilium
mihi non fuit, fed oras legere dumtaxat propiores, ¿f finus aliquot in eo notior es f ecura cym-
ba circumvehi, atque inde domum ad ea qua reliqueram revertí. P articulant igitur aliquam,
ex immani corpore refeílam feleclamque fumer e, circa quam opera noßra enitefeeret, eo tempore
optimum ducebam. Nee tarnen etiam fine dubitatione hie mihi res abiit, dum difputo mecum
quam potifßmum fumere deberem. Nunc impetum серег am traBatum de gemmis fufeipere illu-
ßrandumj nunc libros qui arbores perfequuntur, vel eos qui herbas difquirunt, examinandos.
Aliquando avebam eum qui to ti us operis primus eß atque indicem continet, quid fingulis libris
ceteris contineatur oßendentem, refiituere multis partibus mutilum, mendofumque: aliquan¬
do ilium qui fequitur exornare, quo ratio univerfitatis atque menfura explicatur, ¿f quidquid
in mundo eximium ac vifendum fpeclatur. Inter dum ad fequentes quatuor proper abam ani-
madvertendos, qui terrarum fitus per partes exponunt <¿y defcribunt. Modo

etiam feptimum folum qui de natura hominis agit, ф multa gerii confideratione digna, cu-
piebam recognofeere. Inter hos aßus ßucluanti dißracloque, ¿f modo his modo illis acquk-
feenti, fors nefeio qua Solinum obtulit, quem auílorem pane puer olim cum variis collatum
fcriptis exemplaribus diligenter emendaveram. Hoc homine reperto non diutius poßhac quœ-
rendum judie avi, qua ex parte mihi Plinius arripiendus effet, unde inciperem, ubi definerem,
quo ufque denique fy quomodo in ilio magno mari velificarem. Ducem hunc capere ac fequifia-
tim placuit, quem auílorem nemo nejcit, nihil omnino habere, quod non ex Plinio haufent.
Ex omnibus enim Plinii libris quodeunque potuit, converrit, fy in fuum ifiud compendium con-
geffit. Qgamvis autem ex profejfo fola geographica compilant, ¿f in epitomen redegerit, at¬
que in hanc partem fere inclinatior fit materies, qua locorum fitum ac commemorationem per-
fequitur, fervata ubique or bis dißin&ione quam Plinius adhibuit: idem tarnen quidquid eß
arborum, gemmarum, animaliumque exoticorum variis regionibus nafeentium, id omne foller-

Fig. 66. Great Primer Italie no. 16, cut by Christoffel van Dijck.

Resetting of part ofthe preface to Claudius Salmasius, Pliitianae Exercitationes in Caji Jttlii Solini Polyliistora,

Utrecht, J. van de Water, Joh. Ribbius, F. Halma and G. van de Water, 1689, printed by E. Voskuyl.

90

CHRISTOFFEL VAN DIJCK'S TYPES

By the time this letter was written Van Dijck's stock had been combined with
that of Daniel Elsevier. On the one hand the proprietress ofthe foundry had caused
to be printed at the head of the sheet the plain statement that the types were cut
by Van Dijck ; on the other hand a study of some ofthe types in the specimen makes
it difficult to accept her statement. In an article to which I have referred on an
earlier page (p. 64) I tried to prove that the heading attributing all the types to
Van Dijck must be wrong. Now I can add that the advertisement by Athias of 17 June
1683 (p. 83) confirms me in my view. It says that Athias was possessed in addition
to the stock of Van Dijck of various other matrices, very fine ones, Greek and
Roman, collected by Daniel Elsevier. Athias knew very well, therefore, that not all
his types were by Van Dijck; nevertheless, when he came to reprint the specimen
composed by his predecessor, the Widow Elsevier, he left the forme just as he
found it, including the untruthful heading.1

In the specimen of Athias there are some forty founts of type. Adding those
that Daniel Elsevier seems to have bought at the sale of Hillebrand van Wouw2 and
the Brevier Greek mentioned by Athias, which came without doubt from Daniel
Elsevier, we reach a total of 49 sets of matrices. Moreover, a careful reading of the
agreement drawn up in 1767 by the Brothers Ploos van Amstel and Johannes
Enschedé for the apportionment of their purchase3 provides the means of identi¬
fying exactly [twenty-five4 out of the] twenty-seven sets of punches mentioned by
the Widow Elsevier in her letter. Further, it is perfectly reasonable to regard these
twenty-seven sets as the ones that came from Van Dijck's foundry. The remaining
matrices, without any doubt, are strikes from punches cut some time before and
were acquired by Daniel Elsevier from another source before 1673.5

As a help to the reader in distinguishing the types whose history I am tracing
I have drawn up the following table, where the first column gives the designations
ofthe types in the Widow Elseviers specimen. The second column shows whether
there were punches in 1767, when the material was sold by Jan Roman & Company.
In the third I have put the foundry from which I believe the types originally came.
The fourth gives the designations of certain of these types in the Specimen typorum of
Johannes Elsevier, Leyden, 1658,6 an indication of which will serve the dealings of
that printer with the typefounder Van Dijck. The last column shows the recipient

[1] See List of type-specimens no. 26. For this catalogue see note 1 on p. 89. The catalogue does

[2] See pp. 24, 80. not list punches for the Parysse Kanon. As for the Angustijn

[3] See note 2 on p. 89. Cursijf [no. 2] (incipit : Alexander autem) neither in the SpecijicgMe

[4] Only twenty-five sets can be identified. The Dubbelde Text Lyst (where it is said that the Italic is a small one) nor in the

Kapitalen are the capitals of the Parysse Kation (see note 1 in the catalogue are punches mentioned.

table). The Specificane Lyst begins with Varysche Canon Romein ... [5] See p. 80.

nierby aevoegd en beltoorende de dttbb. Text Kapit. magere no. 66 op de [6] Specimen typorum. Joltannis Elsevirii, Leyden, 1658. See List of

Catal. (Parysche Canon Roman to which are added and belong type-specimens no. 13.

the Dubbelde Text Capitals, light face No. 66 of the catalogue).

91