printers’ ink

Preparation Steps

Original Recipe Text

The text references the 'second benefit' of printing as outlined in İbrahim Müteferrika’s 1729 tract, Vesiletü’t-Tıba’a. In this defense of the printing press, Müteferrika specifically identifies 'printers' ink' as being 'more durable than the ink of manuscript copies' (p. 80). While specific chemical formulations—such as the proportions of carbon black to linseed oil—are not explicitly detailed in this scholarly overview, the ink is characterized by its resistance to fading and degradation relative to the traditional aqueous inks used by Ottoman scribes. This material durability was presented to the Ottoman state as a primary justification for adopting mechanical printing as a tool for preserving and disseminating knowledge (p. 80).

Evidence

"The second benefit of Vesiletü’t-Tıba’a describes printers’ ink as more durable than the ink of manuscript copies... Both of these arguments rely on extended observation and a familiarity with printing over time."

Remarks

This entry documents the historical perceived superiority of early Ottoman printing ink. Author J.R. Osborn explains that the claim of superior durability was a cornerstone of Müteferrika's argument for state-supported printing, aimed at cultivating a newly educated diplomatic core (p. 75, 76). The analysis of the ink's properties in this context is based on 'extended observation and a familiarity with printing over time' by 18th-century Ottoman intellectuals (p. 80). The press used moveable type to standardize bureaucratic and administrative documents that were previously written in varied scribal scripts like 'ta’liq' for religious judgements (fatwā) and 'diwani' for royal decrees (firman) (p. 77). This move toward printed standardization reflected a 'generational shift' in the Ottoman structure of feeling regarding textual production and preservation (p. 83).