Czech language prayer-books of the 18th century printed in Roman type and the origin of this printing type in Czech typography

Keywords: bibliology, historical book collections, early printed books, typography, printing type, roman type, prayer-books, Tibelli, Václav Jan (about 1684–1744)

Mgr. David Mach / Národní knihovna České republiky (National Library of the Czech Republic), Klementinum 190, 110 00 Praha 1

Introduction¹

Previous research has placed the texts written in the Czech language and printed in Roman type mainly at the end of the 18^th century and at the first half of the following century. Today František Jan Tomsa and also his younger successors from the ranks of the second and third revival generation, for example Josef Jungmann, Václav Hanka or Josef Kajetán Tyl, are considered as pioneers of this important emancipation step of the Czech nation. The transition from Schwabacher typeface and blackletter to the Roman typeface is commonly interpreted as an attempt to break free from the dependence on the German social and cultural influence and the literary culture of German speaking countries. However, the aim of this article is to show that these attempts to print Czech language texts in Roman type had occurred even before the activities of Tomsa, and that at this early stage it did not necessarily have to be isolated acts of individual printers but rather a wider activity which was intentionally repeated and motivated by various reasons. National causes which have dominated the period of the Czech National Revival probably did not play such a significant role yet. This contribution wants to draw attention to new particular findings that may help to create a more accurate and complete picture in the future concerning the origin and role of Roman typeface in the printing of Czech language books.

The characterization and historical development of Roman type

The Roman typeface is placed between so called humanistic scripts which had already been developing since the middle of 15^th century and which forms, besides the neo-Gothic scripts,² the second basic group of the early modern period scripts. While the family of neo-Gothic scripts represented the completion of the developmental trends of the previous medieval Gothic period, the humanistic scripts, on the contrary, were returning back to the legacy of ancient and early Christian history. Despite this fundamental ideological difference both groups existed in parallel for more than four hundred years and their mutual coexistence was discontinued only in the middle of the 20^th century. The humanistic scripts, same as the neo-Gothic scripts, alternated the form of a neat book font or a brief semi cursive letter or cursive letter;³ in addition to its handwritten version, it also had a typographic variation at disposal. The Roman type has best applied within the humanistic scripts exactly in the field of printed communications. Its specific definition says that it represents a vertical shadowed font which has a uniformly composed whole of all upper-case letters and lower-case letters of the alphabet.⁴ The upper-case letters of Roman type, in other words the capital letters, are based on the ancient Roman inscriptions of capital letters, while the lower-case letters accurately imitate the early medieval bookplate Carolingian minuscule and written ring-shaped script of humanistic Latin manuscripts of the 15^th century. The characteristic structure and aesthetic features of the Roman type are contrasting shading, consistent round shapes, upright stem finishing with the bottom shaft or serifs, and the brightness of the font image.⁵ The specific letters of the Roman type are mainly the double lobed lower-case letters "a" and "g".

The Roman type was used in book printing soon after its discovery and expansion. There have been several foreign typographers since its birth and gradual improvement. For example, at the very beginning it was German printer Konrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz or Venetians like Nicolas Jenson and Aldo Manuzio. These and then another printers and letter makers also focused on solving the theoretical problems of its appearance and structure, in addition to the practical usage of the Roman type. Therefore, it is possible to follow the stages of successful development in the history of the Roman type, represented for example by the French version of the Roman type of Claude Garamond, the unified Roman type of William Caslon the Elder, the simple and distinct Roman type of John Baskerville and classicist Roman type of Firmin Didot and Giambattista Bodoni, but also the stages of its qualitative decline. These are represented, for example, by the group of fallen scripts of the 19^th century, where one can find the Egyptian, Italian, and Tuscan scripts, whose usage has been found in the area of accidental typography or as decorative components of title pages.

In the oldest period of the existence of the Roman type an unwritten custom was already established that this type of script was used only for printing texts which were written in Latin, while neo-Gothic fonts were used for the national languages. However, this rule has not been followed consistently and individual countries (i.e., Italy, France, England) have began to use the Roman type even for printing non-Latin texts. The humanistic script came to the Bohemian lands in its written form already in the 15^th century via notes in the royal papers of Ladislav Pohrobek and Jíří z Poděbrad. Its further expansion, however, was very slow and without much detail, even in Catholic groups where we would have expected stronger support and faster procedures.⁶ The print version of the Roman type arrived a few decades later. It was first used in Bohemia for printing larger textual passages written in Latin by the Prague printer of a Nuremberg origin Jan Had in 1536. In Moravia the private Chateau Print Workshop in Náměšť nad Oslavou maintains the order of first importance (see below).⁷ The humanistic script both written and printed, thereafter, shared a similar fate. Due to the interplay of various circumstances, it was given a place only in Latin writings and printed materials. It became usual for the Czech language in general after several, mostly unsuccessful, attempts until the middle of the 19^th century when in connection with the phonological revision, the revival struggle for a graphical change of written and printed fonts was successfully completed.

On the following lines, we will undertake a more detailed analysis of the few attempts to apply the Roman type into the Czech language printed texts, which had occurred before the appearance of František Jan Tomsa and the younger revival generations. It is especially a period ranging from the thirties of the 16^th century until the beginning of the seventies of the 18^th century. We will be interested in the Czech typographers who used the Roman type for the printing of Czech books, whether limited to short passages (e.g., imprint, front pages, headlines) or whole books which were printed in the Roman type straight away. Václav Jan Tibelli was reportedly the first who decided to do that with the prayer-book Nebeský budíček duše křesťanské [A Heavenly Reveille of the Christian soul] (K18657, hereinafter A Heavenly Reveille) published in 1738. The analysis of this and similar titles will conclude the characteristics of the whole pre-revival Roman type period.

Roman type in domestic Czech language prints before Tibelli’s Heavenly Reveille

The oldest home printers already possessed the Roman type in their typesetting cases (according to the previous Printers of Arnošt's statute or the Printers of the Prague Bible, for example Mikuláš Konáč). They limited themselves to the ownership of the letters "C", "I", "L", "V", "X", which were necessary for the printing of Roman numerals and for the navigational functions within prints. However, the full scale of the Roman type wasn't needed, because the neo-Gothic script had a clear monopoly in the printing of both Czech and even Latin texts at the beginning. The expansion of the Roman type was prevented by several specific factors. Confessional disputes and strong anti-Catholic moods were among them, then there were the direct influence of the German print workshops on our domestic typography, conservative thinking of printers and readers and, finally, the technical difficulties in adapting the Roman type fund for printing texts in the Czech language. Domestic typographers were not equipped with the appropriate Roman type set of fonts which would have been suitable for reproducing the Czech language. It required letters with specific characters for expressing the Czech diacritics. In the ideal and also in the most expensive case, the printers had to have made a new such high-quality printing font. If they could not have afforded this method for financial or time reasons, they had other less elegant choices. Afterwards, the template form was supplemented with additional diacritical marks or used for making such accented letters which at least narrowly expressed through circumflex, two dots, or left reversed acute accents above the corresponding letters of the alphabet expressing the length of softness of our vocals and consonants. The easiest to manufacture, historically proven, and therefore the most frequently used option was a typesetting with a digraph or a complete omission of diacritics.

These procedures have not changed significantly and have persisted until the revival reforms in the 19^th century. Although the Counter-Reformation offered new and more suitable confessional-political conditions for the expansion of the Roman type, nevertheless, this printing script did not catch on as a dominant in Czech language books nor the then large institutional print workshops (e.g., Jesuit or Archbishops printing workshops) did not show any initiative to make some changes. It was due to a strong dependence of the Czech readers on the neo-Gothic types. This psychological need had already been cultivated by the printers in the late Middle Ages, then fastened by the practice of typographers of the 16^th century, and traditionally maintained from this point on. Certain technical and financial barriers also contributed to its long life.

The oldest printing house which intentionally overcame the steady domestic tradition for the first time was the private Chateau Print Workshop in Náměšť, founded and financed by Václav II. Meziříčský z Lomnice.⁸ For a short period of time he focused a group of scholars and typographers around his printing house who published five Czech language titles between the years 1533-1535. These publications primarily served as textbooks for teaching the sons of Wenceslas and at the same time they tried to follow up with content and physical aspects of the foreign humanistic schools current at that time, especially focusing on the critical translation and editing activities of Erasmus of Rotterdam. Thanks to this modern approach, the Roman type has appeared besides the neo-Gothic scripts in the two prints from Náměšť. It was used for highlighting parts of the title pages, headings, titles, marginalia, and the summarizing text passages of Nový zákon [The New Testament] from 1533 (K17099) and Grammatika česká [The Czech Grammar] (K06637) written by Beneš Optát, Petr Gzel and Václav Filomat in the same year. To the print of these titles were printed in the Roman type upper-case letters without diacritical marks and even the lower-case letter with Czech accents. They were created by Matěj Pytlík z Dvořiště, who had personally produced the printing letters by himself. He tried to design the Roman type in a way in which it would have been accepted by the contemporary confessional Czech readership community, which manifested itself in its distinctive inclination to neo-Gothic writings. However, this deliberate and timeless attempt of a new redirection of the domestic printing press did not find a stronger response among the printers and readers at that time nor any program followers.

Another use of the Roman type for printing texts in the Czech language appears now only as rare attempts led by an effort to highlight important words and text units in the otherwise prevailing neo-Gothic text setting. These occasional procedures were mainly limited to the front pages or final explicits. The tiny part of the title was decorated with the Roman type by home typographers Alexandr Oujezdecký and Jiří Jakubův Dačický. Namely, Oujezdecký in the work of of the German Evangelical Theologian Martin Bucer Kniha o opravdové péči o duše [Concerning the True Care of Souls] (K01386) from the year 1545 and Dačický in the Kancionál aneb Písní vejročních [Hymnal or The Annual Day Songs] (K03713) published in 1609. Both of them had at their disposal only a lower-case letter and vertical upper-case letter Roman type without diacritical marks. The Prague printer Pavel Sessius extended the use of the Roman type to the entire front page in the work Žaltář B. P. Marie od svatého Bonaventury složený [Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary composed by Saint Bonaventure] (K01211) from the year 1625. But he did not use for it the typographical composition but rather a copper engraving. The title of Sessius's Psalter is decorated with the engraved Roman type semi-cursive letters – with the accented letters "ř", "ě", "é". In all letters, the diacritical mark is indicated by a dot above the letter.

The printer Šebestián Oks z Kolovsi proceeded in the opposite direction in the years 1561 and 1562. He placed the Roman type text in the colophon at the end of the first part of Friedrich Nausey's Kázání křesťanská s krátkými výklady [Christian Sermons with Short Interpretations] (K06092–K06093).⁹ In doing so, he used a vertical lower-case letter Roman type without diacritical marks, but he attached the semi-cursive letter "w" and also "a" with the left inverted and to the right-hand side placed a comma that replaces our "á". This only proves that he was not sufficiently equipped to reproduce the longer Czech language textual passages. In this respect, the Unity of Brethren Printing House was better off. It ended up using a semi-cursive diacritical Roman type for publishing the edition of biblical psalms from 1587 (K17528). It had at hand the accented lower-case letters "á", "ů" and the upper-case letter "Ž", where the today's caron was replaced by the dot for printing the final colophon.¹⁰

Oujezdecký, Oks, the Unity of Brethren Printing House, Dačický or Sessius viewed the Roman type as a decoration and symbolic element. Their understanding was no different from contemporary typographers who engaged in the sphere of humanistic poetry and produced occasional or commercial prints in large-scale. Even in this area there is a Czech language Roman type text, although it takes the form of acrostic from lower-cased letters and conceals short quotes or names of celebrates, patrons, and biblical characters.¹¹ The aftermath of typographical conventions can be observed even in the Baroque period¹², which were revealed again in the chronograms created from the Roman type upper-case letters and set in the names.¹³ However, domestic printers before and after the Counter-Reformation did not dare to use the Roman type as printing script of a main text, or at least of the larger auxiliary or framework text passages. Only occasionally they used the Roman type to highlight some individual words in the form of their own names¹⁴ or semantically important expressions.¹⁵ No attempt which would have overcome these random particularities and would bear a comparison with the Chateau Print Workshop in Náměšť has been bibliographically recorded.¹⁶ On the other hand, lets keep aside the words taken from Latin and supplemented with Czech word endings. On the contrary, their printing was not possible without a combination of the Roman type and neo-Gothic types (e.g., the word "Astronomowé" where the "Astrono" is printed in the Roman type and the rest "mowé" again in neo-Gothic type).

Tibelli’s Heavenly Reveille and other similar prints

Several Baroque prayer-books brought new impulses to domestic printing. During the 18^th century their printers were probably the first who tried to remove the understanding of Czech language Roman type text as something unusual and innovative. They chose a rather radical solution. They allowed their prints to be made in Roman type completely from the title page over the headers, headings, and to the main text. The group of these publications consists of a total of four titles reproduced in twenty editions. Eight domestic printers contributed to their publication. Seven of these typographers can be safely identified, though unambiguous identification is not yet possible for one of them. Ten of the published prints are not specifically dated, for others we know the exact year of publication. The oldest is probably the prayer-book A Heavenly Reveille (K18656) published in Hradec Králové in 1719.¹⁷ Its originator is Václav Jan Tibelli, as well as of other two editions, one of which belongs to 1738 (K18657).¹⁸ Almost simultaneously, but perhaps also before or even after Tibelli, the Prague printer Karel František Rosenmüller¹⁹ printed another prayer-book in the Roman type with the title of Rajská růže (hereinafter referred to as The Rose of Paradise). Unfortunately, due to an unlisted dating and more accurate identification data, we are unable to determine whether it was the elder Rosenmüller or his younger son of the same name. Anyway, the book was published between 1705 (when the elder Rosenmüller began to work as an independent printer) and 1745 (which is the date of death of the younger Rosenmüller).²⁰

Another prayer-book had to be printed in the Roman type shortly after the mid-18^th century. Its title was Duchovní poklad aneb Katolické modlitby [The Spiritual Treasure or Catholic Prayers](hereinafter referred to as The Spiritual Treasure) and it was published by Karl Josef Jauernich. Its publishing date is not exactly mentioned, but the independent activity of this Prague typographer is bounded by the years 1755–1767.²¹ Thus, it was very likely that Jauernich stood at the beginning of the series, which included another two Roman type re-editions of The Spiritual Treasure. Fortunately, one of them (K14117) is provided with a precise date of its release. It was printed by František Václav Jeřábek in 1772.²² The second, undated, was made in the workshop of Vojtěch Ignác Hilgartner in Jindřichův Hradec.²³ It can be assumed that Jeřábek closely followed the same method as Jauernich. In fact, both typographers worked closely together, and even had the same residential address V Železných dveřích [At the Iron Door]. Jeřábek re-edited one of the products of his former neighbor after Jauernich's professional career break or death. This is also supported by the match of typographic material (see below). The dating of Hilgartner's Spiritual Treasure is more complicated. This typographer from Jindřichův Hradec was active in the years 1759–1787.²⁴ Thus, his print could have been created as a response to both Jauernich's and Jeřábek's editions. It is more or less identical in content with both of them. Hilgartner's or Jauernich's Spiritual Treasure could also have become a source model for the manuscript with the same but a shortened title Duchovní poklad aneb Katolické modlitby všem nábožným křesťanům k duchovnímu prospěchu a spasení [Spiritual Treasure, or Catholic Prayers for All Devoted Christians for Spiritual Welfare and Salvation], which was written and decorated with illustrations in 1760 by F. Wüber. A match between the prints and the handwriting can be confirmed on the content and textual level. The graphic design of the manuscript is significantly different and probably the author's artistic originality has been reflected in it.²⁵

To the chronologically youngest group belongs Josef Antonín Škarnicl (1729–1813), who published A Heavenly Reveille (K18660) in 1780.²⁶ This is another edition of the same title that Tibelli had previously printed. Škarnicl probably used the Roman type according to his pattern. However, in his print he made minor textual modifications and reduced the accompanying illustrations, although he did not mention his name directly in the printing impression. According to the place of publishing, which was Slovak Skalica, there is no doubt that it was exactly this typographer, originally from Olomouc, because no one else printed in this city at that time. The son František Xaver Škarnicl the Elder (1769–1841) followed his father at least once.²⁷ His father bought another Roman type edition of Heavenly Reveille in 1826.²⁸ Unlike his father, he equipped his print with other, more carefully accented Roman type types (see below), with more illustrations, and he also made more textual changes.

František Václav Jeřábek has become more noticeably prominent in the field of the Roman type prayer-books at the end of the 18^th century. We can even call him the main protagonist of this late stage. He surpassed his predecessors and contemporaries mainly by the number of re-editions. This time it was not the Spiritual Treasure, but the title Duchovní křesťanské katolické jádro všech modliteb [The Spiritual Christian Catholic Core of All Prayers] (hereinafter only The Core), which was probably printed repeatedly by Jeřábek in shorter time periods. It has been counted at least eleven items, which greatly increases the total number of Roman type prayer-books, where the undated editions prevail. In the group of dated ones there are years like 1784, 1796 a 1797. The two youngest prints from 1800 and 1809 were published by the widow Jana Jeřábková. According to these indications, we could place Jeřábek's production predominantly in the period when the Roman type was gaining more and more stable position in the Czech language text.²⁹

The Roman type found in Jeřábek's copies of The Core were printed in two typographic versions.³⁰ The first is represented by two full Roman type editions, of which the older one was printed by Jeřábek (K03409) and the younger one by his widowed wife Jana (K03419).³¹ The second, more numerous version is represented by prints in which the Roman appears only on the title pages, in titles, headings, notes and indexes. Neo-Gothic script is used in the remaining parts of texts. However, it is not a classic Schwabacher type or blackletter. The individual prayers are literally written in Current script and are in the form of handwritten text.³² Jeřábek probably reproduced the Roman type and the printed Current through typesetting. In doing so, he has created truly unconventional products that stand between the printed and handwritten books.

The origin and reception of Roman type prayer-books

All the above-mentioned prayer-books are very close to each other in content and genre. Basically, these prayer-books are smaller in format and not very comprehensive in scope, including a selection of prayers for different religious acts and everyday occasions (e.g., home prayers, morning and evening prayers, prayers used in church for services, communion or confession, prayers for the dead, prayers to Jesus Christ, to the Virgin Mary and to the Saints.³³ They were intended for practising private devotion and deepening personal piety. During the 18^th and 19^th century the prayer-books belonged to the most frequently published Czech prints at all. They had gained popularity mainly among women readers from lower social class. Thus, the prayer-books have become articles of daily use and an essential part of the furnishings of small town or country households. Even so, magical power was ascribed to them, and therefore they were used to perform various superstitious rituals. In addition to the regular reading and saying of individual prayers, they served as personal gifts and items for protection during childbirth, illness, death or storms. It is no wonder then that prayer-books were reproduced in dozens of titles during the Baroque period. Except for the exceptions mentioned above, they were all printed in the neo-Gothic script.

Yet, it remains hidden from us precisely who or what brought Tibelli and other above-mentioned printers to the idea of replacing the traditional Schwabacher type and the blackletter for the Roman type unusual for readers. Nevertheless, in some Roman type editions, the participation of another initiator in the background was directly available. How can we then explain Tibelli's efforts to capture as accurately as possible the specific Czech vowels and consonants (see below) while he was a foreigner who had come from Tyrol or Italy and did not probably speak Czech well? Unfortunately, for the genre of prayer-books the anonymity of the authors is characteristic, and therefore it is not to be expected that the possible names of authors or specific reasons for their release would be written in the prints. Apart from the typographers themselves, there were no other contemporary persons on the front pages of all the described prints who would have participated in their preparation. The study of other textual parts will not help us in this direction either. Rosenmüller's, Jauernich's and Hilgartner's prints and all of Jeřábek's editions lack any front frame sections (e.g., foreword, dedication). Only both copies of Tibelli's Heavenly Reveille have the customary permission of approval at the beginning signed by Jesuit Jan Steiner and Archbishop Daniel Josef Ignác Mayer z Mayernu. The Heavenly Reveille of Josef Antonín Škarnicl from 1780 was sponsored by the same names, even though Steiner and Mayer had long been dead.

Both church dignitaries acted as censors also in other Czech language prints published at the beginning of the 18th century. The more interesting of these two is Steiner. He could reveal to us the circumstances of the origin of the Tibelli's Roman type publication. Steiner died at the end of September 1717, but the first Heavenly Reveille was not published until 1719. How should this time incongruity be explained? Suppose that Steiner censored the manuscript, which then became the template for the printed version. Did Tibelli take the printing of the book itself almost two years since he received the appropriate approval from the Church authorities? Or perhaps there was even an older and now no longer preserved edition of Heavenly Reveille and the edition of 1719 was its overprint, into which the permission was taken over?³⁴ This possibility cannot be completely ruled out because the Heavenly Reveille from 1738 and Škarnicl's edition from 1780 were founded on such practice. It seems more plausible that Tibelli encountered technical problems related to the use of non-standard print fonts for the Czech text during the preparation for printing, and took him longer to solve them than he had probably originally expected.³⁵

Determining the time of publication of all Roman type prayer-books in a clearer manner could help us to answer questions about the historical background of their origin. According to the different printing attributions of the individual prints, let us suppose that the competition between the typographers involved played some role there. The copies of Tibelli's Heavenly Reveille were published during the period, when also both Rosenmüllers were printing in parallel. In 1719 the elder one was active and his son was already active in 1738. The same situation occurred in the fifties to the eighties of the 18th century, when Jauernich, Jeřábek, Hilgartner and Josef Antonín Škarnicl worked at the same time. This time concurrence could testify concerning the copying of editorial projects. One printer published a print with an unusual typographic apperance and his professional friendly rivals responded to it with a similar action, motivated by an effort to keep up with the competition. Thus, it appears at least in relation Tibell vs. Rosenmüller and then Jauernich or Jeřábek vs. Hilgartner. This competition did not have to be direct and personal. It could take place at longer intervals and with greater time delays between particular editions. According to various places of publication (Hradec Králové, Prague, Jindřichův Hradec, Skalica), it is also possible to consider that printers primarily focused on readers from locations that were in the geographic proximity of their printers and only secondary to competing with their rivals from other cities.

From the group of prayer-books printed with the Roman type, have to be partially set aside some of Jeřábek's Cores, just because the Roman type had only the secondary marking functions and the neo-Gothic font prevailed in the main text. In the domestic environment, these Cores had nobody to continue and did not face any competition until the end of the 18^th century.³⁶ Jeřábek's idea of combining the current script and the Roman type can be appreciated as his personal commercial innovation. His goal was probably to imitate numerous manuscripts of prayer-books which were very popular and widespread at the time, mainly among the rural population.³⁷ With their printed copies, Jeřábek was able to anticipate strong demand and thus sufficient financial gain in advance. However, due to more complex production processes, it can be assumed that their price was generally higher. This narrowed the set of potential buyers to the richer and more socially higher Czech-speaking bourgeoisie or lower nobility. Ordinary rural readers could not afford them. In this case was Jeřábek probably motivated by Rococo fashion wave, rather than by trying to make the Czech language Roman type books accessible to all readers.

This brings us to another hypothesis. The existence of the Roman type prayer-books did not have to be caused only by commercially competitive relationships, as we have tried to portray above. Other factors such as efforts to bring about an overall change in domestic typography or to increase the general education of folk readers could also have been behind their emergence. From today's point of view, it is very surprising that the Roman type appeared just in prayer-books and namely in the first half of the 18^th century and thanks to several private Prague or regional printers. Attempts to apply, or even mass-introduce, the Roman type to the Czech language printed text would be expected from an institutional printer run by a state or church institution, which later really happened (see Tomsa in the Normal School Printing Workshop). For us it would be more understandable to find the Roman type rather in the literature of an educational or administrative character, which were intended for social elites as the carriers of progress at that time. The Roman type prayer-books, however, were turning these considerations upside down. They suggest that the efforts of printers to qualitatively enhance the domestic book production and the cultivation of the reader community could have also been be realized in prints belonging to the "lower" typography. These prayer-books could have become an ideal base for such experiments, thanks to their spread, practicality, personal ownership, and text variability. Moreover, such social attention on other genres of religious literature (e.g., the Bible, hymnals) were not focused on their typographical appearance where printers had to be more careful. In the prayer-books from the seventies to the nineties of the 18^th century, we also rely on the intention to improve the practical knowledge of the humanistic script during the ongoing Enlightenment school reforms by these publications. From a linguistic point of view, typographers had a greater chance of success among Czech-speaking rural populations than among Germanized burghers and public servants or in circles of Latinizing scholars and church dignitaries. But among popular readers, they encountered strong conservatism, which slowed the further development of the Roman type in prayer literature.

However, competing editions and repeated releases may at first glance show that Roman type prayer-books met with a positive response from readers. Why would have printers copied or republished them if they didn't sell and the readers had no greater interest in them? Most of the titles have been preserved in unique pieces. The number of copies for each edition was probably not too high. On the other hand, for commercially successful books, a larger number of copies can be assumed and thus more preserved specimens. In addition to Tibelli, the Škarnicl's family and Jeřábek, the other printers (Rosenmüller, Jauernich, Hilgartner) confined themselves to a single edition of respective Roman type title. Furthermore, there was a relatively long time gap between the particular Tibelli's editions of Heavenly Reveille, if we don’t take in account the uncertain specimen from Dačice (see footnotes 18 and 34). After all, the second Heavenly Reveille was printed in 1738, almost twenty years after the first edition from 1719. An even greater time lag of nearly fifty years can be counted between both editions of Škarnicl's family. If the Roman type prayer-books belonged to the bestsellers at that time, they would certainly be repeatedly published in shorter and more frequent periods. Their frequency of publishing certainly does not reach the intensity with which, for example, the neo-Gothic Heavenly Keys by Martin z Kochemu were printed.³⁸

The failure of the prayer-books printed by the Roman type is also reflected in the comparison of the incidence of the Roman type and neo-Gothic editions of given titles in the 18^th century. The copies of A Heavenly Reveille, The Rose of Paradise, The Spiritual Treasure and The Cores were concurrently printed also by the Schwabacher type and the blackletter. Perhaps except for The Cores, these typographically standard editions clearly prevailed over the parallel Roman type versions.³⁹ Even after 1800, this situation has not changed significantly. We probably would not encounter any other Roman type version (except Škarnicl, see above) until the first half of the 19^th century. The neo-Gothic script retained its monopoly in these titles and moved the Roman type back to the position of typesetting of individual words or sentences. Changes occurred around the turn of the fifties and sixties of the 19th century, when even these prayer-books began to get a more modern Roman type form. More than a hundred and forty years had to pass from Tibelli's first work. But at the same time with these new Roman type editions, traditional neo-Gothic prayer-books were still being published.⁴⁰

Overall, it can be assumed that the above-mentioned printers were more concerned with repeatedly testing the domestic reading community. For this experiment they chose proven prayer-books to which they had given a different typographic appearance compared to the previous practice. Afterwards, they waited for a reader response. However, it was not strong enough to lead to a more frequent recycling of the Roman type titles or to the more massive competitive involvement of other contemporary printers. This conclusion does not apply to a certain extent to Jeřábek's Cores. In this case the readers' response, triggered by fashion trends, was probably greater and forced the printers to repeated editions that were addressed only to the wealthier readers. Thus, the prayer-books did not significantly contribute to the general introduction and spread of the Roman type. Up until then, the use of Roman type in this realm represented a rather unknown, scarce rarity, and a dead end on the way to a modern Czech language book.

An analysis of the printing typeset of Roman type prayer-books.

So far we have looked at the bibliographical identification and overall meaning of prayer-books described above. Now we will focus more on the brief analysis of their printing type. Above all, we will notice the method of the introduction of the Czech diacritics and adherence to some orthographic specifics. These examples should be the best demonstration of the temporal innovative or just the usual craftsmanship of individual typographers. On the other hand, we will put aside the more detailed analysis of font typefaces and sizes due to the poor knowledge of the then state of domestic design type, lack of the professional evidence of sources, from which printers used to get printing types, and finally, the difficulty of comparative visual studies.

The Roman type of copies of Tibelli's Heavenly Reveille has so far been considered as being of foreign origin and should be heavily time-worn.⁴¹ Our study did not confirm these conclusions, at least as far as it concerns the second point. The printing type does not give the impression of being damaged and the composition is, on the contrary, relatively clean and distinct in both editions. While in the edition from 1719, Tibelli had available only the diacriticized vertical Roman type, in edition from 1738 he also added the diacriticized and vertical semi cursive letter of the Roman type to it. Other differences, in the alignment of composition, the usage of digraphs, typesetting errors and the placement of illustrations only confirm, that the edition from 1738 was revised and that it was not mere mechanical reprint of the 1719 edition. They largely lacked the modern Czech diacritics of the Tibelli's Roman font set, especially in the case of carons. These were substituted by the dot located above the letter or on it's top right, center and bottom side. Thus, in this way were modified vertical and semi cursive "Ž", "Č", "Ř" in the case of upper-case letters, and besides them additionally "ď", "ť", "ň", "ě" in the case of lower-case letters. On the contrary, the long lower-case vowels "á", "é", "ó" were depicted in the contemporary way. They had a form of a letter with the acute accent turned to the right in the edition of 1719, and even with the acute accent incorrectly pointing to the left (as well for vertical and semi cursive letter) in the edition from 1738. The acute accent is always (except "ó") slightly shifted to the left margin of the letter (and vice versa in the case of the acute accents pointing to the left). However, Tibelli only partially made the diacritization of his letter sets, because the lower-case letters lacks "š", "í", "ý", "ů", "ú" and in the case of the upper-case letters, the marking of the length is completely omitted. Moreover, in the edition from 1719 he used in some places even the digraphs for accented letters as well. This parallel combination method was more or less abandoned in the 1738 edition. In both editions of A Heavenly Reveille, he did not hesitate to place "w" and its graphic variant in the form "vv" concurrently in the text, probably according to what the alignment of the composition required. The common feature of both editions of A Heavenly Reveille are also the upper-case letters in the position of the first letter of a large number of nouns. This phenomenon is even emphasized for words with a religious connotation (the so-called nomina sacra) by even widening the upper-case letter to the second letter in a row or to all letters in the word. (e.g., "GEzu", "GEZIJSSE").

The Rosenmüller's Rose of Paradise differs significantly from Tibelli's Heavenly Reveilles. What is different are mainly the diacritics. Because it completely lacks the representation of the length of vowels. The carons are also dropped out or replaced by digraphs. They are expressed by dots, commas or marks which shape-resembling carons just in the case of a few letters (vertical and semi cursive letter "ž", "Ž", "ě", "ň", "ď", vertical "ť"). These diacritics is located above the appropriate letter or on its right top or center side. Even Rosenmüller did not avoid parallel use of accented letters and their digraphical counterparts. Specific and within all above described prayer-books also a unique sign of his Rose of Paradise is a frequent alternation and combination of the lower-case vertical or the semi cursive letter "w" in the meaning of today's consonant "v". This consonant is also in the third place expressed by the semi cursive letter "v". Both semi cursive letters "w" and "v" were placed by Rosenmüller in the text setting, which were otherwise composed from a vertical Roman type, which in the end creates an uneven impression. This impression is enhanced by the occasional occurrence of the whole-upper-case letter words or expressions, in which the upper-case letters are placed in the two initial letters or at least at the position of the first letter (e.g., "BOZIE", "BOhu", "Wywolenych Bozjch").

In Jauernich's, Jeřábek's and Hilgartner's Spiritual Treasure is, in compare to the predecessors, the marking function of the Roman type upper-case letters limited only to the title page, to the initials capital letter and to often repeated highlighting of textual and religiously important words using all or the initial two or at least the first upper-case letter. In the text headings, most of the upper-case letters were replaced by vertical or semi-cursive lower-case letters. The diacritic of the printing script of all three editions of The Spiritual Treasure includes only a dot over the vertical letters "ž", "Ž", and the upper side acute accent for "ď", "ť", "ň" ("ň" is represented by a sign similar to caron in the edition of Hilgartner and Jauernich). Unlike Rosenmüller, there is no representation for lower-case letter "ě", as well as in the case of Rosenmüller there is no marking the length of the vocals in the copies of The Spiritual Treasures. Semi-cursive typesetting sets were faced with an almost complete absence of diacritics. Moreover, all three printers did not avoid the occasional application of digraphs at the letters which they had in the accented variant, or simply omitted the diacritical marks. The combination of "w" and "v" as in the case of Rosenmuller can not be found in any of them. On the basis of mutual comparison of described prints we can also state that Jeřábek owned part of the typographic material at the time of the printing of his Spiritual Treasure, which originally belonged to Jauernich (see e.g., same illustration on p. 16 in both prints) and probably his patrices or matrices for the production of vertical and semi-cursive lower-case Roman type, because the print types of both printers have the same physical proportions.

Significant differences can be seen in the copies of A Heavenly Reveille of Škarnicl’s family. This fact was due to the greater time lag between both prints and the time of their creation. The edition from 1780 was printed at the very beginning of the process of the National Revival, but the 1826 edition was printed at the time of its full development. This influenced the accents of both prints and theirs overall appearance. The typography of the older edition from 1780 was probably inspired by the templates of Tibelli. The archaic elements in it are represented by the frequently occurring whole-upper-case letters setting located in different text passages (e.g., pre-title, censorship permission, text headings, main text) or frequently recurring words whose initial two or at least the first letter is printed by the upper-case letters. There is even greater variety in the diacritics of Czech vocals and consonants. The length of the vowels is here indicated by the left shifted acute accent above the lower-case letters "á", "é", "o". From upper-case letters, Škarnicl owned an accented vertical or semi-cursive "Á" and vertical "É". But he only printed them once in the headings. He alternately replace today's caron above the lower-case letter "ě" by two dots or by an acute accent located on the upper right side of the letter. Occasionally, however in an entirely new way, he used lower-case letter "ů". The accents of consonants in Škarnicl's Heavenly Reveille are mostly acute accents placed in upper-case letters "Č", "Ř", "Ž" and in lower-case letter "č", "ř", "ž", "ď", "ť", "ň" arbitrarily above the letter or to its left, however most often the upper right, but even the lower part of the letter. Most of the typeface sets from the vertical Roman type of a the main text to a diminutive semi-cursive letters in the subheadings underwent a process of a diacritization. Škarnicl tried to apply the accented letters to the maximum extent possible, therefore, their digraph variations could have been seen in A Heavenly Reveille only occasionally (found was e.g., "Ř" and "Rž"). The same could have been said about the concurrent combination of "w" and two "vv". Here on the contrary, the parallel occurrence of graphemes "w" and "v" was quite common phenomenon, while both had the same meaning of consonant "v", which was similar to the case of Rosenmüller. But in the case of Škarnicl it was their position in the word that mattered there.

The typographic appearance of the 1826 edition shows clear qualitative progress over its earlier predecessor. Only a small space was reserved for the upper-case letter typesetting on the front page and in the initials. Whole upper-case letter words and two initial upper-case letters were completely removed. They were replaced by the first capital letter. Its application to expressions of a religious nature is much more moderate. Furthermore, in this edition of A Heavenly Reveille were the diacritics of Czech vowels and consonants solved completely in the modern way. Long vocals, especially their lower-case letter variations, have the right turned acute accent sometimes slightly sideways deflected "á", "é", "ó", "ú", "ě", same as the caron at "ě" and also the ring same in the case of "ů". Newly was added a letter "ý" in the upper-case letter and also in the lower-case letter version. In the case of soft consonants, the center caron is commonly marked for letters "č", "ř", "ž", "ň", "ť", "Č", "Ř", "Ž", and as an acute accent at letter "ď". The accent was also allusively made in the case of letter "š", for which Škarnicl in parallel used both the digraph "ss" and the letter "s" with two upper dots. Above all, the vertical sets of Roman typeface designed for the setting of the main text or title page were equipped with modern accents. The highlighting semi-cursive letter, which were appearing in continuous subheadings, had instead of carons or rings only right chamfered accute accents, circumflexes or two dots. Even in these more conservative passages, Škarnicl avoided the use of digraphs as much as possible, as in the main text (except for the above-mentioned "ss"). The only major anomaly is the letter "w". It was alternately printed by two different lower-case letters, one of which were in the form of two mutually overlapping "v" and the other as two separate "v" side by side.

It is necessary to divide the Roman type in Jeřábek's Cores into two groups. The first was represented by the whole-Roman type editions (see footnote 31), in which the Roman type setting was more advanced form than the one in The Cores which combined the Roman type with the current letter, and thus was forming the second group (see footnote 32). Jeřábek and his wife reduced the upper-case letter Roman type to the necessary minimum in two all-Roman-type-publications. They placed the upper-case letters only on the front page, in the initials and the letters following them, and then in the position of the first letters of the names of Christian authorities or words of religious significance. But they did not use them to print full words or the initial two letters in a row. They also used the Roman type semi-cursive letter sparingly and printed it only on the front page or in one-word headings. For breaking the text rate on subtitles, main text and accompanying commentaries comments they managed only with vertical lower-case letter Roman type and the use of some sizes of letters. Overall, however, they achieved an austere but unified typographical appearance. But in the case of diacritics they did not arrive at a major update, but rather followed the older practice applied in Jeřábek's Spiritual Treasure of 1772 (see above). Both Jeřábek in the undated edition of The Cores and the widow Jeřábková in The Cores Edition of 1800 did not record the length of the vocals and only had traditional letters from accented consonants "ď", "ť", "ň", "ž", "Ž". Jeřábek represented them by using dots and accute accents located above letter or along its upper right side. Jeřábková more or less took over his system, but in principle she innovated the minuscule "ž", where she replaced the dot with today's caron. In the text, she also used both the older and the newer versions in parallel. The married couple provided with diacritics only the vertical font sets, while they left the semi-cursive letter without accents. As in The Spiritual Treasure, they did not totally avoid the occasional combinations of diacritical letters and their digraph parallels or variations with a completely omitted diacritical mark. On the other hand, they consistently made sure that they did not associate the two "v" with which they would replace "w" and they used the traditional letter "w" for consonant "v". Despite these common elements, it cannot be said that the edition of widow Jeřábková is a reprint of Jeřábek's older undated edition. This conclusion is prevented by variations in the alignment of a setting, minor textual deviations and those differences mentioned in diacritics. The only connecting point is the same vertical height of letters of lower-case letters of Roman type used in the main text of both Cores. Interestingly, its height dimensions also agrees with Jeřábková and Jauernich's Spiritual Treasure (see above).

On the other hand, the Roman type in the copies of The Cores, which belongs to the second neo-Gothic-Roman type group, predominantly has a semi-cursive form, and in most prints⁴² it is only used for the marking functions. Its common feature is the absence of any Czech diacritics. Seen from today's perspective, this disadvantage is partly compensated for by Jeřábek's attempt to imitate the handwritten humanistic script. By using typeset letters he not only imitated its graphic form but in some places even the concurrence of the connecting lines of a stroke. Thus he created an optical impression of a handwritten Czech language text. He placed this cursive printing type mainly in headings, which he set in the current script text or at the beginning of the text chapters, where he linked it with the Roman type semi-cursive letter. A more significant flaw of this otherwise rather successful attempt is the occasional typesetting errors (e.g., "Swataky" instead of "Swatky" or "Modliiba" instead of "Modlitba") and above all recurring unmarked Czech accents. Jeřábek did not include the cursive Roman type in all neo-Gothic-Roman type editions of The Cores. There is at least one edition (K03412) in which only the nondiacritized semi-cursive Roman type and the current script are combined.

If we summarize the characterization of the printing font of all the Roman type prayer-books, we find out that the mentioned printers mostly had at their disposal typeface sets of nondiacritized upper-case letters and semi-diacritized Roman type lower-case letters (except Tibelli and Škarnicl’s family) during their production, which they have combined within one book. The Roman type upper-case letters mainly had a marking function and were mainly used in headlines, initials and front pages. On the other hand, the Roman type lower-case letter took over the function of a 'bread and butter' script, which means that it served mainly to domestic typographers for printing of regular text passages and accompanying commentaries. In addition to these unwritten typographic standards, the combination of the upper-case and lower-case letters was also given by the time of the press. It is true that the older prints (e.g., the copies of Tibelli's Heavenly Reveille or Rosenmüller’s Rose of Paradise) are more varied in this respect than prints from the end of 18^th century (e.g., The Cores of Jeřábek and his wife), when the text setting is more unified and tends to modern convention. In similar words, the relationship between vertical and semi-cursive letter can be described. Here again, the transition from variability to austere but more modern expression is visible. The use of the semi-cursive Roman type also depended on whether the printer owned the font. It has not always been commonplace (e.g., Tibelli's first edition of A Heavenly Reveille).

The degree of diacritization of the typeface was also dependent on the equipment of typesetting cases of individual printers. More wealthier typographers (e.g., Tibelli, Škarnicl’s family) were trying to comprehensively capture the system of accents above Czech vowels and consonants by their means of letters. Others (e. g., Rosenmüller, Jauernich, Hilgartner, Jeřábek) simply solved this problem by acquiring a few basic diacritical letters (e. g., 'ž', 'Ž', 'ď', 'ť', 'ň') and they used a digraph variant or omitted the accents for the remaining letters. There is a parallel with the situation described by Petr Voit⁴³ in which the domestic printers and typographers of the first half of the 16^th century were. They were also inconsistently introducing the Czech diacritical apparatus into the neo-Gothic sets of fonts, based on their technical capabilities or typesetter arbitrariness and regardless of the overall spelling unity and consistency. Despite the greater time lag the same rule applies to both groups, that the lower-case letters were accentuated more carefully than their upper-case letter counterparts, and that more attention was paid to 'bread and butter' script than to the marking script. Also, in the case of shape of the diacritical marks of the Roman type letters, different individual approaches and gradual modernization can be observed. While the length of the vocals was normally expressed by the acute accent already since Tibelli, the accents of soft consonants have undergone a transformation from the oldest dots already applied in the manuscripts and prints of the 15^th and 16^th centuries; they were then taken over into the Roman type prayer-books first by Tibelli and by other typographers, and less common acute accents which were especially liked by Josef Antonín Škarnicl up to the current carons used by his son the elder František Xaver or by Jana Jeřábková were used significantly less.

Using capital letters, printers of the Roman type prayer-books did not avoid contemporary habits and so applied religious approaches to the Roman type text led to the unnecessary overuse of capital letters at the beginning of words and also to the spread of an unwanted phenomenon called nomina sacra. These archaic orthographic specifics were not abandoned by typographers until the end of 18^th century (e.g., Jeřábek, Jeřábková). The exemplary Roman type publication is represented today by the Heavenly Reveille of the elder František Xaver Škarnicl. This is certainly evidenced because different requirements were placed on the printing and appearance of Czech language texts in 1826 than at the beginning of the 18^th century.

The editors did not interfere with the citation in the article.

Translated by Michal Patočka and Angelo Shaun Franklin.

List of cited literature and electronic resources

BĚHALOVÁ, Štěpánka. Nebeklíče od Landfrasů: knižní bestsellery 19. století. Jindřichův Hradec: Muzeum Jindřichohradecka, 2017. 81 p. ISBN 978-80-86227-70-2.

Bibliografie 19. století [online]. Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 2015/16- [cit. 2018-05-30]. Available at: https://retris.nkp.cz.

BOHATCOVÁ, Mirjam. Bratrské tisky ivančické a kralické (1564–1619). 1. vyd. Praha: Národní museum, 1951. 183 p., [16] s. obr. příl. Sborník Národního musea v Praze, 5 vol., A, Hist. č. 1.

BRTOVÁ, Bohuslava. Dodatky ke Knihopisu českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce 18. století z fondu Základní knihovny – Ústředí vědeckých informací ČSAV. Praha: Základní knihovna – Ústředí vědeckých informací Československé akademie věd, 1990. 164 p. Vědecké informace Československé akademie věd. Bibliografie; 3.

CNB – Česká národní bibliografie [online database]. Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 1996– [cit. 2018-05-30]. Available at: http://aleph.nkp.cz.

HORÁK, František. Česká kniha v minulosti a její výzdoba. 1. vyd. Praha: František Novák, 1948. 253, [1] p. Naše poklady, vol. 4.

CHYBA, Karel. Slovník knihtiskařů v Československu od nejstarších dob do roku 1860. [Praha]: Památník národního písemnictví, 1966. 521 p.

JOHANIDES, Josef. Staré královéhradecké tisky. 1. vyd. Hradec Králové: Kruh, 1973. 358, [1] p. Knihy a knihovny, vol. 8.

KAISER, Vladimír. Klasifikace tiskového písma z hlediska pomocných věd historických. Sborník archivních prací. 1982, 32(2), 446–479. ISSN 0036-5246.

KAŠPAR, Jaroslav. Úvod do novověké latinské paleografie se zvláštním zřetelem k českým zemím. Sv. 1, Textová část. 3. přeprac. vyd. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1987. 218 p.

KLIMEKOVÁ, Agáta, Eva AUGUSTÍNOVÁ a Janka ONDROUŠKOVÁ. Bibliografia územne slovacikálnych tlačí 18. storočia. Zväzok IV. [Martin]: Slovenská národná knižnica, 2008. 367 p. Slovenská národná retrospektívna bibliografia, séria A, knihy. ISBN 978-80-89301-20-1.

KLIMEKOVÁ, Agáta a Janka ONDROUŠKOVÁ. Bibliografia územne slovacikálnych tlačí 19. storočia. Zväzok IV., N–R. Martin: Slovenská národná knižnica, 2017. 389 p. Slovenská národná retrospektívna bibliografia, séria A, knihy. ISBN 978-80-8149-074-3.

KPS – Databáze Knihopis [online database]. Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 2015– [cit. 2018-05-30]. Available at: http://www.knihopis.cz.

KUCHAŘOVÁ, Hedvika. Několik poznámek k modlitebním knihám 18. a 19. století. Listy filologické. 2009, 132(3–4), 263–287.

KVAPIL, Jan. Ze zahrádky do zahrady, aneb, Od Hortulu animae k Štěpné zahradě Martina z Kochemu: utváření modlitební knihy barokního typu. 1. vyd. Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 2001. 220 p. ISBN 80-7044-356-1.

Magyarország bibliographiája 1712–1860. [Köt.] VII., Pótlások Petrik Géza Magyarország bibliographiája 1712–1860 c. müvéhez 1701–1800 között megjelent magyarországi (és külföldi magyar nyelvű) nyomtatványok. Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, 1989. 570 p. ISBN 963-200-269-5.

MAŠEK, Petr. Antikvou tištěný český Otčenáš z roku 1555. Knihy a dějiny, 2015, 22(94). ISSN 1210-8510.

MUZIKA, František. Krásné písmo ve vývoji latinky. [Sv.] II. 2. rev. vyd. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury a umění, 1963. 666, [2] p. Výtvarné umění. Technika a řemeslo, sv. 11.

PÁTKOVÁ, Hana. Česká středověká paleografie. 1. vyd. České Budějovice: Veduta, 2008. 278 p. ISBN 978-80-86829-38-8.

PUMPRLA, Václav. Soupis starých tisků ve sbírce Okresního vlastivědného muzea ve Frýdku-Místku. Frýdek-Místek: Okresní vlastivědné muzeum, 1985. 172 p. Katalogy a soupisy sbírek muzeí Severomoravského kraje, čís. 2.

ŠIMKOVÁ, Anežka (ed.). Růžová zahrádka: rukopisné modlitební knížky 18. a 19. století: sbírka Jana Poše. 1. vyd. Řevnice: Arbor vitae; Olomouc: Muzeum umění Olomouc, 2009. 264 p. ISBN 978-80-87164-15-0.

ŠPETKO, Jozef. Dejiny Škarniclovskej kníhtlačiarne v Skalici: so súpisom jej tlačí. Martin: Matica slovenská, 1958. 119 p. Vydavateľstvo a tlačiarstvo, čís. 1.

TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav. Kniha: její vznik, vývoj a rozbor. 1. vyd. Praha: Orbis, 1949. 242 p., ca 200 s. obr. příl.

TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav a František HORÁK (eds.). Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce XVIII. století. Díl II., Tisky z let 1501–1800. Část I–IX. Praha: Komise pro knihopisný soupis českých a slovenských tisků: Národní knihovna: Academia, 1939–1967. 9 vol.

VD18-Datenbank: Das Verzeichnis Deutscher Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts [online database].[Göttingen]: Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund, 2009– [cit. 2018-05-30]. Available at: www.vd18.de.

VOBR, Jaroslav. České tisky Moravské zemské knihovny v Brně a jihomoravských klášterních knihoven z let 1501–1800. Sv. 1, A–Q. Brno: Moravská zemská knihovna v Brně, 2005. 501 p. ISBN 80-7051-159-1.

VOIT, Petr. Český knihtisk mezi pozdní gotikou a renesancí. II, Tiskaři pro víru i tiskaři pro obrození národa 1498–1547. 1. vyd. Praha: Academia, 2017. 933 p. ISBN 978-80-200-2752-8.

VOIT, Petr. Encyklopedie knihy: starší knihtisk a příbuzné obory mezi polovinou 15. a počátkem 19. století. 1. vyd. Praha: Libri: Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, 2006. 1350 p., [160] s. obr. příl. Bibliotheca Strahoviensis. Series monographica; 2. ISBN 80-7277-312-7.

VOIT, Petr. Tiskové písmo Čech a Moravy první poloviny 16. století. Bibliotheca Strahoviensis, 2011, 10, 105–202. ISSN 1213-6514.

VOLF, Josef. Domnělí knihtiskaři pražští Matouš a Karel Rosenmüllerové. In: ODLOŽILÍK, Otakar (ed.). Českou minulostí: [práce věnované profesoru Karlovy university Václavu Novotnému jeho žáky k šedesátým narozeninám]. Praha: Jan Laichter, 1929, pp. 286–292.

WIŽĎÁLKOVÁ, Bedřiška, Jan ANDRLE a Vladimír JARÝ (eds.). Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce XVIII. století. Dodatky. Díl II., Tisky z let 1501–1800. Část I–IX. Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 1994–2010. 8 vol. ISBN 80-7050-181-2.

This article was written as part of the NAKI II project No. DG16P02H015: Knihověda.cz. Portál k dějinám knižní kultury do roku 1800 [Knihověda.cz. A Portal on the History of Book Culture to 1800]. I would like to sincerely thank to Mr. Doc. Peter Voit for professional assistance and ongoing consultations during its preparation. Abbreviated transcribed titles of old prints are often shortened in the text of this article. In order to identify them unambiguously, a round bracket has been appended to the overwritten title with reference being made to Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků (hereinafter only Knihopis), where a more detailed bibliographic description can be found. It is primarily referred to the electronic version of Knihopis KPS – Databáze Knihopis [an online database], 2015–, http://www.knihopis.cz. However, for some references it is also possible to look them up in the printed version TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav and František HORÁK (eds.). Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce XVIII. Století, 1939–1967, 9 Vols.; WIŽĎÁLKOVÁ, Bedřiška, Jan ANDRLE and Vladimír JARÝ (eds.). Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce XVIII. století. Dodatky, 1994–2010, 8 Vols. Only in the case of prints that are not yet registered in Knihopis or those in the form of a manuscript record within the so-called alphabetical Supplements to Knihopis, a transcribed copy of the full title and printer’s information are cited in the footnotes. The titles of the books are used at first in the Czech language and then translated into the English Language.

In the book printing the neo-Gothic or even the older Gothic types include Gothic black-letter script, Bastarda and above all Schwabacher type with blackletter. On the border between neo-Gothic and humanistic printing types lies the Rotunda and Gothic round type which draws some elements from both groups. This basic division was suggested by KAISER, Vladimír. Klasifikace tiskového písma z hlediska pomocných věd historických. Sborník archivních prací, 1982, pp. 446–477 and later adopted by VOIT, Petr. Encyklopedie knihy, 2006, pp. 685–687. More briefly on the individual types of print fonts and on the overall characteristics of the Early modern period fonts see KAŠPAR, Jaroslav. Úvod do novověké latinské paleografie se zvláštním zřetelem k českým zemím, 1987, pp. 144–149. From these three sources were also drawn all of the theoretical definitions found in the main text and footnotes.

Specifically in the case of print fonts, they were distinguished vertical scripts, semi-cursive letters, and cursive letters. The characteristic feature of the vertical script is the perpendicular structure of the font axis. The semi-cursive letters and the cursive letters in the printed as well as in the handwritten scripts are characterized by a right inclination of the individual letters to the right at an acute angle with a line. In the case of semi cursive letters, the individual letters are discontinuous and stand alone, while in the cursive letters they are interconnected by line strokes into one unit.

Upper-case letters include capital letters of the alphabet designed into the imaginary dual-line system. Lower-case letters include lower letters of the alphabet written in the four-line system.

The Roman capital letter was a script of a monumental character used primarily in inscriptions and epigraphic texts. The Carolingian minuscule was created at the imperial court of Charlemagne in the end of the 8^th century and it is characterized by good readability, simple and round shapes and consistent letter separation. Shaded script is a script with unequal thickness of individual strokes. We distinguish between bold and thin strokes. The opposite of the shaded script is the linear script, with all strokes having the same thickness. As a serif within the ancient inscription, is called the final cross-cut of a chisel. This element has also been taken into written and printed script. Here it has a flat, wedge or triangular shape ending. In addition to the undisputed aesthetic function, the serifs also help to the horizontal perceiving of the text.

The beginnings of the use of written humanistic script in the Czech environment are briefly summarized by PÁTKOVÁ, Hana. Česká středověká paleografie, 2008, pp. 138–140.

The beginnings of the Roman type in Bohemia and the state of the printing letter equipment of the individual print workshops of the first half of the 16^th century are mapped in detail in VOIT, Petr. Tiskové písmo Čech a Moravy první poloviny 16. století. Bibliotheca Strahoviensis, 2011, pp. 105–202; VOIT, Petr. Český knihtisk mezi pozdní gotikou a renesancí. II, Tiskaři pro víru i tiskaři pro obrození národa 1498–1547, 2017; VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, pp. 58–60. The usage of the Romany type in domestic printing press and in the Czech language printed books describes also HORÁK, František. Česká kniha v minulosti a její výzdoba, 1948, pp. 102, 106, 148–150, 200–204; TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav. Kniha: její vznik, vývoj a rozbor, 1949, pp. 97–98; MUZIKA, František. Krásné písmo ve vývoji latinky, 1963, pp. 282–290. However, these are mostly general and simplistic summaries.

The name of the print workshop is taken from VOIT, Petr, Český knihtisk … II, Tiskaři pro víru i tiskaři pro obrození národa … footnote 7, pp. 290–303, 342–345, there is also the latest mapping of its operation and equipment.

Nause's Christian Sermons were published twice shortly after each other. The older edition is from 1561 (K06092). A year later (1562) was published the re-edition (K06093). The differences between these two prints concern only the front frameworks. The main text passages are the same in both cases.

Psalms are described in detail by Mirjam Bohatcová, however, she does not mention the Roman type at all. See BOHATCOVÁ, Mirjam. Bratrské tisky ivančické a kralické (1564–1619), 1951, No. 26, p. 84.

Several examples of Czech language Roman type acrostics which were mostly produced from upper-case letter vertical letters without diacritical marks contains a collection of Václav Dobřenský's broadsheets stored in the library of the Strahov Monastery under the signature DR I 21. See, e.g., K02976 (here the acrostic is composed into the center heart position with the cross and further into the side edge moldings), K03563 (acrostic from the vertical, hiding the title of Ferdinand II Archduke of Austria), K12366 (concurrent acrostics from the Roman type or Schwabacher type letters, thus, distinguishing the name of the bride and groom), K02787 (here there are a few acrostics together, one of which is arranged in a cross shape). The master of this artistic use of the Roman type was the printer Jiří Černý z Černého Mostu. These procedures were often used by authors such as the Prague citizen and craft rhymester Blažej Jičínský.

The proof of the statement above is, for example, the print from 1661 (K06838) with horizontally and vertically repeating acrostic "Panno Maria pros za nás." An acrostic hiding personal names are found, for example, in the books from 1681 (K19221) or 1716 (K02735).

The title chronograms have been placed either into several individual words where they have looked quite inconspicuous and really easy to overlook (see e.g., K00890, K02927), or even into larger text units (K00886, K16427) and sometimes even has covered the entire cover page (K01369, K02937, K03648).

By the Roman type is intentionally emphasized the negatively understood person of the Hussite general Jan Žižka in K00942a. Then counterpart is represented by the names of the Habsburg rulers in K00661, K00663, K00665 printed in upper-case letters with vertical Roman type. Occasionally, the names of the authors were also marked out by the upper-case letter vertical Roman type (see e.g., K17175, K04147, K04150 – K04151).

For example. in the K16039 has the word "smrt" been set in the vertical Roman type, for which negative connotations can be assumed.

In order to identify other Czech language prints containing the Roman type, was performed the manual excerption of individual volumes of printed Knihopis. The lines mentioned above lines, which summarizing the pre-revival period of application of the Roman type, draw the results from this survey. During the excerption were also found prints of the foreign provenance, which included rare Roman type Czech words and more extensive textual passages. While several mostly religious copies that used the Roman type were realized in domestic printing, abroad the Roman type occasionally reproduced Czech language texts in botanical (K16175-K16180), zoological (K02702, K18117-K18118), or topographic (K15739-K15741, K02722, K16597) publications. However, these were mostly short parts (e.g., indexes), marginal footnotes, bibliographic citations, or footnotes stating personal or local names and literal citations of historical sources. The Czech language Roman type settings have entered the main text in multilingual dictionaries (K03218 – K03219, K05456 – K05457, K07006) or in the overall summaries of The Lord's Prayer (K06642–K06645, K14857, K15633, K16993, K17653, K17952, K18088–K18089 K18150). Perhaps the most interesting example are two Amsterdam Czech prints in which Jan Amos Komenský participated as the originator from the years 1658–1659. That's probably the reason why the Manuálník aneb Jádro celé biblí svaté [A Guide or The Core of The Whole Saint Bible] (K04238) and Kancionál to jest Kniha žalmů [The Hymnal or The Book of Psalms] (K03710) are provided with the diacritical semi-cursive Roman type in titles, headings, summaries, indexes, and errata. It can be assumed that there are much more similar foreign prints with the Czech language Roman type than is stated here. It has not yet been possible to compile a complete list of them, because in Knihopis the record keeping of foreign-language Bohemian prints is only random. This issue is described very briefly in VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, p. 58 and after that in MAŠEK, Petr. Antikvou tištěný český Otčenáš z roku 1555. Knihy a dějiny, 2015, p. 94.

The existence of this print had not yet been known. The previous scientific literature had only known and described the edition from the year 1738 (see footnote 18). The edition from 1719 is not included even in a special bibliography JOHANIDES, Josef. Staré královéhradecké tisky, 1973, p. 110. For the first time it was briefly characterized by PUMPRLA, Václav. Soupis starých tisků ve sbírce Okresního vlastivědného muzea ve Frýdku-Místku, 1985, no. 333, p. 99. This print has been preserved in a unique copy in the Museum Beskyd in Frýdek-Místek under the signature FM 26 398 S. We are thankful to Dr. Kateřina Janásová for making it accessible.

There are two other books with the same title as the one from 1719 which were probably published in Tibelli's print workshop. One of them dates back to 1738 (K18657). Its bibliographic description is given by JOHANIDES, Josef, footnote 17, p. 110, no. 126 and BRTOVÁ, Bohuslava. Dodatky ke Knihopisu českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konce 18. století z fondu Základní knihovny – Ústředí vědeckých informací ČSAV, 1990, no. 15, pp. 14–15. The edition from 1738 is also more briefly described and annotated in HORÁK, František, footnote 7, p. 147, Fig. no. 89; TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav, footnote 7, p. 97; MUZIKA, František, footnote 7, p. 285, Fig. no. 183; VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, pp. 58–59, Fig. no. 14, 885 p. The edition from 1738 is preserved in an incomplete unique copy in the Library of the Czech Academy of Sciences under the signature TH 1297. The second of the prints remains a mystery. It is also documented by a unique defective specimen in the Franciscan Monastery Library in Dačice (now deposited in the Moravian Library in Brno). Due to its physical unavailability (the print is probably lost, and it cannot be borrowed in Brno), it was not explored closer for purposes of our contribution. In its description we proceed from the K18665 library record and above all from the description in VOBR, Jaroslav. České tisky Moravské zemské knihovny v Brně a jihomoravských klášterních knihoven z let 1501–1800, 2005, pp. 132–133, No. 562. The main difference from the copies of A Heavenly Reveille from 1719 and 1738 is the total number of pages. Even more interesting are the manuscript notes in Dačice specimens dating from 1722. But that would mean that this edition had to come out before or at the very latest in that year, and it would definitely be older than the 1738 edition and maybe even the edition 1719.

A more detailed bibliographic description of the print is Rajská růže, vnově nejpotřebnějšíma modlitbami spanile vykvětlá [The Rose of Paradise Elegantly Blooming with the Most Necessary Prayers]. Vytištěna v Praze u Karla Rosenmüllera. [between 1705–1745]. 250 p. : ills.; 12°. A digital copy is available at http://www.mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10266996-7. The print is preserved in a unique copy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich under the signature Asc. 4176 u. It was discovered by colleague Daniel Kindl. Rosenmüller's Rose of Paradise has not been clearly identified in the Knihopis yet. It most resembles the record K15097. It records a manuscript copy of the Rose of Paradise from 1713, preserved in the Library of the National Museum under the signature III H 2. However, the print and handwriting titles are not exactly the same. Despite the initial match, the main text passages also differ. Moreover, the manuscript is mostly written in neo-Gothic semi-cursive and cursive script. The humanistic script only appears on the title page and rarely in the main text. If the scribe would have copied Rosenmüller's print directly, he would probably used a humanistic script. In handwritten copies of printed originals, it was customary to imitate, in addition to the text, the typographic appearance of the original print as accurately as possible. Hence, the handwritten Rose of Paradise captured in K15097 is not identical to our Roman type print.

But only the name of Karel Rosenmüller and not Karel František Rosenmüller appears in the impression of the described print. Shortening the name to the first name Karel and the surname was a renewed tradition in the Rosenmüller family. Jan Karel Rosenmüller was the first who presented himself like that, namely in the press from 1678 (K01246). Jan Karel, who died in 1708, was the father of the elder Karel František. He was an occasional writer and translator, but he was not a printer, see VOLF, Josef. Domnělí knihtiskaři pražští Matouš a Karel Rosenmüllerové. In: ODLOŽILÍK, Otakar ed. Českou minulostí, 1929, pp. 286–292 or CHYBA, Karel. Slovník knihtiskařů v Československu od nejstarších dob do roku 1860, 1966, p. 223. An imprint with the name of Karel Rosenmüller can be also found in other undated prints K13660, K13503, K13851 etc. and especially in dated prints K04743, K13959 (both from 1706), K12878 (171?), K13590 (1711), K11312 (1712), K13710, K18262 (both 1715), K17765, K00129 (both 1718), K17365, K17310, K14580 (all three from 1719), K02532 (1729), K02484 (1742). Thus, the shortened name was used both by the elder Karel František, and his descendant of the same name, the younger Karel František, where the older of Rosenmüllers were using it significantly more often. Based on this fact, we could assign the print of The Rose of Paradise to him and place the year of its publication between 1705 and 1727. In addition, the elder Karel František has published this title, besides the already analyzed edition of 1713 (see footnote 19), once again probably around 1711 (see Rajská růže vonnými modlitbami vyplněná, a ku potěšení … osobě [žen]ské přednešená. Vytištěna … léta 171[1?], described in detail in the handwritten alphabetical Supplements to Knihopis) in the classical neo-Gothic form, while the younger Karel František did not contribute with any re-edition.

The print is registered in the manuscript part of the alphabetical Supplements to Knihopis, see [Duchovní] poklad aneb Katolické modlitby, v niž se vynachází rozličné modlitby ranní, večerní, při mši svaté, před i po zpovědi a př[i]jímání, letanie a 15 modliteb s. Brigidy, sedm zámků a s pobožnými modlitbami okrášlené. Všem nábožným křesťanům [k] duchovnímu prospěchu a spasení vnově na světlo vydaný. V Praze u Karla Jaurnicha [1755–1767]. [2], 242, [3?] p. : ills. ; 12°. Only a unique specimen preserved in the Museum of Polabí in Poděbrady under the signature S 82 is known. We are thankful to colleague Alena Šeberlová for the opportunity to study it. According to the date of Jauernich's printing activity and the appearance of the book decor (e.g., distinctive decorative lines), we conclude that Jauernich's print is the oldest of the three copies of The Spiritual Treasures (see above). The undated Hilgartner's press, whose primacy in this group could also be considered, has a typographic decoration resembling the decor of prints from the seventies and eighties of the 18^th century.

It has survived a total of six copies of Jeřábek's Spiritual Treasure which are registered under the Knihopis record K14117, which represents the highest number of all characterized prayer-books that has been entirely printed in the Roman type. We worked with a copy from the National Library, Signature 54 K 11.072.

Hilgartner's print is unknown to Knihopis. Its bibliographic description is as follows Duchovní poklad aneb katolické modlitby, v němž se vynacházejí rozličné modlitby ranní, večerní, při mši svaté, před i po zpovědi a přijímáním, jakož i také letaniemi a patnácti modlitbami svaté Brigity okrášlený. Všem nábožným křesťanům k duchovnímu prospěchu a spasení. Nyní vnově na světlo vydaný. In Jindřicho-Hradcy, printed by Ignác Hilgartner. 166 p., 1 fig. A digital copy is available at http://www.manuscriptorium.com/apps/index. php?direct=record&pid=AIPDIG-MJ____JK_0843_____1BL9I46-cs. A unique copy of this print is under the signature JK 843 and it is owned by the Museum Jindřichohradecka in Jidřichův Hradec. The image reproduction of the title page without further commentary was published by BĚHALOVÁ, Štěpánka. Nebeklíče od Landfrasů: knižní bestsellery 19. století, 2017, p 9.

It is interesting that, Vojtěch Ignác Hilgartner was active until 1787, but he died only eight years later in 1795, see VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, p. 354. A large number of undated prints also come from his printing production. Some of them are also dated in Knihopis even after 1787. The possible date of printing of his Spiritual Treasure can be theoretically shifted and limited to 1795.

Wüber's manuscript comes from Jan Poš's private collection and is described in ŠIMKOVÁ, Anežka (ed.). Růžová zahrádka: rukopisné modlitební knížky 18. a 19. století: sbírka Jana Poše, 2009, pp. 66–69. There are a few examples of images. The Publishers consider this manuscript to be one of the rarest of Poš's entire Collection. They mainly emphasize its originality in both graphic and text aspects. We can now correct their evaluation by stating that Wüber followed the method of the prayer-books printed in the Roman type (mainly Jauernich or Hilgartner, Jeřábek logically disappears due to the date of his press until 1772), so he used in manuscript the humanistic upper-case or drawn lower-case letters and chose texts of some prayers that also occur in printed edition of The Spiritual Treasures. Comparing the manuscript image examples in the above cited publication with the original prints, it was found that the photographs on pp. 68-69 correspond to the text of Hilgartner's press on pp. 12–14, 136–137, 159–160, and Jauernich's press on pp. 13–18, 69, 186–187, 211, 218-219.

In addition to Knihopis, the bibliographic records of this print can be found in KLIMEKOVÁ, Agáta, Eva AUGUSTÍNOVÁ and Janka ONDROUŠKOVÁ. Bibliografia územne slovacikálnych tlačí 18. storočia, 2008, p. 23, No. 6373; Magyarország bibliographiája 1712–1860, 1989, p. 348. On the contrary, the press does not register a specialized inventory of Skalice's prints ŠPETKO, Jozef. Dejiny Škarniclovskej kníhtlačiarne v Skalici, 1958, p. 62. The name of the printer, Josef Antonín Škarnicl, is additionally complemented by the Slovak bibliography. We are also using as a source VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, p. 859. Theoretically, the elder František Xaver Škarnicl, who is said in the literature that he started printing in his father's workshop in 1780, (e.g., CHYBA, Karel, footnote 20, p. 269 or ŠPETKO, Josef. Dejiny … p. 22), could also be a printer. However, as a more evident beginning of his printing career is commonly stated the year 1799. The unique Škarnicl's copy of A Heavenly Reveille is stored in the Slovak National Library in Martin under the signature SE 5826. We are thankful for its lending to dr. Helena Saktorová.

The text is intentionally formulated vaguely because we are not able to clearly state that the only one Roman type edition of Heavenly Reveille was printed at Škarnicls after 1800. ŠPETKO, Jozef, footnote 26, pp. 61–119 (hereinafter referred to as Špetko); KLIMEKOVÁ, Agáta and Janka ONDROUŠKOVÁ. Bibliografia územne slovacikálnych tlačí 19. storočia, 2017, pp. 32–34 (hereinafter referred to as Slov. Bibl. of 19c, i.e. Slovak Bibliography of 19^th Century); Bibliografie 19. století [online], 2015/16–, https://retris.nkp.cz (hereinafter referred to only as NK-Katif of 19^th century) even mention another, and from years: 1807 (Špetko, No. 79; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9315), 1808 (Špetko, No. 82; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9316) or 1822 (Špetko No. 121; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9313). Unfortunately, there is no physical specimen available for all three editions, so it is not possible to find out what the print font was. Only in the editions of 1818 (Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9320) and 1824 (NK-Katif of 19^th century, scan No. 938) do we find out that they are printed in neo-Gothic script as well as the newer edition from the year 1832 (Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9318), 1833 (Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9319) or 1878 (Špetko, No. 667; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9322), 1886 (Špetko, No. 774; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9312), 1889 (Špetko, No. 799; Slov. Bibl. of 19c., No. 9317; NK-Katif 19. stol, scan No. 949).

The print is only recorded by Bibliografie 19. století [online], footnote 27, scan No. 938, see Nebeský budíček duše křesťanské skrze vroucné modlitby k spasitedlnému pokání a náboženství vzbuzující. S povolením cís. kr. censury. V Skalici vytištěný u Františka Xav. Škarnicla, 1826. 162 zachov. s. : il.; 12°. A defective copy of this book is stored in the Library of the National Museum under the signature 84 h 6.

The frequency of occurrence of Czech language Roman type text has been increasing since the seventies of the 18th century. The Roman type has begun to assert itself in spelling books, in professional Bohemian literature and eventually in the prints of fiction literature. Briefly, see HORÁK, František, footnote 7, pp. 204; TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav, footnote 7, p. 97; MUZIKA, František, footnote 7, pp. 285–286, 288–290; VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, pp. 59–60. A more detailed characteristic of this time period, concurrent with the National Revival, will be the subject of another article.

Jeřábek has added a third variant to the two previous Roman type versions. All Czech language text is printed in a standard neo-Gothic Schwabacher type or blackletter, see K03414, K03415, K03418. In the article, we will only focus on the Roman type editions. The Schwabacher type or blackletter editions will not be analyzed further in more detail.

The older Roman type edition of František Václav Jeřábek is undated and preserved in three copies, see K03409. We studied the copy of the Regional Museum in Kolín. We are thankful to Lenka Mazačová for making it accessible. The newer edition of the widow Jana Jeřábková dates back to 1800 and exists only in a unique piece stored in the Library of National Museum under the signature Obrození 6 D 131, see K03419.

This group specifically includes K03410, K03412, K03413, K03417, K18299–K18302 and one print from 1809, see Bibliografie 19. století [online], footnote 27, scan no. 65 or CNB – Česká národní bibliografie [online database], 1996–, http://aleph.nkp.cz, Record no. cnb001495978.

From numerous literature on printed or handwritten prayer-books from the 18^th to the 19^th century are named at least BĚHALOVÁ, Štěpánka, footnote 23, pp. 6–13; KVAPIL, Jan. Ze zahrádky do zahrady, aneb, Od Hortulu animae k Štěpné zahradě Martina z Kochemu, 2001, pp. 4–85; KUCHAŘOVÁ, Hedvika. Několik poznámek k modlitebním knihám 18. a 19. století. Listy filologické, 2009, pp. 263–287; ŠIMKOVÁ, Anežka (ed.), footnote 25, pp. 9–63.

There is a possibility to mark as a representative of this older edition of Heavenly Reveille the lost and defective specimen of the Franciscans from Dačice (K18665, see footnote 18). Unfortunately, this is not possible without direct confrontation with the print. Neither are we able to rely completely on Vobr’s and the Khihopis book record. In addition, there are some inconsistencies. In both editions of Tibelli (K18656, K18657) and also Škarnicl (K18660), the approbation and imprimatur are found on the fourth unmarked page, i.e., on the back of the title leaf (as page one and two is counted the half-title and a woodcut illustration on its reverse side.). But in the Dačice specimen, the title page is missing. The Bibliographical record in Knihopis K18665 does not list any censorship permissions. As the first surviving page, it describes the numbered page three, on which the Gospel passage begins. That is not found in K18656, K18657, K18660. As page one and two, Knihopis counts a non-preserved title leaf. According to him, the half-title was not included in K18665. The question remains as to what was on the back of the today missing title leaf, whether the woodcut or the censorship permission?

The hypothesis presented above is based mainly on the author's subjective assumptions. But with some problems, Tibelli had to meet. The two-year production period is for him quite unusual. From a survey of Knihopis records it was found that Tibelli had printed books in the same year he received censorship approval (e.g., K15344, K16668, K04733) or eventually in the year immediately following (e.g., K16416, K01752, K15345). His delay was therefore no longer than half a year. Only in the case of foil and the more than eight hundred pages long Slavíček rajský [The Nightingale of Paradise] (K01247) of Jan Josef Božan did the time of production last about three years. The approval was given in 1716 and the title was published in 1719. Only that work on this press would hamper the preparation of Tibelli's next book production.

In the 18^th century copies of The Core were also published by other Prague and regional printers. Among them were Oldřich Gröbel (K18293), Jan Josef Gröbel (K18295), Emanuel Antonín Svoboda (K18294), the heirs of Emanuel Antonín Svoboda (K18296), Ignác Vojtěch Hilgartner (K03416), Václav Vojtěch Tureček (K03411) a Ignác Václav Dekrt (K18297). However, all their editions were printed in the neo-Gothic script.

The chalkographic prayer-books from German speaking countries could serve as a model for Jeřábek. Especially Maria Joseph Clement Kaukol has reached a mastery in this respect and his Christlicher Seelen-Schatz Außerlesener Gebetter from 1729 (see VD18-Datenbank [online database], 2009–, record No. VD18 13649450) or Viennese engraver and publisher Johann Jakob Lidl with the title Goldener Gnaden Fluß from 1753 (VD18-Datenbank [online database], 2009–, record No. VD18 11029838). The publishing of both prints preceded Jeřábek's Cores, however, their engraved font mimics rather a calligraphically drawn fracture than a superficial cursive current script, so it cannot be assured with certainty that it was used as a direct inspiration.

Heavenly Keys were published in more than one hundred and twenty editions during the entire 18^th century (the oldest being in 1701, see K05281). However, they had different title and content variants e.g., Nebeklíč, Duchovní nebeklíč, Malý nebeklíč, Malý zlatý nebeklíč, Nový nebeklíč, Polovičnízlatý nebeklíč, Zlatý nebeklíč, Zlatý nebeský klíč [A Heavenly Key, A Spiritual Heavenly Key, A Small Heavenly Key, A Small Golden Heavenly Key, A New Heavenly Key, A Half Golden Heavenly Key, A Golden Heavenly Key, A Key of Heaven].

In addition to copies of Tibelli's Heavenly Reveille, about another eleven editions of this title had been published by the end of the 18^th century, according to Knihopis. None of them had the Roman type. The Rose of Paradise had a total of more than twenty editions. Again, there was no Roman type. The Spiritual Treasure was printed in neo-Gothic script more than ten times. Concerning the copies of The Core, see footnotes 30 and 36.

The conclusions mentioned above are based on a bibliographic survey conducted within the Bibliografie 19. století [online], footnote. 27. In the case of copies of A Heavenly Reveille, The Rose of Paradise, The Spiritual Treasure and The Cores, bibliographic records usually note the type of formulation like "individual words in the Roman type", "the Roman type in some places" or "individual letters in the Roman type", which suggests the superiority of the neo-Gothic printing type. This is confirmed by transcripts of titles or content parts where the Roman type is almost absent. An example of the full-Roman type print is e.g., Duchovní budíček [A Spiritual Reveille] published in 1860 by Landfrases, see CNB – Česká národní bibliografie [online database], footnote 32, record No. cnb001534551.

About its strong damage and foreign provenance see MUZIKA, František, footnote 7, p. 285, while JOHANIDES, Josef, footnote 17, p. 44 and VOIT, Petr, footnote 2, pp. 59 and 885 talks only about non-Czech imported origin. HORÁK, František, footnote 7, p. 150 and TOBOLKA, Zdeněk Václav, footnote 7, p. 97 do not speak about the history of the type. Horák even divides Václav Jan Tibelli into two printers Václav Tibelli and Jan Tibelli.

The word 'most' is intentionally used in the text above because not all editions of The Cores have been inspected in this survey. Only the editions K03410, K03412, K03417, K18299, K18302 were available for study.

VOIT, Petr, Tiskové písmo Čech a Moravy … footnote 7, pp. 182–183.

MACH, David. Českojazyčné modlitební knihy 18. století tištěné antikvou a počátky tohoto tiskového písma v českém knihtisku. Knihovna: knihovnická revue. 2018, 29(2), 51–73. ISSN 1801-3252.