 | |  |
Bibliographers[1] have almost unanimously agreed that the descriptive terms Folio, Quarto and Octavo[2] refer to the number of times the original sheet of paper had been folded. The sheet folded once, with the chainlines vertical and the watermark in the center of one of the resulting two leaves, forms a folio (2°); folded twice, the chainlines horizontal and the "filigrane" in the middle of the fold, is a quarto (4°). Folded a third time (octavo = 8°), the chainlines are again vertical and the watermark will appear at the top of the inner margin in four leaves.
It is also normal to assume that, in a volume with folio leaves, the actual printing (machining) provided two pages on each side of a sheet; in a quarto, four on the same side of each sheet; and in an octavo, eight.[3] There cannot be much doubt that this is true for the vast majority of cases — but it is not always so.[4] Such abnormalities must be taken into consideration whenever the examination of a volume discloses problems which cannot be explained by an analysis based on the norm.
When we come to editions described as "Folio and Quarto." or "Quarto and Octavo" are we to believe that some sheets (as in the first instance, for example) were printed as folios and others as quartos? If this were true and since all leaves must necessarily be of the same size, these quarto leaves must have been printed on a very large press (quite different from that used to print the folio leaves) with paper twice the size of that used for the folios.[5]
Let us examine a few instances. The Sermones quadragesimales de poenitentia by Robertus Caracciolus, printed in two editions by Franciscus Renner at Venice in 1472, has in both cases the collation: [a-i10 k6 l-t10 u12 x-z10 A-C10 D12]. Both editions are described as "2° und 4°" by the Gesamtkatalog
From this analysis, it seems highly probable that the entire book (as well as the earlier edition) was printed as a folio — and that the quarto leaves are merely the result of double-sheets having been cut in half[11] and
Even more curious cases — and perhaps more enlightening — are those of certain mixed 4° and 8° volumes, in particular two undated publications (probably of the late 1470s) by Johannes Schurener in Rome: Modestus, De re militari, and Solinus, De mirabilibus mundi. So far as the Modestus is concerned, my own copy, which collates: [a8 b12 c10], agrees with that in the British Museum (BMC IV:59 — IA. 17768) in the fact that "the inner sheet of quire [a] and the two outer sheets of quire [b] are quarto". But in quire [a], my copy has a watermark in only the first and second leaves,[15] the wrong two leaves since in full octavo folding one expects to find the watermarks in either of these four leaves: 1, 4, 5 and 8 or 2, 3, 6 and 7.[16] Furthermore, one of the two inner sheets is quarto and the other is octavo. They could never, therefore, have been conjoined. In quire [b], a watermark appears in my copy only on [b]4 (an octavo leaf), showing that this sheet was never attached to any other sheet(s) in this particular signature. In quire [c], a watermark appears only on the sixth and seventh leaves — but not in any other. These facts would seem to preclude the possibility that the machining was carried on in such fashion as to print either four or eight pages on one side of a sheet of paper and then binding these sheets together.
The Solinus (collation: [a4 b-i10 k-l8 m-n10])[17] offers even further complications. The British Museum's description (BMC IV:59) of its two copies points out that both have the second and third sheets of quire [l] as quarto and that, in IA. 17771, the outer sheet of quire [a] is also quarto, though octavo in IA. 17772 (G. 8938). So far as concerns quire [l], it is instructive to consider the Cambridge University Library copy (Oates 1410), for in this volume only the second sheet is quarto.[18] Accordingly, only a single sheet of quarto is found in a signature of eight leaves, otherwise octavo. One wonders where the other half of this sheet, if printed, is to be found.
A close comparison of the quarto and octavo leaves of [a]1 and [a]4 indicates that these were printed from the same setting of type.[19] Further, IA. 17771 proves conclusively that the first quire must have been machined as two separate sheets, with only two pages printed on each side. In short, these seem to have been printed on rather a small press with imposition as in folio.
The same "mixed foldings" can also be found north of the Alps. As a characteristic example, one may cite the Psalterium Germanicum, [Strassburg: Heinrich Eggestein, c. 1475 = Goff P-1074]. The collation is somewhat complicated, and BMC I:74[20] suggests the formula: [a-f10 g8+2 h8+1 i-k10]. This does not, however, tell the whole story, since Eggestein apparently had considerable difficulty with the imposition. Actually, in quire [c], leaves 7 through 10 are mounted on stubs in both the Morgan (PML 26106) and the Scheide copies,[21] and so also is [h]9 in the former copy (wanting in the latter). The Scheide (though not the Morgan) example also has [b]10 mounted on a stub.
In the Morgan example, quires [a] and [i] are octavo, all the other leaves being quarto except [k]4.7 (octavo).[22] But this sheet is also quarto in the Scheide volume! The watermarks also supply interesting evidence. In the octavo quire [a] of both copies, watermarks appear only on leaves 2 and 4 of PML 26106 and on 3 and 5 of the Scheide copy. This would be impossible if the sheet had been printed with the usual eight pages on one side of the sheet. Again, in the Morgan quarto quire [d], watermarks appear on eight of the ten leaves (only 3.8 being without a mark), an impossibility if printing had been carried on in the normal quarto manner. There seems to be no other explanation available but to assume that the printing proceeded on half-sheets of normal paper and quarter-sheets of the double paper, but in each case with only two pages on each side of every sheet (that is, as in folio printing). It thus became possible for the pressman to print the entire inner or outer forme with a single pull of the lever.[23]
The material set forth above[24] leads to the conclusion that "format" for the fifteenth-century printer occasionally represented something quite different from what it does to the twentieth-century bibliographer. The researcher must needs be wary of traps of this sort which may lie in wait for him; that he cannot, for example, judge the number of pages originally printed on one side of a sheet of paper by the position of the chainlines and the watermarks.
| | |