The First Edition of Ficino's De
Christiana
Religione: A Problem in Bibliographical
Description.
by
Curt F. Bühler
[1]
The first edition of the De christiana religione by
Marsilius Ficinus[2] was produced at
Florence, some time within the month following 10 November 1476, by
Nicolaus Laurentii,[3] a German
printer who had emigrated to Italy from his native diocese of Breslau. The
book itself is an unsigned quarto, and the collation given in the British
Museum's monumental incunabula catalogue reads: [a b10
c-f8
g6+1 h-p8 q10
*2]. A manuscript entry in the Museum's
own "working copy" of this catalogue[4] notes that "[g]1 was occupied by
the same
text as [g]2 in a different setting-up & was cancelled. The Phillipps
copy
(Sotheby sale cat. 25 Nov. 1946 no. 122) contained both leaves. Sold to
Harvard Univ. Lib." Accordingly, it would seem proper to emend the
collation of this copy so that the seventh quire would be described as
[g]8-1.
A thorough consideration of the problem presented by this irregular
quire poses such questions as to WHY the duplication of text came into
being, WHAT would be the true make-up of an ideal copy of this printing,
and HOW should the seventh quire be properly listed?
Turning, then, to the redundant text, a close comparison of the two
settings shows that for fifty lines the two agree, line for line;[5] the only difference between the
two
occurs in lines 5-6 of the verso, where [g]1 divides "criſti∥ana" and
[g]2 has "chriſtia∥na." Such agreement can hardly
be accidental!
[6] Of even greater
significance, at least in the opinion of the writer, is the fact that both
settings offer the identical misprints or errors: in line 4 (recto), both copies
have "ſactio" where "ſanctio" is required; in line 12, "elegi" for
"elegit"; in line 12 (verso), "denu(m)ptiat" for "denunciat"; and in line 14,
both read "permictit" where "permittit" is wanted.
[7] Of course, the archetype itself
might have
been corrupt at these several places—but it seems strange that no
emendation was attempted for these rather obvious mistakes by the
compositor of either setting. Then, too, neither setting is any real
improvement on the other; on the verso, setting [g]1 has the slip "exrahi"
for the "extrahi" on [g]2, while [g]2 incorrectly has "ſeruari" where
"ſeruare" is preferable.
[8] In any
event, minor corrections of this sort could have been made in the forme
without the
necessity of resetting two entire pages of type. Significantly enough, the
two rectos display only orthographic variations,
[9] so that it cannot very well be
argued that
the printer reset the type in order to correct his text and then, by some
mishap, used both settings in the printing.
Before analyzing our chief problem, it would be best to examine
briefly Laurentii's printing practices at this time, which marked the very
outset of his career as an independent printer.[10] His two earliest productions appear
to be
the work under discussion and an Italian version of this same text (HCR
7071; Stillwell Census F135), both being quartos. The
evidence
of the watermarks suggests that these books were printed by half-sheet
imposition, for in some five quires of two copies,[11] watermarks are found in six of the
eight
leaves. Again, it is clear that Laurentii possessed at least two presses; the
BMC (VI:625), for example, remarks that, in the Italian version, "a
miscalculation of the length of ch. 28 has resulted in the greater part of
81b and the whole of 82 (end of quire [k]) being left
blank. Possibly
the book was set up on three presses, ending with quires [e], [k] and [o]
respectively." That quire [l] was probably printed before [k] seems
reasonable enough, and two presses may, therefore, be postulated.
However, a third press could hardly have started with quire [f], since this
begins in the middle of the word "[absti]nentia." Finally, it seems certain
that Laurentii was not printing from cast-off copy but that he was setting
type seriatim by pages. Of the 27 quires in the two volumes which come
into consideration, 10 begin in the middle of a sentence and 16 in the
middle of a word.
[12] Since he was
following this practice (in effect, printing as in folio), it is likely that he
was working "from inside out"; that is, in the order: [g]4-[g]5, [g]3-[g]6,
[g]2-[g]7, and [g]1-[g]8
Only one explanation for the redundant text—and not a very
good
one at that—has occurred to the writer. For the printing of the two
innermost sheets, there was, of course, no problem, but either with the
third or with the outermost one, Laurentii may well have suddenly
discovered that, by some miscalculation, he did not have enough pages to
fill out the formes. Clearly, there was some excellent reason for his not
being able to use two pages from the next quire as type-high
supports—and one may consequently assume that quire [h] was then
either printing or had already been printed off. Thus, one may again assume
that Laurentii was working with at least two presses.
Now if the printer did not realize that he was short of type-pages till
he was machining [g]2-[g]7, then it is self-evident that [g]2 must be the
earlier setting. For some reason not clear to us, Laurentii apparently had no
standing type [or blocks, furniture or quads] to make up the two pages
necessary to fill the formes. His compositor was, therefore, obliged to
supply him with two duplicate pages, which he set up quickly from the
already printed copy. If, however, Laurentii was working with more than
one press, he might have been machining the two sheets simultaneously, in
which case it would be impossible to determine whether [g]1 or [g]2 was
set first.
The purpose of these two reset pages was, of course, to act as
"bearers" which were probably never meant to be inked but simply to serve
as a support during the printing. Normally, they would have provided a
blank leaf, subsequently to be cut out. Here, however, they were inked and
printed, and thus escaped excision.[13]
Examples of accidental inking and
printing of "bearer" type, and the consequent survival of such, are not
unknown in the incunabula period.
[14]
In any case, one cannot assert with any degree of certainty which pages
were set first or which leaf was supposed to have been excised.
[15]
For the descriptive bibliographer, of course, the perplexing problem
is what will here constitute an "ideal copy" and what index number shall be
given to the seventh quire. According to Professor Fredson Bowers[16] (and all will agree with him on
this), "an
ideal copy is not a redundant copy." With this in mind, one may well argue
that [g]8 would not be, in the least, acceptable. Equally,
any
bibliographer of the Greg-Bowers school would argue that an "index figure
should represent the number of conjugate quired leaves in the original
gathering, with all abnormalities accounted for by other means."[17] An uneven index-number is
repugnant to
this school of bibliography,[18] and for
very excellent reasons too, since a sheet could not very well be machined
with an odd number of leaves. Therefore [g]7, too, is
inadmissible.
One could, of course, write [g]8 (-g1) if one were positive
that
the publisher wished the first leaf to be cut out, or [g]8
(-g2) if it were
the second which Laurentii might have wished to suppress.
Since the ideal copy is that which represents the "most perfect state
of the book as the printer or publisher finally intended to issue it,"[19] one turns to the surviving copies
to see
if a clue as to what Laurentii's intention was might be discovered there.
The make-up of the seventh quire in the sixteen copies known to the writer
provides the following information:
Four copies have only [g]1:
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale [A.7.8]
Oxford, Bodleian Library [Auct. 1 Q 5.59]
San Marino, Huntington Library [Mead 3578 and 3579][20]
Four copies have only [g]2:
Bryn Mawr, Bryn Mawr College Library [Goodhart, p. 59][21]
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale [D.7.6.6]
London, British Museum [IA. 27111]
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana [Incun. 903]
Eight copies have both:
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Library
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale [B.5.18]
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana
Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III [S.Q.V.C.9]
New York, Curt F. Bühler
Oxford, Bodleian Library [Auct. 1 Q inf. 1. 7]
Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana
Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana [Stamp. Ross. 1026]
What can be deduced from this? Perhaps the not unreasonable
assumption that Laurentii may have been quite indifferent to [possibly even
ignorant of] the true state of affairs. It is certainly unclear whether such
excisions as there are were made in the shop or by the individual
purchasers. That one or the other leaf should have been deleted is quite
self-evident, but this does not get us very far. One may still wonder (1)
whether the publisher [as distinct from the press-man or compositor] was
aware of the repetition, (2) whether, being aware of it, he had any interest
in what the purchaser did about it, or (3) whether he himself cut out one or
the other of the offending leaves in those copies still unsold when he
discovered the duplication, without caring very much which of the leaves
he removed. In view of such uncertainties as these, how can the ideal copy
be identified and what should be the index number of the seventh
quire?
Notes