Tom O'Neil Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Neither look exactly like a Caxton 1st or 2nd Edition - but then although the script is Burgundian there are variants (I think even within each of Caxton's two printings) The general formation of what looks like a y (which I gather was an i for the end of words or where it would look good)would be as follows 1. a down stroke from mid-height to the line with a slight turn to right at the bottom 2. a down stroke from same mid-height slightly to the right of the first, this turns to almost horizontal to track left and meet the first 3. it continues in a wide cursive loop similar open to the right Neither of these look correct - the first has a distinct right to left upwards stroke to join the two downstrokes and the second is formed by first making a left to right downstroke. Secondly the question is a little odd - Neither are "From the Canterbury Tales" as such; the oldest version we have of the Tales was handwritten after Chaucer's death by a friend/colleague - so potential thoughts of an "original" canonical version are moot. Works of literature have text not type - whereas impressions, printings and books have type and script. My copy of the Canterbury tales has both the Burgundian Script of Caxton, the Times New Roman of a transliteration, and the Italic Roman of a modern English translation - all are "The Canterbury Tales" as much as each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now