 | |  |
Notes
I should like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Fredson Bowers for his kindness in reading an earlier draft of this paper and for giving me the benefit of his invaluable criticism and suggestions.
The imprint in both works reads: "IN VENETIA. || Appresso ALDO MANVTIO. || M D LXIX." and the books are assigned to Aldus Jr. by the Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in Italy and of Italian Books Printed in other Countries from 1465 to 1600 now in the British Museum (1958), p. 882. In Antoine Augustin Renouard, Annales de l'imprimerie des Alde (Paris, 1834), p. 206, they are listed under Paul Manuce.
In the University of Pennsylvania copy *46-1585, page 75 is signed N3 instead of L2, while other copies (e. g., Yale, Paris) are signed L3. Apparently the printer wished to correct the wrong signature mark L3 but mistakenly altered it to N3 rather than to the correct L2.
The University of Pennsylvania copy 858 C22 R has page 59 misnumbered 58, and there is an indentation at line 16. Other copies (thus the two in the British Museum and the four in the Bibliothèque Nationale) have the correct pagination and no indentation, apparently the result of stop-press emendation. The misprint on this page noted in the errata, however, is not corrected in either state.
For example, in the copies: Bodleian Library, Toynbee 702; John Carter Brown Library; Princeton University Library.
Thus in the following copies: Bodleian Library, Auct. R. 1. 5. 18; Trinity College Cambridge, N. 3. 41; Harvard College Library; Bibliothèque Nationale, Rés. C. 1418 (3), Rés. C. 1482, and C. 1483.
This is made evident by the fact that, in the Rime, the errata printed on signature O4v [p. 104] includes the correction of a misprint on page 101 (O3 recto). Thus, both the mistake and the correction are printed in the outer forme of the same signature. If O3 had not already been printed, the printer could not have been aware of the misprint — or, if he had been aware of the error through page-proof or the like, he could have corrected the slip at the proper place without further comment. In the Orationi, the errata printed on T6 corrects a misprint on p. 137 (T1), the conjugate leaf. In short (and for the same reason as given above), the errata in the inner forme could only have been compiled after the outer forme had been printed, though normally the inner one was printed first. Water-marks appear on the two inner sheets, proving that the innermost pair form the odd half-sheet in this quire.
Copy *46-1586 (Pennsylvania) presents a problem. A single leaf, with the simple heading "Errori de la stampa," is inserted between T5 and T6. T1 and T6 are certainly conjugates, and T6 has an obvious offset from T5v, proving that the errata leaf is inserted and is not the original T6. This might suggest that there was a fourth set of errata, one printed as an insert but with the shorter heading. To the writer, however, it seems more probable that this insert was the original T6 of some other copy and that it was added to the present copy long after the offsetting had occurred.
Thus in copies Pennsylvania 858 C22 R (Caro and Gregory) and Bodleian Toynbee 1116 (Rime only).
The errata is wanting in the following copies of the Rime: Trinity College Cambridge, N. 3. 40; British Museum, G 11117 and 85. c. 2; Pennsylvania *46-1585; Bodley, Auct. 2. R. III. 34; Bibliothèque Nationale, Rés. Yd 667; Harvard College Library (not bound with Gregory); Yale University and University of Illinois Libraries. These copies of the Due orationi lack the errata: British Museum, 1412. h. 17 and 85. c. 2; Yale and Illinois (both bound with Rime); New York Public Library; and Bibliothèque Nationale, C. 1481.
In the Due orationi too, of course, the printed version differs from the inserted ones, which alone have the heading "NELLE ORATIONI."
It could also, for example, be inserted after O4. The collation for the Rime is: Quarto; *4 B-P4. Quire P contains only the "Tavola" for Caro's verse.
As we have seen, it is bound between T5 and T6 in one copy. The collation for the Due orationi is: Quarto; *4 B-S4 T6.
One may also debate as to whether the ideal copy is one with the errata printed in it or one with an inserted leaf (or sheet). If both forms are "ideal copies," then the collational formula would exist in four (possibly five) varying forms (singly, with and without extra leaf; together, with and without inserted sheet or leaves). In any case, the inclusion of the errata was not envisaged when publication was begun — and it is possible (though not very likely) that a considerable length of time elapsed before the errata was produced. However, so large a percentage of copies without errata is noted here that it seems equally unlikely that the addition of the errata was determined upon immediately after original publication of the two books. This possible time interval may raise the problem as to whether we are here dealing with states or issues.
Professor Bowers has suggested to me that this would present no problem, if one argues that the two works together form a collected edition, and that the sheet exists solely as a supplement to the two-work unit. In that case, the ideal formula would simply be a variant, consisting of the formulae for the two works with the sheet χ2 between them. Nevertheless, one must face the possibility that the survival of the double errata as conjugate leaves may be purely accidental and not by the will of the printer. Under these circumstances, we do not actually know what the printer had in mind — and how he wished the "ideal copy" to appear (if, indeed, he had the slightest interest in the matter). In any case, I cannot find any simple explanation as to why different settings were needed — or used — to supply the errata.
| | |