FOUR STRASBURG INCUNABLES

INCORRECTLY ASSIGNED TO

ANTON KOBERGER OF NUREMBERG

PAUL NEF.DHAM

l \ n R incuiiiihlcs, undiucd and anonymous as to place and printer, have for manygenerations been assigned to the Nuremberg press of Anton Koberger, and have intact been cla.ssed as his very earhest productions.* They are:

1. Johannes Nider, Manualc confessorum. foL: a-e'^^ p , 58 leaves. Hain, *ii834; Goff,\ -178 ; Proctor, 1961; B.M.C. ii, 411 (IB. 7103).

2. Johannes Nider, De moralt lepra. fol.: a-e^^ fg^ h^^, 76 leaves. Hain, * i i8 i3 ; Goff,N - I 8 Q ; Proctor, i(^6o; B.M.C. ii, 411 (IB. 7104).

V Ilonorius Augustodunensis, De praedesttnatwne et libero arbitrio. fol.: a-d'^^, 40 leaves{d 10 blank). Hain, *88oi; Proctor, 1962; B.M.C. ii, 411 (IB. 7106).

4. Puihcnuw Idttmim. 8 in quarter-sheets: a-q^^, 192 leaves (q 8-12 blanks). Hain,I ;^457; Proctor, 1964; B.M.C. ii, 41 T (IA. 7112).

All are printed with the same type, a Gothic face of which 20 lines measure, accordingto B, i r C , 113 mm. It is closely similar to a 115-mm. type used by Koberger in\arious editions, signed and unsigned, the earliest of which to contain an explicit datewas completed on 24 November 1472.' Ofthe four editions printed with the ri3-mm.t\pe, several copies survive with purchase or rubrication inscriptions dated 1471.^ Ifthese arc Koberger's productions, his activity as a printer must be pushed back to atleast .1 \car before his tirst dated book.

But are the\ Koherger's' Doubts were expressed already in 1912, in B.M.C. ii, 409,where it was stated that 'Koberger's connexion with these books [printed with theI n-mm. type] . . . is in need of further proof. As was there noted, this type isindistinguishable in face from' that used in 1473-4 by the Strasburg printer C. W.,iivts .-iri^ennriensis, measuring (again according to B.M.C.) n o (tos) mm. 'Notablybetter presswork and a ditlierence in height of 3 mm. in twenty lines thus separate this[11 -mm.] group trom the books assigned to C. W. It is quite possible that its ascriptionto Koberger originated from a confusion between this 113 and the closely similar 115t>pe used b\ him in his tirst signed book . . . but in deference to Hain and Proctorthe tour books m this 113 type are left, doubtfully, under Koberger, until some otherprinter is found for them.' Since B.M.C. ii appeared, no other printer has been foundf(.r them; every subsequent catalogue listing one or more of these incunables hascontmued to assign them to Koberger, though occasionally with a query.

130

However, the doubts expressed by B.M.C, ii are fully confirmed by a closerexamination of the four incunables in question. It may be concluded with certaintythat they have nothing whatever to do with Koberger, nor with Nuremberg. They areStrasburg incunables, printed either in the shop of C. W., in a hitherto-unsuspectedearlier stage of its activity, or in another, anonymous Strasburg shop, whose types camelater into C. W.^s possession. Koberger's connection with the books is simply this: thatwhen he began printing in 1472 he procured a fount copied from that ofthe Strasburgpress. This is, indeed, an argument in itself that the 113-mm. type was not Koberger's.For if it was his, why should he go to the considerable expense of procuring, as hissecond type, a close facsimile of the first, produced by newly cut punches?

The clue to a proper assignment of the four editions, and of a fifth member of thegroup to be mentioned shortly, may be found in their paper stocks. The two Nidereditions must have been produced together. A printed advertisement survives, billingthem as a single entity, and they often survive bound together.^ Two stocks of paper,both marked with the letter P surmounted by a quatrefoil (figs. 1-4), are mixed throughboth editions and are—with one small exception—the only papers of those editions.'^The third edition, Honorius of Autun, De praedestinatwne, is uniformly printed on athird stock of paper, marked with a Bull's head/X (figs. 5-15). This stock is ofa kindthat I have elsewhere called multigeminate.^ That is, it is made up of more than asingle pair of twins, no doubt because it was manufactured in a mill producing a singlestock of paper by mixing the output of several vats. The fourth edition is the smalland very rare Psalterium printed on quarter-sheets. Its papers are a mixture ofthe twoP-stocks ofthe Nider editions, and ofthe Bull's head/X ofthe Honorius of Autun.

A fifth edition also belongs, according to its paper stock, to this 'pseudo-Koberger'group:

5. Sixtus IV, Regulae, ordinationes £5' constitutwnes cancellariae [after 19 Dec. i47t].4" in half-sheets: a b^^ (b 1 0 + i ) , 21 leaves. Goff, S-576; D. Reichling, Appendicesad Haimi-Copingeri Repertonum bibliographicum . . . Siipplementum (1914), r8o;I. Hubay, Incunabula der Umv.-Bibl. Wurzburg (V^xQ^hdidtn, T966), 1938.

All three catalogues cited above assign this edition to the Strasburg printer C. W. (Gotfwith a query). The state of its type will be discussed below; for our immediate purposesit wall be sufficient to note that it is printed on the first of the two P-marked stocks,found also in the Nider editions and in the Psalterium latinum.

Both the P-stocks of this group were in all probability manufactured in or nearAlsace. The twins of the first P-stock (figs, i and 2) are apparently identical withPiccard, Buchstabe /*, Abt. ix, nos. 426 and 407, which he notes as twins.^ He foundthem in documents from Stift Selz, Alsace, 1473. His tracings ix, 425 and 427 are verysimilar to 426, and may be variant states of the mark; he found them in documentsfrom, respectively, Strasburg, 1470; and from Kloster St. Blasien in the Schwarzwald,1470-1. The precise P-mark of fig. i appears in an edition of Petrarch, De contemptumundi, printed in Strasburg by Adolph Rusch, not after 1473 (Hain, 12800; Goff,

. mR

Fig. J. mh

Fig, 3. mRFig. 4. mR

Fig. 5. mRFig. 6. mR

Ftg. 7. mR

Fig. y. mL

Ftg. 10. mR

Ftg. II. mR Ftg. 12. mL

Fig. 13. mL

Ftg, 14. mL

Fig. IS. mR

P-4i-i). However, its twin differs from tig. 2, and I believe Rusch was probably usinga slightly later stock from the same mill.

1 he .second P-stock twins (figs. 3 and 4) are very close to, and perhaps identicalwith, Piccard, Buchstabe P, Abt. ix, nos. 634 and 629, though these he does not noteas twins. The former he records iti unspecified Strasburg incunables of 1473-5; ^"^the latter, in documents from Ettlingen (Baden), Frankfurt am Main, Trier, and StiftSel/, 1471-2. Botb P-stocks are localized by Piccard generally in Burgundy-Lorraine.

1 he Bull's head/X stock found in Honorius of Autun, De praedestinatione, and inthe Psalterium appears to come from roughly the same region. Piccard's Ochsenkopfalbums are obviously far from complete in their record of Bull's heads ofthis particulart\pe, but t)ne ot his tracings, Abt. ix, no. 6 (Zutfen, 1473) may be identical to fig.I z ot our stock.'' He localizes papers with this general class of tnark in Burgundy-Lorraine.

Now, it is in the nature of paper to travel, and the use of given stocks in and aroundStrasburg does not exclude a priori their use in Nuremberg. But, in fact, we find thatthe paper stocks ofthe early Nuremberg printers entered that city by entirely differenttrade routes. Their papers generally like those ofthe Augsburg and Ulm printers ofthe same time—came not from eastern France but from northern Italy. This may beseen by examining any of the early editions securely assigned to Koberger, or any ofthe earh editions of Nuremberg's first printer, Johann Sensenschmidt (1470-8). Sheetafter sheet, all that will be tound in these books is Italian paper.^

We know, theretbre, that the five incunables listed above are printed with a typewhich, perhaps in different castings, was used in 1473-4 by a recognized Strasburgprinter, C . \V.; and on papers made in the vicinity of Strasburg and widely marketedin that cit\. We know by contrast that Koberger's earliest firmly attributed books areprinted with a txpc mpwd trom that in our group, and on papers imported fromnorthern ltal\. It is evident that there is no rational basis for locating our groupan\ where but in Strasburg. The reason tor the group's original attribution to Kobergeris indeed that suggested by B.M.C. ii: a confusion between its type and Koberger'sfacsimile' ot the type. This confusion goes back at least as far as the late eighteenthcentury, and may have originated with Michael Denis.^ The weight of inertia has keptthe mistaken attribution alive to this day, almost two centuries after it was first made.

\n interesting question remains: were these five incunables printed in the shop ofC W ,, whose acti\it\ must then be extended back to 1471; or in a heretofore unrecognizedStrasburg shop whose types subsequently passed into the hands of C. W.? This questioncannot be answered with any real certainty, but the relevant evidence suggests that theformer alternative is the likelier, or at least fits more closely the conventional criteriafor assigning anonymous editions to discrete presses.

If we exclude for the moment no. 5 above, there are eleven editions, printed witha single type, which have been assigned to C. W.'s press, though only one containshis initials. Four of these are large folios:

6. /acharias Chrysopolita, Concordanlia evangelistarum (i473)- Regal fol.: 182 leaves.Hain, 5023; Proctor, 339; B.M.C. i, 81 (IC. 953); Goff, Z-13.

'36

7- Alanus de Insulis, Distinctiones. Regal fol.: 95 leaves. Hain, 391; G.W,, 488; Proctor,343; B.M.C. i, 82 (IC. 965); Goff, A-169.

8. Duns Scotus, Super quarto libro Sententiarutn (1474). Regal fol: 290 leaves. Hain,6430 = 6429; G.W., 9084; Proctor, 342; B.M.C. i, 82 (IC. 962); Goff, D-377.

9. Petrus Berchorius, Biblia moralizatus (7 Sept. 1474: text, 7 Oct. 1474: table), signedby C. W. in colophon.^° Regal fol.: 304 leaves. Hain, 2795; G.W., 3863; Proctor,341; B.M.C. i, 82 (IC. 960); Goff, B-337.

The remainder are folios of ordinary-sized sheets:

10. Augustinus, Enchiridion defide^ spe et caritate. fol.: 34 leaves. Hain, 2029; G. IV., 2904;Proctor, 345; B.ALC. i, 8t (IB. 969); Goff, A-1266.

11. Hugo de Sancto Victore, Soliloquium. fol.: 10 leaves. Hain, 9028; Proctor, 340;B.Al.C. i, 82 (IB. 958; IB. 957 exchanged with Bodleian Library in 1910); Goff,H-S37.

12. Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones dommicales. fol.: 336 leaves. Proctor, 345A (=B.L. ,IB. 971, cf. B.M.C. iii, 860); Reichling, Supplement urn., 218; Goff, J-182.

13. 'Prudentius' [i.e. Berengarius de Landora], De viipeccatis mortalibus, fol.: 14 leaves.Hain, 13437; B.L., C.10.C.9 (IB. 970); Goff, P-1031.

14. Andreas Capellanus, De amoris remedio. foL: 77 leaves. Hain, 992; G.W.^ i759;Goff, A-652.

15. Boncompagnus, Rota Veneris. fol.: 10 leaves. Hain, 3577; G.W., 4836; Goff, B-974.16. Erhart Gross, Doctrinal fUr die Laien. fol.: 50 leaves. Hain, 8083; Voullieme, Berlin^

2191 (West Berlin S.B.); B. Hellwig, Inkunabelkatalog des Germanischen National-museums Nurnberg (Wiesbaden, 1970), 444.

From rubrication and purchase inscriptions in various copies, we know that nos. 7 and10-12 are no later than 1473, and no. 13 no later than 1474." Thus, five of C. W.'seleven editions are known to have been in existence in 1473, and three more in 1474;and there is no reason to suppose that the three remaining editions, nos. 14-16, areany later. ^

This is a large quantity of printing, betokening a shop of intense, though short-lived,activity. C. W.'s output totals 531 edition sheets on ordinary-sized paper, and 871edition sheets on Regal paper. It is apparent that C. W.'s shop possessed two sizes ofpress, one for ordinary paper and one for Regal paper. In fact, the quantity of Regalprinting must have required at least two large presses. For instance, C. W.'s colophonto Berchorius (no. 9, 304 leaves) tells us that its printing began in 1473 and wascompleted on 7 September 1474. A table of 30 leaves was completed a month later,on 7 October. But the equally massive Duns Scotus (no. 8, 290 leaves) was alsocompleted in 1474, so there must have been some degree of simultaneous productionon Regal presses. As we shall see presently, there is bibliographical evidence to suggestthat the 1473 Chrysopolita (no. 6) was worked on two Regal presses.

Although the paper .stocks of our first group of incunables (nos. 1-5) form a distinctsupply, which is not carried over into C. W.'s ordinary-paper folio printing, there is

137

a particular typographical connection between the two groups of incunables whichsuggests that they should be treated, at least provisionally, as products ofa single shop,active trom 1471 to 1474. The first four 'pseudo-Koberger' incunables are printed witha single state of type; its 20-line measurement is given by B.M.C. ii, 409 as 113 mm.,but measurements of the Morgan copies of the two Nider editions (nos. i and 2)suggest .1 height of 114-15 mm. The fifth incunable, Regulae cancellariae apostolicae,IS printed with the same tace but on a smaller body, and must represent a recasting;20 lines measure, on average, 111 mm. This state of the type is found in much ofC. W.'s printing, and so the Regulae cancellariae apostolicae forms a link between ourt w 0 Strasburg groups. Its paper stock belongs to the 'pseudo-Koberger' group, its fount tothe C \\. group.

I his edition of the Regulae must belong to 1472, probably rather early in the year.It contains a collection of papal chancery regulations issued 2 October 1471, to whichis appended {b 6 tl.) a separate section headed 'Regule expectativarum', issued 19 Decem-ber 1471. At least three early editions ofthe chancery Regulae were printed in Romewithout the Regulae expectativarum^ one by Georg Lauer (Goff, S-575) and two by.Adam Rot (Hain, 14820 = 5..V/.C. iv, 42, IA. 17564; Proctor, 3434 = fi.Af.C. iv, 43,I \. 17567). Adam Rot also printed a third edition ofthe Regulae with contents identicalto the Strasburg edition, i.e. including the 'Regule expectativarum' of 19 December1471 (Gotl, S-577). This edition of Rot's did not necessarily supply copy for theStrasburg edition, but it is hard to imagine that copy of any kind could have travelledtrom Rome to Strasburg in time for an edition to be issued there in 1471.'^

The interval hetween the last ofthe 'pseudo-Koberger' books and the first of C. W.'sbooks is theretore not so great nor so sharply defined as to imply a clear break inproduction between the two groups. Though we have no explicit evidence for the dateot Honorius ot ,\utun, De praedcstinatitme (no. 3) nor of the Psalterium (no. 4), weknow th.it the Regulae cancellartae apostolicae must be no earlier than 1472. We know,furthermore, that C. \\ . \ pre.ss issued a substantial amount of work before the end of1473: two Regal tolios totalling 277 edition sheets (nos. 6 and 7), and three ordinaryfolios totalling 3S0 edition sheets (nos. 10-12). There is at least a good chance thatsome portion ofthis work was begun in 1472, reducing the gap between the two groupsof Strasburg incunables to a matter of only months, if that much.^'*

It also seems reasonable that the recasting of a fount, such as first occurs in theRegulae cancellartae apostoltcae, should take place at a time when a press was planningcontinued operations, rather than when it was about to go into abeyance. In fact, thereare some grounds for correlating this recasting with an expansion in the operations ofC. W.'s press. To see why this is so, we must first clear up one long-standingmisconception concerning C. W. and his type.

R, t / C . i. SI notes that the measure of C. W.'s type varies between about n o mm.and 105 mm. trom edition to edition, and even within editions. This is accounted forb> postulated differences in damping the paper: a 'fine thin white paper' was supposedlydamped slightly, and so underwent very little shrinkage; a 'coarse thick' paper was

138

heavily damped, leading to much greater shrinkage. But this explanation is incorrect,as is easily shown. Differences in the measure of C. W.'s type not infrequently occurbetween the conjugate leaves of a single sheet, and even between the recto and versosides ofa single leaf. ^ Such differences obviously cannot be explained by hypothesizedvariations in damping, which should affect a given sheet uniformly.

The true explanation is at once simpler and more interesting. C. W. possessed severalcastings of type, with identical face but different body heights. These were kept inseparate cases, and we know that C. W.'s compositors were aware of their differingmeasures, and so kept them segregated. Two examples may suffice to prove the point.

C. W.'s edition of Andreas Capellanus (no. 14) collates a^^{a i + i) b-h^ i^^. Itscomposition was divided between two cases as follows: a case containing type measuringi i i / t t 2 mm. was used to set a-c, d 1-4, / 2, 4, 6-8, h 8, and / (94 pages). A case oftype measuring 105/106 mm. was used to set the remainder, d 5-8, e, fi, 3, 5, g, h 1-7(60 pages). It is apparent that the compositors were aware of the different heights ofthe two cases, for whereas the pages of the taller casting were set to 35 lines (except/ 6 - 8 ' ' , set to 34 lines), those of the shorter casting were set to 36 lines. The resultwas type pages of approximately equal height, whichever casting was used.

A similar adjustment for differing type heights may be seen in the Regal folioChrysopolita of 1473 (no. 6). It is probable that copy for this edition was divided toallow at least some degree of simultaneous composition and working-off on two presses;and the change of type cases corresponds precisely to this apparent point of divisionof copy. Chrysopolita collates: a-c'"* d^ e'"" P g-i'^ k'^\ l-p'^ q'~ r-t'^. The first part,quires a-L% contains preliminary tables, introductions, the text of books I and II, and(k 2 '-4'") a 'registrum Omeliarum'; k 4 ' is blank. The second part, quires /-/, containsthe text of books III and IV, and could be set without reference to the first part. Thefirst part of the edition is set with type measuring 107 mm. The first 68 pages of parttwo (/-w, 0 1-4) are set with a taller type, measuring i i o / i i i mm., the remaining pagesbeing set with the 107-mm. type. Here again, the compositors adjusted for the varyingheight of the two cases. The pages set with the shorter type contain 52 lines, thoseset with the taller type contain only 51 lines.

It is not really surprising to discover that C. W. possessed sufficient type of a singleface to fill several cases. Any time there was simultaneous composition in a shop usinga single type, whether to speed up work at a press or to serve more than one press,several cases of that type would have been needed. The situation is as old as the firstMainz press. It is simply a lucky, but not unprecedented, circumstance for the modernbibliographer that C. W.'s cases (or at least some of them) may be so straightforwardlydistinguished.^"^ A thorough examination of C. W.'s use of his several castings, takingin all his printing, would certainly provide many insights into the division of compositoriallabour in his shop.'^

We do not know C. W.'s name, and his initials appear in only one of his editions.'^But if we presume that he was, throughout, the possessor of the Strasburg type used,in several castings, in all the editions listed above, the chronology of his shop may be

139

outlined as Ibllows. The shop began operation in 1471, using a single fount, a largeand handsome CJothic type measuring 115 mm. It issued, probably all within a year,three ordinary-si/.e tbiios of moderate extent, totalling 87 edition sheets. For two ofthese (nos. i and 2) a joint advertisement was issued giving the shop's location, in trulyexecrable Latin, as 'in the house below the market'.'** About the same time a smallPsalter (no. 4) was issued, of 24 edition sheets, drawing on the paper stocks found intbe three tbiios. This Psalter bas an unusual format; it was printed on quarter-sheets,which is to sa\ sheets of paper torn into quarters before being put to press. Thisimplies, though it does not absolutely entail, the use of a very small press, almostminiature in si/c. If" a larger press were used, it is hard to understand the reason forso drasticalh reducing the size ofthe paper before using it.

Karly in 1472 C. W.'s type was recast to a smaller body, and the 115-mm. castingdisappears. The new casting was first used to print a short half-sheet quarto (no. 5).W hcrcas quarter-sheet printing was exceptional, half-sheet printing was very commonat this time. Almost all early quartos were printed by folio imposition on half-sheetsof paper, and most shops must have used half-sheet-sized presses for this class of work.Not later than early 1473, C. W. acquired additional castings of his type in slightly\ar\ing bod> sizes. Many of his subsequent editions contain mixtures of type pages,some set trom one, some from another of his several castings. Also by the beginningof 1473, if not earlier, C . W\ acquired at least two Regal, or large folio, presses, whichwere used to produce four quite substantial editions (nos. 6-9). All C. W.'s printingin 1473-4 was in tblio format. The folios printed on ordinary-size paper were all modestin extent except for an edition, not after 1473, of Jacobus de Voragine, Sermonesdfimniiutlesinn. i 2, 336 leaves), several (nos. 11, t3, and 15) being essentially pamphlets.There is no evidence for the existence of C. W.'s shop after 1474.

• 'i hf ,uiihnr h.is i iui ic i icJ Lnisi^fncti Ic.n cs h\

using italic type instciul ot ihc mure Lonvcnlioniil

s t l iu rc hr jckc ts ; cunju^MC) "it lc .ncs is m d i c i t c J

with J lull s inp,

I \ l c i n i i u s , Diu'ifiltHiirtint P/iitntits cptlnmc ( l l j i n ,

()2o; (•;,(( ,, Soh ) ,

1 The C^mhrldjic copies ut the NKUT ir.Rts, houndtogether (Oates, 977-8), contain a rubricationdate of 1471. Or. E, I Icrtrich ol the IJaycrischcStjatshihiinthck has kindly informed me that oneof their copies (2 Inc, s,j. 914) of tbe two tracts,

Kigether, has a purchase inscription, datedh\ Leonhard n\erentzhauser, priest in

g1 Cx>nceming the aihertisement for the two Nider

editions, see hcln\s, note ig. Kxamples houndtogether include the Munich and (.anihridgccopies ciied abo\c, tour more copies in the

IJayerische Staatshihliothck {I am grateful to Dr.I lertrich for m\ knowledge of these), and copiesin the ljihiiothcque Nationaie, BibliothequeMazarine, Bodleian Library, British Library,Kpiscopal Seminary, Bruges, Cornell UniversityI,ihrar\, Morgan Library, Museum Mcermanno-Westreenianum, The I Iague, Royal Library, TheHague, and in the city libraries of Albi, Reims,Tours (see Pellechet-Polain, 8498), and Augs-burg; there are doubtless others. Two volumescontain the Nider tracts bound together froman early time with no. 3, I lonorius of Autun,Dc praedeslinattont'. One of these volumes is inthe state library of Neuburg an der Donau, andliirmerly belonged to the Dominicans of Ober-medlingen (I, Ilubay, Incunabula aus derilaalltchcn Bthltotheh Neutfurgj Donau, Wies-baden, 1970, nos. 314, 456, 457). The other is

140

in the Bibliotheque Nationaie (Res. I). 534,kindly examined for me by M. Dominique Coq).Its binding is eighteenth century, but it containsan ownership inscription of J. Naehtigall, dated1510, with continuous foliation in his hand anda contents note listing all three editions and afourth, now missing, described as a 'Tractatulusde cognitione vite a solitario quod dialogice edita\For a possible identification of this 'tractatulus'see note t4 below.

4 I have examined seven copies each of the twoJohannes Nider editions, Manuate confessorutnand Oc moralt /fpra\ those in the BodleianLibrary, British Library, Cambridge UniversityLibrary, Morgan Library, Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum, The Hague, Royal Library, TheHague, and (at the time of writing this) one inthe possession of Messrs. Lathrop C. Harper,New York. All are printed entirely on mixturesof the two P-marked stocks, except that sheetd 4.7 of the Harper cop)' of Manuale confessoripncontains a Bull's head/X mark undoubtedlybelonging to the paper stock of Honorius of.^utun, De priiedeslinattone (fig. 15). It may wellbe that De praedestinatione was printed beforethe two Nider texts, and that a remnant of itspaper stock was used up in Manttalc conjcssorum.

5 See chapter IV of my forthcoming F.arly Caxtonquartos (Scolar press, 1981).

6 Gerhard Piccard, IVasserzetc/ien Bttchstuhe /*, 3vols. (Stuttgart, 1977).

7 Idem, Die Ochsenkopf-Wasserzetchen^ 3 vols.(Stuttgart, 1966).

8 For comparison, I have examined the papers ofthe SIX earliest editions securely assigned toKoberger's press (Hain, 620, 3398, 4112, 6826,8800, 13183), dating from 1472 3, and ten earlyeditions from Sensenschmidt's press (Hain,2925* 3472, 6818, 7710, 7928, 8585, 8993, 9282,9294, 13884), dating from 1470 2. All theseeditions appear to be printed on exclusivelyItalian papers.

9 The two Nider editions are entered in M. Denis,Annaltum lypographtcorum Mattiatre supplemen-tum (Vienna, 1789), nos. 5495, 5497, their typesdescribed as a 'Char, goth. qui idem videtur cumBoethio Ant. Koberger Norimb. 1476', i.e. Hain,3370, printed with Koherger's 115-mm. type.This mistaken but, for its time, venial identi-fication was extended by G. W. Panzer, Annatestypographici (Nuremberg, 1793-1803) toHonorius of Autun, De praedesttnattone (Panzer,

ii, p. 234, no. 343) and to the Psalterium talinum(Panzer, iv, p. 388, no. 340b),

10 C. W. printed a 13-iine advertisement for theBerchorius: Konrad Burger, Btuhhdndteranzetgendes 15. Jahrhtimlerls (Leipzig, 1907), no. 16.

11 No. 7: two Leipzig copies contain ruhricationdates of [473 (O. Gtinther, 'Die Wiegendruckeder Leip/igcrSanimIungen\A'.V.Vr. Bcthtjt zttniZentratblalt fur Bih/tolhekswesen, Leipzig, 1909,no. 2985). Nos, 10-12: the Uppsala copies con-tain rubrication and purchase dates ot 1473(I. Colli jn, Inkunaheln der Untv.-Bibl. zuUppsala, Uppsala, 1907, nos, 193, 739, 784).No. 13: the Uppsala copy has a binding date oft474 (ibid. no. 1264, bound with no. 856). I amgrateful to Dr. Lotte Hellinga for supplying thecorrect authorship of no. 13 and for identifyingthe text which is titulus 73 of Berengarius deLandora, Lumen antmae.

\i I have not been able to examine nos. t5 and 16,the latter the only vernacular title printed byC. W. The main paper stock of no. 14, AndreasCapellanus, is identical to that of no. 13, pseudo-Prudentius (watermarked with the arms ofLuxeuil, type of Briquet, 1160). Mr. Alan Jutziof the LIuntington Library tells me that theircopy of no, 15, Boncompagnus, also contains thisstock, G.W., 4836 states that Boncompagnus'obviously forms a unity' with AndreasCapellanus. This is an exaggeration, but somecopies ot the two thcmatically related texts arebound together.

13 I am thankful to Mr, James K. Walsh for send-ing me information concerning the HoughtonLibrary copy, the only one known to me, of AdamRot's enlarged edition (Goff, S-577). It is aquarto of 22 leaves, collating a b^ r^, a i blank-Its text, therefore, like that of the Strasburgedition, covers 21 printed leaves, but the twoeditions do not agree page for page. The Stras-burg edition has a heading on /) 6^, REGVLE •EXPKCITATIVARVM, which does not appear inAdam Rot's edition.

14 One rather slight piece of circumstantial evidencethat we are dealing throughout with a single pressis just worth mentioning, though it can only bearlittle weight. It was noticed above (note 3) thata tract volume in the Bibliotheque Nationaiecontains three 'pseudo-Koberger' editions boundtogether, with an early owner's note of a fourthtext, now missing: a Tractatulus de cognitionevite a solitario quod dialogiee edita' [sic]. It may

141

be ili.ii ihis was (,. \\ , \ cdilion of Hugo deSaiKlu \ it.tore, Sn/tloi/ttititti (no. i i ) . Its fortiiatis right. It is a 'tiactaiuUis' of only lo leaves, andit is in dialogue lorm. The title given in theowner's contents note, M)e aignitittne vite', isnondescript, but the heail-titic of C, W,'sedition,'Incipn soliliKiuium luigi>nis in moduni dyalogi.ul .iiiiiii.ini stiam , , , \ may have intluenced theowner lo see in this .1 work written 'a solitario',l\\ a hermit, I'ract volumes generally fall intotwo classes, those assemhled ,id hoc by theirowners, and those issued thus. Since three ofthetour texts in this \olumec,ime from a single press,there is some cncotiragcment to suppose that thefourih i.ame fntm the same press, and thai thelour ie\Is were sold logelher,

15 l i i r msiance. m no, 12, \ndreas Cipcllanus, the\\ pc measure of./ 4 is 112 mm,, while that of itsconiugate d 5 is io(> nitn. In no. h, ChrNsopitlita,the t \pc me,isure ol "4 is 1 lo mm., wliile thatot Its e<in|ugaie ii~ w 107 mm. The BritishLibrar\ eop\ {IB, ((70) ot no. n , pseudo-Priuicntius, is not enicrcd in B, W,C; howc\er,Or Lotte I lellmuj inlornis me that the late\ Ktor Scholderer, in his unpublished descrip-tion of tbis cop\ , noted that its t \pe heights varybetween the recto and \erso of several leaves(</ 3, 4), and that this invalidates B.,\\.(l.\ theor\ot unequal damping.

i^ 1 or .uiorlur insiance where two cases ofthe samelace, coiu urrciirh usetl in .1 (ltieenlh-Lcnliirsp i i i i i i n u s h o p , i i i .n lie t i i s i m g i i i s l H i l b \ i l i e i r

\.ir\ini; heights, see m\ artule "Two unrccortledr rench-languaee incunabula Irom the press ot\ntoinc (.lillaiii", Hclltti^a FcUuhrtft (Amster-

17 Prtlmunarv investigations, w hah I hope todc\el'ip luriher. show ihat there was concurrenttuTiiposiiiiin vMilun .ill lour o( C, \\ 's Regalfolios, nos. 6 g, and also within the ordinarv-si/e folios nos. 12 14. C, W . apparentiv possessedjt least two cases of t \pe associated with hisordinar\-si/e presses, and as many as four casesof tvpc assrH.i.itcd with his Regal presses.

tK It has heen suggested that i. W mav he identi-fied \s iih either one Clas W encker or one ConradWolfacb (K \ oullicme. Diedcttischcn Drtichi-rda/,-. Jahrh., Berlin, 1922, p. 148; \\ Geldner,Dif detituhi-n hihtittahctdruiher, Stuttgart, 196X,vol i. p ^4), but I have been unsuccessful indiscovering the basis for these suggestions,

Mf The advertisement, which mcludcs a contents

list, is partially quoted by I Iain in his descriptionof one ofthe Munich copies of Nider, De moratiIcpra (Hain, 11813). ' mentions hoth Dc moruliU-pra and Mantialc conjesstirum, treating them asan entity, and states (abbreviations expanded)thiU 'eomparare volens in domo vbi infra foro inconipetenil leperict'. A second example ofthisadvertisement, with variant settings, has recentlybeen discovered as binder's waste in a volumein the University Library, Basle. It is reproducedand discussed by F. [lieronymus, 'Einhand-schnipsel', Tottim me itbris dedo: Festschrift AdolfSecbiiss (Basle, 1979), pp. 66-71 and Abb. i.Hieronynius diseus.ses the four editions, com-monly assigned to Koberger, that I haveattrihuted tu C, W, in Strasburg, and eomes toa rather different conclusion: that they wereprinted at the Monastery of Saints Ulrieh andAfra at Augsburg. His main argument is that a(now-lost) printed advertisement for that press's1474 edition of Vincent of Beauvais, Specuttimhistnriate (Proctor, 1639; B.M.C. ii, 339, IC.5774) used the phrase 'in competenti foro',analogously to the phrasing of the Nider-advertisement. I lieronymus sees also a similarityin mise-en-page (Druckanordnung) between thetwo Nider editions, and an edition of Felicianus,De dtvma praedestinattone printed at the Ulriehand Afra press (Hain, 6950; Proctor, 1640;B.M.C. ii, 343, IB. 5778). Neither argument isol a kmd traditional!) gi\en any weight inquestions of hibliography, and it may be notedbriclU that ihe paper stocks ofthe four editionsin question argue as stronglj against Augsburg asagainst Nuremberg,

\i)U- iin the illiistratwtis:

The watermarks, figs. 1-15, are reproduced fromheta-radiographs; figs, i 4 and 15 have been suppliedh\ the Pierpont Morgan Library, figs. 5-14 by theBritish Library. Captions identify the marks as being"mR' (centred in the right half of the sheet) or 'mL'(centred in the left half). Their sources are:I"ig, 1: Johannes Nider, Alanuale confessorum (PML,

75838).'- 1-I ig, 2: ihid., t 7.I ig, 3: ibid., d I.I'ig. 4: ibid., e 2.Fig. 5: Honorius Augustodunensis, De praedestina-

ttone (HL, IB. 7106), d 10.I"ig. 6: ibid., b 5.

142

Fig. 7: ibid., fl4. Fig. ,2: ibid.,/; 10.Fig. 8: ibid., a 6. Fig. ly, ibid., c 2.Fig. 9: ibid., d 6. Fig. 14: ibid., c 3.rig. 10: ibid., a to. Fig. 15: Johannes Nider, Manua/e confessorum (copyFig. 11: ibid., b 8. belonging to Messrs. Lathrop C. Harper), d 7.

143