Two Gutenberg Bibles Used as Compositor\'s Exemplars

356

Bibliographical Society of America

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

357

Two Gutenberg Bibles Used as Compositor’s Exemplars Mayumi Ikeda

T

wo surviving copies of the Gutenberg Bible (issued c. 1455; ISTC ib00526000), both on paper, were decorated by a Mainz illuminator known as the Fust Master. One is at the Biblioteca Pública Provincial in Burgos (Inc. 66), and the other, which contains the Old Testament only and is bound in a single volume, is held in the Morgan Library and Museum, New York (PML 12).1 The Fust Master has long been discussed in 1. Although the Morgan copy is bound in a single volume, for the foliation I adhere to the conventional two-volume system of the Gutenberg Bible, in which the ‰rst volume ends at the conclusion of Psalms (I 324v) and the second volume starts at the beginning of Proverbs. The actual folio number in the conventional second volume of the Morgan copy is given in brackets following the conventional folio number. A complete digital facsimile of this copy, accompanied by a Mayumi Ikeda is a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellow at Keio University and wrote her dissertation on the ‰fteenth-century German illuminator known as the Fust Master. She is currently working on the decoration and illustration of early German printed books. A research trip made for this study to the Morgan Library and Museum, New York, was funded by the Central Research Fund of the University of London. The author received generous support from the Digital Archive Research Center and the HUMI Project of Keio University in carrying out the research for this study, which included funding research trips to New York and Valladolid and making digital images of the Morgan Gutenberg Bible. The author wishes to thank John Bidwell at the Morgan Library and Museum and Alejandro Carrión Gútiez at the Biblioteca de Castilla y León in Valladolid for facilitating research at the respective libraries. She is particularly grateful to Masaaki Kashimura, formerly of the HUMI Project, for assistance in examining the Burgos Gutenberg Bible in Valladolid. Paul Needham very kindly read an earlier draft of this article, checked Appendix II, and oˆered insightful comments. The article was much improved in the last stage thanks to Eric White’s careful reading and suggestions. PBSA

106:3 (2012): 357–72

358

Bibliographical Society of America

relation to the earliest printing business in Mainz, not least because of these two richly illuminated Gutenberg Bibles, the ‰rst printed Bible edition issued by the printing shop presumably organized by Johann Gutenberg in Mainz. In fact, the Fust Master’s works are found in several editions of books published between 1457 and 1465 from another printing o‹ce in Mainz run by Johann Fust and Peter Schöˆer, hinting at a close relationship between the illuminator and this o‹ce.2 It must, therefore, be no coincidence that these two Gutenberg Bibles, embellished by an artist who worked for the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce, were found to contain evidence that physically links them to this o‹ce, as will be reported in this article; in these two copies were discovered so-called compositor’s marks. In this study I will make a detailed analysis and interpretation of this new ‰nding in an attempt to make the best possible sense of the traces left by the compositors. As will be shown in this study, the compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos copies provide crucial information not only on the use of the two copies at the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce, but also how these two copies were closely related to each other. detailed description of it by John Bidwell, is available online at http://www. themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/default. 2. The Fust Master’s work in incunables was ‰rst discussed in Adolf Goldschmidt, “The Decoration of Early Mainz Books,” Magazine of Art 31 (1938): 579–81. See also Eberhard König, “The InŠuence of the Invention of Printing on the Development of German Illumination,” in Manuscripts in the Fifty Years after the Invention of Printing: Some Papers Read at a Colloquium at the Warburg Institute on 12–13 March 1982, ed. J. B. Trapp (London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1983), 85–94, esp. 87–9; Eberhard König, “Für Johannes Fust,” in Ars impressoria: Entstehung und Entwicklung des Buchdrucks; Eine internationale Festgabe für Severin Corsten zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Hans. Limburg, Hartwig Lohse, and Wolfgang Schmitz (Munich: Saur, 1986), 285–312; and Eberhard König, Biblia pulcra: Die 48zeilige Bibel von 1462; Zwei Pergamentexemplare in der Bibermühle. Mit einem Census der erhaltenen Exemplare von Eberhard König und Heribert Tenschert (Ramsen: Antiquariat Bibermühle; Rotthalmünster: Antiquariat Heribert Tenschert, 2005). For recent studies of the Fust Master, see Mayumi Ikeda, “Illuminating Gutenberg: The Fust Master and Decoration of Incunables and Manuscripts in Mainz and Palatine Heidelberg” (PhD diss., the Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, 2010); and Mayumi Ikeda, “Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles: Unravelling their Links to the Fust and Schöˆer O‹ce,” GutenbergJarhrbuch 87 (2012): 71–92.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

359

compositor’s marks and their use Compositor’s marks, which could be a simple vertical line or an “X” or “#” written in ink or scratched with a stylus, are commonly inserted by the compositor in a source text or exemplar when setting a text for printing. The compositor’s mark could serve either of two functions: to indicate how far the compositor had set his text, or to “cast oˆ” page calculations on the exemplar or certain sections of it in order to estimate the number of pages of the set text or to distribute the task of type-setting to several compositors. A well-known example of the use of compositor’s marks is the Gutenberg Bible at Cambridge University Library, which is shown to have been used as an exemplar at Heinrich Eggestein’s printing shop in Strasbourg to set his third Vulgate Bible printed c. 1469.3 The compositor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos copies correspond to the page breaks of the Bible published in 1462 by Fust and Schöˆer (ISTC ib00529000). It has been known that the 1462 Bible based its text on that of the Gutenberg Bible,4 and the marks found in these two copies, as will be analyzed below, con‰rm the use of the Gutenberg Bible as a direct model for the text of the 1462 Bible. In the abovementioned Cambridge Gutenberg Bible, the compositor’s marks appear throughout the entire text, whereas in the Morgan and Burgos copies they appear only in limited sections, which implies that quires from another copy or copies of the Gutenberg Bible were also used as exemplars for the 1462 Bible. The occurrences of the compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos copies are detailed in Appendix II, and the collation of the two Bible editions are shown in Appendix I (in the following discussion, all the folio numbers and quire numbers in these unsigned, unfoliated Bibles are inferred). In volume one of the Morgan copy there are twenty-four compositor’s marks on the last pages of Psalms between I 298r and I 324r, which fall within the four ‰nal quires of the ‰rst volume (Illus. 1 and 2). In the second volume seven marks appear 3. Paul Needham, “A Gutenberg Bible Used as Printer’s Copy by Heinrich Eggestein in Strassburg, ca. 1469,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 9 (1986): 36–75. 4. Paul Needham, “The Text of the Gutenberg Bible,” in Trasmissione dei testi a stampa nel periodo modern: II Seminario internazionale, Roma-Viterbo, 27–29 giugno 1985, ed. Giovanni Crapulli (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1987), 43–84; and Paul Needham, “The 1462 Bible of Johann Fust and Peter Schöˆer (GW 4204): A Survey of its Variants,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 81 (2006): 19–49.

360

Bibliographical Society of America

between II 181r (505r) and II 188v (512v), which are in the last two quires of 2 Maccabees, the ‰nal book of the Old Testament. In the Burgos copy there are numerous marks, including vertical lines, hash marks, and X-marks in drypoint or ink, though only a few of them can be determined as compositor’s marks. The purposes for the remaining marks found in this copy are unclear. In the ‰rst volume what clearly seems to be a compositor’s mark ‰rst appears in Exodus (I 46r) and three more occur in Psalms (I 307v, I 308v, and I 309r; Illus. 3). In the second volume four compositor’s marks appear on II 182r, II 183r, II 184r, and II 185r, all in 2 Maccabees. In both copies marks are usually placed right above the space between two words, and frequently a second mark is placed in a marginal area or between the columns near the ‰rst one in order to “signpost” it (Illus. 1 and 3). The hash marks found in the two copies are similar in shape and seem to be written with a similar type of pen, though it cannot be established whether or not they were inserted by the same hand. In both the Morgan and Burgos copies it seems evident that the compositor’s marks were used not to cast oˆ pages but to mark the actual page breaks of the set text (that is, of the 1462 Bible), ‰rst because the marks are inserted irregularly, that is, they are not inserted for every page break, without which it is di‹cult to estimate the number of set pages. For example, a mark was inserted on I 298r of the Morgan copy to indicate the ending of I 223r of the 1462 Bible, but the next mark does not appear until I 300r, which marks the ending of I 224v of the 1462 Bible; the endings for I 223v and I 224r are therefore not indicated. Second, most of the marks are placed not at the end of sentences or phrases, which would be a more logical and textually satisfactory page break, but within sentences; an example is “: et # confusio” on I 302r of the Morgan copy. It is puzzling to say the least why the pages would not be cast oˆ at the end of sentences, since the compositors could easily adjust the page or line break by abbreviating or expanding words. The example on I 302r is particularly telling, as the mark (and thus the page break of the 1462 Bible) was inserted just one word after the ending of the previous phrase. This of course does not mean that the setting of the 1462 Bible was not cast oˆ at all. In fact, the four composition or printing units determined in this Bible by Paul Needham demonstrates that the text was set from four diˆerent points (see Appendix I): the ‰rst composition unit begins at the prologue to Genesis that opens the ‰rst volume (quire 1), the second

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

361

Illus. 1: The Gutenberg Bible. The Morgan Library and Museum, PML 12. 375 Þ 270 mm. I 302v, detail.

Illus. 2: The Gutenberg Bible. The Morgan Library and Museum, PML 12. 375 Þ 270 mm. I 309r, detail.

Illus. 3: The Gutenberg Bible. Biblioteca Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. 66. 393 Þ 282 mm. I 309r, detail. AU: please supply new copy of Illus. 3.

362

Bibliographical Society of America

at 1 Kings or 1 Samuel (quire 11), the third, which opens the second volume, begins at Proverbs (quire 1), and the fourth begins at the opening to the New Testament (quire 15).5 These four composition units were presumably set side by side to speed up the setting. It is important to note that, except for the mark on I 46r of the Burgos copy, all the compositor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos copies belong either to the second or third composition unit of the 1462 Bible; this point will be recalled later in the discussion. In the Morgan copy there are three hash marks (on I 316v, I 320v, and I 321r) that do not correspond to page breaks of the 1462 Bible. The reason(s) for these discrepancies can only be speculated. One possibility is that the compositor placed the mark at an incorrect place. The mark on I 316v could be one such example: the compositor placed the mark incorrectly in front of “eos” at line a40 instead of placing it before the “eos” two lines above at line a38, which would have corresponded to the ‰rst word of I 237r of the 1462 Bible. If the misplaced mark created an error in setting, it must have been corrected at an early stage of proo‰ng, for so far we do not know of an incorrect transition of text from I 236v to I 237r of the 1462 Bible.6 The hash marks on I 320v and I 321r cannot be explained so neatly, and we can only suppose that the compositor stopped for a pause before he had ‰nished setting a full page of the 1462 Bible and used the hash mark to indicate this. In the Burgos copy the mark on I 46r does not correspond to a page break of the 1462 Bible but only to a line break. Again, the mark may mean that the compositor took a pause before reaching the end of a page. In fact, as has been mentioned above, this mark is isolated from the other marks in that it belongs neither to the second or third composition of the 1462 Bible; it may therefore mean that it was an ad hoc insertion. In the Morgan copy there is another mark that does not indicate a page break of the set text, though in this case the purpose for its insertion is clear: at line a12 of I 302v there is a faint vertical line drawn between the “n” and the “m” of the phrase “inmedio” (Illus. 1). This line obviously indicates that the phrase should be correctly separated into “in” and “medio.”7 5. Needham, “1462 Bible,” 25. 6. I am grateful to Paul Needham for providing this information to me. 7. This “inmedio” in the Morgan copy seems to represent a rare uncorrected state of this phrase in the Gutenberg Bible, which apparently was recti‰ed during the printing. In all other copies of the Gutenberg Bible I was able to examine,

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

363

The phrase was recti‰ed in the 1462 Bible, in which a space was inserted between the two words. a link between the morgan and burgos quires Because the compositor’s marks in both copies are con‰ned to a small section of the entire Bible, there must have been other (presumably unbound) quires of the Gutenberg Bible at the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce that were likewise used as compositor’s exemplar for the 1462 Bible.8 Furthermore, the placement of the compositor’s marks in these two copies strongly suggests that they were paired together when used for setting. As noted above, in the ‰rst volume of the two copies the marks appear only on the ‰nal pages of the volume except for the single occurrence on I 46r of the Burgos copy. In the Morgan copy, the ‰rst mark is found on I 298r in Psalms and six marks (excluding the abovementioned vertical line at I 302va12) follow until I 304v. Turning to the Burgos copy, the ‰rst mark in Psalms appears on I 307v, as if to pick up the sequence from the Morgan copy; this is followed by two more marks on I 308v and I 309r (Illus. 3). The sequence then goes back to the Morgan copy, where the mark is repeated on I 309r (Illus. 2) and continues until the ‰nal page break in Psalms on I 324r. In the second volume, marks similarly go back a space has been correctly inserted between “in” and “medio.” The copies examined are (‰gures in brackets correspond to those used in Paul Needham, “The Paper Supply of the Gutenberg Bible,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 79, no. 3 [1985]: 355–8): Göttingen, UB (V 6); London, BL, Grenville Copy (V 10); Munich, BSB (P 13); Mainz, Gutenberg Museum, Shuckburgh Copy (P 16); Pelplin, High Priest’s Seminary Library (P 25); London, BL, George III’s Copy (P 27); Austin, Texas, UL (P 30); Cambridge, UL (P 33); Edinburgh, NL (P 37); Tokyo, Keio UL (P 39). In addition, Paul Needham kindly informed me that the copy at Washington, D. C., LC (V 8), has also been corrected. This type of correction, the so-called stop-press or in-press correction, has been studied in detail in Mari Agata, “Stop-Press Variants in the Gutenberg Bible” (PhD diss., Keio University, 2006). I wish to thank Dr. Agata for her insights on this matter. 8. Having examined the text of the 1462 Bible, Needham concluded that its compositorial model was a Gutenberg Bible with quires 2, 3, 14, and 16 of vol. I and the ‰rst quire of vol. II in the second setting and all others in the ‰rst setting. This condition cannot be ful‰lled by the Morgan and Burgos copies put together (neither of the two copies has the ‰rst quire of vol. II in the second setting), which means that there was at least another quire used to set the 1462 Bible; see Needham, “1462 Bible,” 26.

364

Bibliographical Society of America

and forth between the two copies: the ‰rst mark appears in the Morgan copy in 2 Maccabees on II 181r (505r), followed by two marks on II 181v (505v) and II 182r (506r). This last mark is repeated in the Burgos copy, which is continued by three more to II 185r, where the Morgan copy bears a mark at the same place. Marking in the Morgan copy continues from there and ends at II 188v (512v), the ‰nal page break for 2 Maccabees. The unbroken sequence of the compositor’s marks running through the Morgan and Burgos copies demonstrates an undeniable link between them. Moreover, since the compositor’s marks in the two copies appear at the very end of the second and third composition units, the two copies must have been used at a late stage of setting the text of the 1462 Bible: Psalms is the ‰nal book of the second composition unit, which ends at quire 25 of vol. I, and 2 Maccabees, the last book of the Old Testament, is also the ‰nal book of the third composition unit, ending at quire 14 of vol. II (see Appendix I). It is worth considering the reason(s) why the compositor’s marks seemingly went back and forth between the two copies. One that may immediately come to mind is that when used as compositor’s exemplar, the respective sheets in the Morgan and Burgos copies were compiled as one set, which were afterwards separated and used to compile several copies of the Bible including the present Morgan and Burgos copies. However, this does not explain the three occasions where the mark appears at the same place in the two copies, namely on I 309r (Illus. 2 and 3), II 182r (506r), and II 185r (509r). Similarly, the mark on I 304v in the Morgan copy and that on I 307v in the Burgos copy are both on sheet 4.7 of quire 31. Another possibility is that the task of setting was temporarily distributed to two setters, by which the second setter used the Burgos sheet as exemplar. Yet this is also unlikely because, as has been discussed above, the pages do not appear to have been cast oˆ. Or the use of the two copies for setting might be related to the duplicate setting of the 1462 Bible; it has been shown that quires 10 (unit one), 22 (unit two), 24 (unit two) in volume one and part of quires 13 (unit three), and 24 (unit four) in volume two of the 1462 Bible are in duplicate settings.9 However, if the use of the Morgan-Burgos sheets was indeed related to the duplicate setting of the 1462 Bible — quire 24 of volume one was evidently set from the Morgan-Burgos sheets — from what we know at present we 9. For a detailed study of the duplicate settings of the 1462 Bible, see Needham, “1462 Bible.”

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

365

are unable to establish how these copies could have been engaged for that purpose. Another hypothesis that explains the interchanging use of the Morgan and Burgos sheets is that since many more marks are found in the former, the latter was employed as a temporary replacement when the former became unavailable. This would explain why there are several marks that appear in both copies: the compositors would have needed to mark the Burgos copy to indicate where to pick up from the Morgan copy, and once the Morgan copy was returned to them, the ‰nal mark in the Burgos copy was copied into the Morgan copy to indicate where to restart. It is worth noting that the switching to the Burgos copy occurred around the same place in the second and third composition units: provided that the Burgos copy was employed after I 228r (unit two) and II 137r (unit three) of the 1462 Bible were set, at that point setting of the recto pages of the 135th folio of unit two and of 140th folio of unit three should have been completed. Since the second and third composition units, as with the two other units, were likely set synchronically, it is tempting to assume that the Morgan copy became temporarily unavailable when the compositors (perhaps one compositor each for the two units) just ‰nished setting the abovementioned pages. Then the Morgan copy might have been returned around the time the recto pages of the 138th folio of unit two (I 231r) and of the 142nd folio of unit three (II 139r) were completed. If this indeed was the case, the rather brief use of the Burgos copy may thus indicate the precise moment when the Morgan copy was inaccessible to the compositors. This hypothesis, however, presupposes that the Morgan and Burgos sheets were separated in distinct groups, if not already bound separately, and that no mixing of quires between the two or with others occurred during or after their use as exemplar. the gutenberg bible and the fust and schöffer office The compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos copies show that they have been used by, and by extension kept at, the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce at the time of the publication of their ‰rst Bible edition issued in 1462. If we consider the relationship between Gutenberg and Fust, it is not di‹cult to understand how this printing o‹ce came to possess sets of quires of the Gutenberg Bible, which now compose these two and very

366

Bibliographical Society of America

probably also other copies. It is known that Gutenberg was ‰nancially supported by Johann Fust for his printing enterprise (to which the printing of the Gutenberg Bible must have been central) and had Peter Schöˆer as one of his assistants. Now, we are informed by the document known as the Helmasperger Instrument, dated 6 November 1455, that Fust brought a lawsuit against Gutenberg to claim the money he had advanced to the latter.10 The outcome of the suit is unknown to us, but it is generally agreed that Fust took possession of some printing materials from Gutenberg to recover at least part of the loan, and then opened a new printing o‹ce in association with Schöˆer, which would later issue a Bible edition in 1462. While the Morgan and Burgos copies could well have been acquired by Fust by purchase like any other copies, it seems also probable that they were two of the Gutenberg Bibles that still remained at the printing o‹ce at the time of the suit and eventually fell into Fust’s hands as part payment. It should be noted here that the sheets of both copies are of late compilation.11 As has been shown by Needham, out of the ten quires of the Gutenberg Bible that come in duplicate settings, six in the Burgos copy are in the second setting, which is a relatively high number for a paper copy; the only other surviving paper copies with more quires in the second setting are that at the New York Public Library with eight such quires and the Edinburgh copy with nine.12 The Morgan copy is even more suggestive of late compilation in 10. On the Helmasperger Instrument, see Ferdinand Geldner, “Das Helmaspergersche Notariatsinstrument in seiner Bedeutung für die Geschichte des ältesten Mainzer Buchdrucks,” in Der gegenwärtige Stand der GutenbergForschung, ed. Hans Widmann (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1972), 91–121; Elmar Mittler and Stephan Füssel, eds., Gutenberg Digital: Göttinger Gutenberg-Bibel, Musterbuch und Helmaspergersches Notariatsinstrument (Munich: Sauer, 2000); Sabina Wagner, “Bekannter Unbekannter — Johannes Gutenberg,” in Gutenberg Aventur und Kunst: Vom Geheimunternehmen zur ersten Medienrevolution, ed. Wolfgang Dobras (Mainz: Schmidt, 2000), 114–43; and HansMichael Empell, Gutenberg vor Gericht: Der Mainzer Prozess um die erste gedruckte Bibel (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2008). I wish to thank Paul Needham for drawing my attention to Empell’s work. 11. Eberhard König, who also noticed the late compilation of the two copies, interpreted the evidence as an indication that the Fust Master illuminated the two copies for the printing shop after the sale of the Bible had already begun; see König, “Für Johannes Fust,” 310. 12. Needham, “Paper Supply,” 355–8.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

367

that it comprises twenty-two pages printed in so-called replacement settings, unique settings found in no other surviving copies. Pages in these settings were gathered with pages in normal settings to complete quires 1, 5, and 14 of the ‰rst volume. From a detailed analysis of the paper used for these settings, Needham concluded that these anomalous pages were printed on leftover sheets after the main print run, including the reprint, had been completed, and that the replacement settings are the result of an eˆort to make best use of incomplete sheets left at the press.13 It may not be farfetched to speculate that it was Fust’s initiative to set and print these replacement pages in order to complete the sheets that now make up the Morgan copy and to make it saleable. With the discovery of the compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos Gutenberg Bibles, we shall brieŠy revisit the famous passage in a letter of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, then bishop of Siena and future Pope Pius II, on a contemporary description of what must be quires of the Gutenberg Bible.14 Dated 12 March 1455, the letter vividly describes how swiftly the ‰rst printed Bible found its purchasers: Piccolomini reports with regret that copies of the Bible are said to have been purchased even before they were completed and therefore it was not possible to procure one for Cardinal Juan de Carvajal, the recipient of the letter.15 However, the compositor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos 13. Ibid., 334–6. In the online description of the Morgan copy, John Bidwell, who pointed out that there is no evidence that this copy ever contained the New Testament, suggested that there may not have been su‹cient sheets remaining at the press to compile a complete New Testament; see http://www. themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/old-testament-copy. This conclusion was also arrived at independently in Ikeda, “Illuminating Gutenberg,” chap. 4. 14. The letter was ‰rst introduced to bibliographers by Erich Meuthen, “Ein neues frühes Quellenzeugnis (zu Oktober 1454?) für den ältesten Bibeldruck: Enea Silvio Piccolomini am 12. März 1455 aus Wiener Neustadt an Kardinal Juan de Carvajal,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 57 (1982): 108–18. Martin Davies provides a careful review of Meuthen’s ‰ndings as well as a fresh interpretation of the pertaining passage in the letter, supported by a source not used by Meuthen; see Martin Davies, “Juan de Carvajal and Early Printing: The 42-line Bible and the Sweynheym and Pannartz Aquinas,” Library, 6th. ser., 18, no. 3 (1996): 193–201. 15. Cited in Davies, “Juan de Carvajal,” 196: “i…iantequam per‰cerentur volumina paratos emptores fuisse tradunt.”

368

Bibliographical Society of America

copies points to a possibility that there may have been many quires, enough to make up several complete or incomplete copies of the Gutenberg Bible, that remained at the printing shop without being sold and were later passed on to the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce. Some of these quires could have been used to set and print the new edition of the Bible in 1462, which might have been the case with the Morgan and Burgos sheets. It must have been only after this that these copies were ‰nally placed on sale, now fully decorated by the Fust Master.16

16. The earliest known owner of the Morgan copy is Hieronymus Opitius or Obwitz of Lobendau (1519–91), the ‰rst evangelical pastor and superintendent of the diocese of Bischofswerda, who, according to the inscription on I 2r, gave the present copy to Melchior Gaubisch, minister in Langenwolmsdorf in 1565. The Burgos copy probably belonged to a Castilian monastery. See Ilona Hubay, “Die bekannte Exemplare der zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel und ihre Besitzer,” in Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel: Faksimile-Ausgabe nach dem Exemplar der Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz Berlin Kommentarband, ed. Wieland Schmidt and Adolf Schmidt-Künsemüller (Munich: Idion, 1979), 146–7. Francisco Cantera Burgos identi‰ed the description “la mi Biblia molde, grande” in the will of Luis de Maluenda of Burgos written in 1488 as the Burgos copy; see Francisco Cantera Burgos, Alvar Garcia de Santa Maria y su familia de conversos: Historia de la judería de Burgos y de sus conversos más egregios (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1952), 135–6. However, Eric White rightly cautioned against this identi‰cation for lack of conclusive evidence; see Eric Marshall White, “A Forgotten Gutenberg Bible from the Monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 87 (2012): 25.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars

369

appendix i Collation of the Gutenberg Bible and the 1462 Bible Quire numbers are assigned by the author. Gutenberg Bible (ISTC ib00526000) 2º. 643 leaves. Commonly bound in two volumes. Unsigned and unfoliated. Vol. I: [1–910 1010(8+*8) 11–1210 136(4+*4) 14–2410 2510(7+*7) 2610(9+*9) 27– 3210 334]. 324 leaves. Vol. II: [1–1510 1610(10+*10) 17–2610 2712 2810(7+*7) 29–3010 314(3+*3) 3210]. 319 leaves. 1462 Bible (ISTC ib00529000) 2º. 481 leaves. Designed to be divided in two volumes (the printers’ device is printed at the end of each volume). Unsigned and unfoliated. Vol. I: [Unit One: 1–810 9–108]; [Unit Two: 11–2310 24–258]. 242 leaves. Vol. II: [Unit Three: 1–1310 1412]; [Unit Four: 15–2310 246(5+*1)]. 239 leaves.

31/22 .9 31/44.7 31/44.7 31/4.77 31/3.88 9 31/2.9

302vb10 304ra39

congregati # sunt : [E]xpectaui # eum

et # non viderunt solem. 304vb36 tota die#magnitudinem tuam. propter iniquitatem#suam affer= // tis # munera. 309rb7

Ps. 47 Ps. 54

Ps. 57 Ps. 70 Ps. 72 Ps. 75

307vb16 308va11 309rb7

30/1.10 10 31/11 .10 31/22 .9 31/22 .9

300ra12 301rb30 302ra17 302va12

5/5.6 6 30/3.88

Quire/ Sheet

apud te # est fons d[omi]n[u]s#. [D]omin[us] : et# confusio in|medio

46ra3

volume 1

Burgos Copy

Ps. 35 Ps. 40 Ps. 43 Ps. 45

Morgan Copy

298ra6

Text

Exod. 34 redimes: # nec apparebis Ps. 26 tradideris me in # a=

Book/ Chapter

Note

35rb32 // b33 223r // 223v The mark in the Morgan copy is very faint. 224v // 225r 225v // 226r 226r // 226v 226vb16 Spacing is corrected in the 1462 Bible. 226v // 227r 227v // 228r “expectaui” is corrected to “expectaba[m]” in the 1462 Bible. 228r // 228v 230r // 230v 230v // 231r 231r // 231v Both copies have the mark in the same place.

1462 Bible

# indicates the placement of a compositor’s mark; // indicates a page or line break; Bold numbers in the quire/sheet column indicate the folio on which the compositor’s mark appears in the Morgan or Burgos copy.

Compositor’s Marks in the Morgan and Burgos Copies of the Gutenberg Bible

appendix ii

370 Bibliographical Society of America

quarebant#eum : et reuerte= exprobrauerunt # tibi domine. # possideamus sanctuariu[m] [D]omi=// nus# narrabit i[n] prophanabo# testamentu[m] i[n] factura# tua: corde :# cu[m] hoc no[n] #[B]enedic anima mea ser=// uum suu[m]:#aaron sepe liberauit # eos

meo. #[D]educ me peccatores# ut Vidi p[re]uaricantes # &

d[omi]n[u]s# captiuitate[m]

[E]xibit spirit[us]#ei[us]

Ps. 118 Ps. 118 Ps. 118

Ps. 125

Ps. 145

Text

Ps. 77 Ps. 78 Ps. 82 Ps. 86 Ps. 88 Ps. 91 Ps. 100 Ps. 103 Ps. 104 Ps. 105

Book/ Chapter

9 32/2.9 9 32/2.9 10 32/1.10 33/11.4 33/1.44

319rb10 319vb34 320va17 321rb1 324ra1

Quire/ Sheet 31/1.10 10 10 31/1.10 32/11 .10 32/22 .9 32/22 .9 32/33 .8 32/44 .7 32/55 .6 6 32/5.6 6 32/5.6

Burgos Copy

310ra2 310vb8 311rb42 312ra29 312vb12 313rb37 314vb5 315rb30 316ra11 316va40

Morgan Copy

appendix ii — continued

238v // 239r 239r // 239v 239vb45 // b46 within 240rb41 242r // 242v

231v // 232r 232r // 232v 232v // 233r 233r // 233v 233v // 234r 234r // 234v 235r // 235v 235v // 236r 236r // 236v 237ra2 // a3

1462 Bible

The mark does not correspond to the page break. The mark does not correspond to the page break.

The mark does not correspond to the page break.

Note

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 371

186(510)vb39 187(511)va25 188(512)vb35

2 Macc. 12 congressis# co[n]ti= 2 Macc. 13 abijt? #// # co[m]misit cu[m] 2 Macc. 15 dimicare et # co[n]fligere

182(506)r b22

181(505)va36

181(505)ra6

Morgan Copy

185(509)ra2

itaq[ue] antiochus# animo sed propt[er] gentem# locum et ingenite// #nobilitatis

Text

2 Macc. 7 in vtero // #meo apparuistis. 2 Macc. 9 internor[um] # cormenta. 2 Macc. 10 a[n]nis agere# dies istos.

2 Macc. 4 2 Macc. 5 2 Macc. 6

Book/ Chapter

Quire/ Sheet

19/55.6 6 19/5.6 19/4.77

18/1.10 10 10 18/1.10 182rb21// 19/11 .10 22 183ra4//5 19/22 .9 184rb16 19/33 .8 185ra2 19/44 .7

volume 11

Burgos Copy

appendix ii — continued

140v // 141r 141r // 141v 142r // 142v

137v // 138r 138v // 139r 139r // 139v

136r // 136v 136v // 137r 137r // 137v

1462 Bible

Both copies have the mark in the same place.

Both copies have the mark in the same place.

Note

372 Bibliographical Society of America