victim. The book by Koopmans finally contains some chapters, which test certain assumptions, for example, concerning the newspapers’ accuracy in describing contemporary events, like the Shipworm disaster in the 1730s. Did news on war and diplomacy always travel the shortest way? Was the Dutch censorship really as weak as foreign observers claimed? Koopman’s volume fits well with the growing interest in the early modern news market. News was disseminated in different ways, although the new genres were rather distinct in themselves. The volume shows Koopmans as a diligent reader and observer of the news market, which we still do not understand in all of its details. Especially, the role of censorship is hard to tell. Newspaper editors usually had no reason to engage in politics, which restricted the censorship cases quite often to matters of the prince’s honour. However, that could be harmed easily. What’s more, if censorship was weak, why then were news on local events so very late, and not just in the Netherlands? What can we learn from creating digitalized databases on printed and handwritten newspapers about the ways in which news travelled, translated and edited? Moreover, are the results of a big data analysis worth the enormous investments in time and resources necessary to produce the database? Finally, contemporaries emphasized the proximity of news and historiography, as a rule. But what does that say about their understanding of both genres? These are some of the questions that occur, while reading the multi-faceted book by Koopmans. There is still a lot to do. However, Koopmans takes us a long way by presenting his insights. I do hope, he will continue in his efforts to investigate the Dutch news market.

中文翻译：

---

图像，刀和胶锅：手稿和印刷品的早期组合

受害者。Koopmans的书最后包含一些章节，这些章节检验了某些假设，例如，有关报纸在描述当代事件（如1730年代的Shipworm灾难）中的准确性。战争和外交新闻是否总是走得最短？荷兰的审查制度真的像外国观察员所说的那样弱吗？Koopman的数量与对早期现代新闻市场日益增长的兴趣非常吻合。新闻以不同的方式传播，尽管新形式本身非常不同。该卷显示Koopmans是新闻市场的勤奋读者和观察者，但我们仍无法完全了解其所有细节。特别是，审查制度的作用很难说出来。报纸编辑通常没有理由参与政治，这将审查案件经常限制在王子的荣誉上。但是，这很容易受到伤害。此外，如果检查制度薄弱，那么为什么有关当地事件的新闻那么晚，而不仅仅是在荷兰？通过在印刷和手写报纸上建立数字化数据库，我们可以学到有关新闻传播，翻译和编辑方式的信息？此外，大数据分析的结果是否值得在生产数据库所需的时间和资源上进行大量投资？最后，同时代人通常强调新闻和历史学的接近性。但是，这说明他们对这两种类型的理解又如何呢？这些是在阅读库普曼斯撰写的多面书时出现的一些问题。还有很多事情要做。然而，考夫曼斯（Koopmans）通过介绍他的见解使我们走了很长一段路。我确实希望，他将继续努力调查荷兰新闻市场。