extrait de :
Science and civilisation in China
sous la direction de Joseph Needham
Volume 5, part I :
Paper and printing
par Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin
professor emeritus of chinese literature and library science and
curator emeritus of the far eastern library at the univerity of
Chicago.
pp 220-222 :
Until the advent of modern typography, woodblock printing had always
been the principal vehicle of traditional Chinese printing, and it is natural
to ask why printing with movable type, although invented as early as the
mid‑eleventh century, was not more widely used in China. The most important
and obvious reason is, of course, the nature of written Chinese. It is
composed of thousands of ideograms which are needed in any extensive writing,
and since several types are needed for each character, and for the commoner
ones twenty or more, a fount of at least 200,000 Chinese types is not unusual
(b). The contrast with an alphabetical language becomes clear when it is
realised that a complete fount containing upperand lower‑case letters,
numerals and other signs, consists of no more than a hundred différent
symbols. So it seems that the need for such great numbers in an ideographic
language reduced the practîcability of movable‑type printing in
China.
Another significant factor has been indicated in quoting Shen Kua, who
said that for only two or three copies the movable‑type method would be
neither simple nor easy, though for printing hundreds or thousands it was
marvellously quick. The technique of inking and rubbing is only a minor part
of the whole process of using movable type, while the major use of labour is
in assembling the type and, after use, distributing it for future service (c).
Thus movable‑type printing is desirable only for large‑quantity production,
because only then is the average time for each copy reduced to a practical and
economic level (d).
Unlike plates of set type, printing blocks can be preserved
indefinitely and used over and over again, with only occasional retouching or
repairing (e). Block printing and movable‑type printing therefore serve
different needs: the former, recurrent demands for small quantities over
relatively long periods; the latter, large quantities at one printing. The
former was precisely the pattern of book demand and supply in traditional
Chinese society; therefore movable type could not replace the printing block.
Printers in old China made tens of copies at a time, and stored the printing
blocks, which could be taken out at any later date for additional copies. Thus
they avoided the unnecessary holding of printed books in stock and of tying up
capital. Block printing was therefore predominant in traditional Chinese
publication.
As far as capital investment was concerned, movable‑type printing posed
much greater financial burdens on printers. Costs of paper and ink were
relatively constant, but for the movable‑type itself a tremendous initial
investment was needed for making the vast number of characters needed, and
compared very unfavourably with the small cost of wood blocks and of the
labour of engraving them. In the long run, the fact that movable types could
be re‑used was an advantage, but very few printers could afford such a
long‑term investment, while the fact that block‑engravers were plentiful and
inexpensive made printers the more reluctant to change a well‑established
process.
Furthermore, scholars required that the printed page be free of textual
errors and that the calligraphy be artistic. Movable type, especially in the
early stages of its development, did not always fulfil these requirements,
while printing from wood‑blocks made possible a great variety of typographical
effects, and lent a distinction and an individuality to the printed page which
fonts of uniform type could not equal. Moreover, the rigidity of the one‑piece
block made for a better appearance of the printed page than did movable type,
and when, as sometimes, the text was carved directly from the author's copy,
errors which occur with typesetting and proof‑reading were
eliminated.
It has been mentioned that metal type did not hold Chinese watery inks
well. This was also true of earthenware and porcelain type, which had the
additional disadvantage that uneven changes in size sometimes occurred during
the necessary baking process, resulting in uneven matching of the type. All
these factors contributed to an aesthetic inferiority which prevented
movable‑type printing from becoming popular.
From the technological point of view, the production of a hundred
movable types was much more difficult than engraving a printing block with a
hundred characters. Grouping the types into retrievable order posed another
problem, and to deal with it very skilled labour, usually involving
considerable linguistic knowledge, had to be employed. The collective effect
of all these factors therefore produced a situation very unfavourable for the
development of movable‑type a printing in the very culture where it was
invented.
(a) For example, the bronze‑type edition of Mo Tzu in blue ink, and the
several collected works of Thang authors printed in Chih‑chheng
(Chien‑ning).
(b) More than 2oo,ooo bronze characters were made by the imperial
palace printing shop of the Chhing dynasty for printing the Thu Shu Chi Chheng
around 1725 and over 250,000 wooden characters for printing the Wu ring Tien
Chü Chen Pan Tshung Shu in 1733. Some 400,ooo bronze characters were also made
by a private printer in the early 19th century.
(c) Reprinting of movable‑type editions was not easy. Many books are
known to have been printed first from movable type and later from blocks.
Apparently it would not have been economical to reset the types for another
edition.
(d) For instance, in the 1574 edition of the Sung encyclopaedia Thai
Phing Yü Lan we find the statement, 'Over one hundred copies were printed with
bronze movable type. An edition Of 400 copies was printed by Chai ChinSheng ou
Chin‑ with earthenware type in 1847.
(e) There are numerous records in Chinese documents of the transmission
of printing blocks from generation to generation. Some editions, known as san
chhao pen,' were printed with blocks cut in Sung, repaired in Yüan, and reused
in Ming, through three dynasties.
(f) See Poon Ming‑Sun (2), pp.
185‑7.