By Eric L. Bandurski, Waldoboro, ME, USA
I’m particularly interested in Anton Koberger’s typography, so I’ve given special attention to a November 10, 1478 copy of his Bible. It was a “rescue”, as I’ll explain later, but it’s in originaI condition. It’s complete, fully and carefully rubricated, with clasps and catches, intact headband and tail band. We don’t own the incunabulum; it owns us. We’re blessed to be among the many caretakers it will have during its lifetime. Like many ancient leather-bound volumes it appears to have had little attention for centuries. It’s now in its 546th year. If given the care it deserves, it could live another 500 years – perhaps a thousand.
I’m telling you about this edition because it contains custom-made ligatures. While studying these I noticed that this copy has a typesetting defect. This led me to use the ISTC listing of holders to confer with more than 130 other caretakers of this edition throughout the world. Besides documenting the frequency of occurrence of this defect, the survey also revealed the accuracy of the ISTC listing and unexpectedly provided little-known information about Koberger’s publishing practices.
Forty years ago our copy of Koberger’s Nov. 10 edition appeared in the catalog of a bookseller in Chelsea, London. That long ago such an incunabulum was still affordable, especially since it had “issues”. The catalog listed an early ownership inscription of a house of German nuns. Otherwise, its provenance was not stated, because the bookseller was discreet about his sources. I assumed that this copy had remained in private libraries.
I didn’t realize how massive this typical early German Bible would be until we received the 8 kg package on approval. When I laid the incunabulum on a table, released the clasps, and opened the front cover I was surprised and pleased to find a bookplate inside, a clue to its provenance. (Oskar Göschen was a well-known Austrian author specializing in heraldry; his books are still in print.)
Turning over the first blank I found that the book was owned by nuns at Schuttern in Germany. (Schuttern Abbey, a Benedictine monastery for more than a millennium, was “dissolved” in 1806. The buildings were torn down and the stones were used in local construction.)
I opened the Bible to the interior and found that the linen paper is still white. It has wide margins and numerous untrimmed leaves. As I turned the folios the thick paper “crackled” with freshness.
The bright rubrication is in vermilion tempera, with graceful curves and careful painting of virtually every capital letter. Just as it is usually described, Koberger’s font is sharp, dense black and a pleasure to read.
More than any incunabulum I’d ever studied, this one transported me into a 15th century monastic library. The nuns didn’t seem to accord this printed Bible the respect that they gave to their manuscripts. Throughout the volume they felt free to make annotations in Latin in the margins, making corrections or commenting on passages. (Note the careful rubrication here – a specific shape for each capital letter throughout the alphabet.):
When they worked in the evenings the nuns left occasional drippings from tallow candles. Surprisingly, whenever they sharpened their quills, they cut the shavings into the gutters of the incunabulum and left them. Mice ran freely across the open pages, adding their droppings. Wheat chaff blew in from open windows and passing birds dropped small white puddles. When I finally closed the incunabulum after my first inspection and re-secured the clasps, I noticed several little piles of fine sawdust on the table, spilling from wormholes in the covers. I’m afraid this copy was more “original” than some people would desire. I found it to be a virtual time capsule, however, and I had to “rescue” it. A small drop of insecticide injected with a hypodermic needle into every wormhole in the binding halted all the worming. The linen paper, fortunately, was almost untouched.
The “sb” Ligature Experiments – Signs of a Perfectionist Typesetter
Typesetting in the Koberger Bibles was challenging, particularly considering the abbreviations, but it was usually impeccable:
While studying the broad range of ligatures required in the printing I discovered that Koberger’s typesetter did not have the “sb” ligature available as a single piece of type. This ligature is so rarely encountered that one could just insert the separate letters, but the typesetter tried several techniques in both the April, 1478 and Nov., 1478 editions to simulate the appearance of an “sb” ligature. The most effective technique was to file the stem of the “b”:
lowering “barne”, lxij April, 1478
raising “is”, cvj line 29, April, 1478
filing “b”, cvj line 20, Nov., 1478
filing “b”, cvj line 29, Nov., 1478
The Inverted Letter
My closeup studies of the ligatures led to the discovery of an inverted letter on folio lxxxij verso column 1 line 9.
At first I didn’t recognize the letter. Then I realized that it was simply an inverted “g”. But this type of error is quite unexpected in a Koberger Bible. I immediately checked the seven digitized copies of the Nov. 10, 1478 edition listed in the ISTC and GW, expecting all copies to have the inverted “g”. They didn’t; the “g”s were all normal. Very interesting! This meant that the typo was detected early, printing was halted, and it was corrected. I wondered how many sheets might have been printed with the error. Perhaps it’s rare. The other side of this sheet has a more serious error, a transposition across lines 13 and 14 on lxxxij recto. It may not have been noticed until printing was well underway, so it was not corrected and is in all Nov., 1478 copies. This error was caught, probably in the 15th century, by a reader of our copy and a reader also noted it in the Gotha copy.
Since I had only seen the seven digitized copies, I wanted to see more, so I turned to the ISTC listing of holders in the British Isles to see if other libraries might have copies with the inverted “g”. First in order in the listing at the time was “Cambridge UL” with three copies of the Nov. 10, 1478 edition. I sent an email to Cambridge, asking if a librarian could check folio lxxxij verso in their copies for the inverted letter. Ed Potten replied and sent photos: one copy is normal, but “BSS.120.A78.2” has an inverted “g”! Ed’s third photo, “BSS.120.A78”, revealed a different typesetting for folio lxxxij. On a hunch I used the ISTC listing of facsimiles to compare that photo with lxxxij in München’s April, 1478 copy. It matched. Ed and I agreed it was a shame that we couldn’t check all the other copies of the Nov. 10 edition for the inverted “g”. I decided, however, that with the ISTC, the internet, and helpful librarians it might be possible to conduct a worldwide survey.
How the Survey was Conducted
I began by drafting a letter in English, which I thought would be understandable by most librarians. When I found a library website using the ISTC (or GW) name, I made full use of “Ask a Librarian” if that was offered or “Contact”. Profiting from my experience with the Cambridge UL copies, I asked the librarian to look at folio lxxxij verso, column 1 line nine and choose one of three options: 1) the “g” in “Pergensque” is normal, or 2) the “g” is inverted, or 3) the copy has a different typesetting entirely. Because many of the copies are in countries where the native language is German or French, I sent out the letter to these countries in English and in their native language. After viewing my attempts at translation, two librarians, one in Nürnberg and one in Strasbourg, came to my rescue. They generously volunteered to provide clear German and French translations, respectively, based on my English letter. For some countries in the survey I initially tried to use Google Translate, but I was soon advised to just use English. A confusing translation from Google Translate would make my letter highly suspect as a scam and the email would be rejected.
Libraries in Eastern European countries were particularly difficult to contact. On several occasions, after I made one solid contact as I did in Hungary, that librarian helped me contact others in that country.
Results and Implications from the Worldwide Survey:
Librarians all over the world have been very gracious. Many actually thanked me for giving them an “excuse” to once again enjoy this masterpiece of early printing. Most librarians also volunteered to send photos, which are now valuable documentation. The replies showed that some of the “Nov. 10” copies are listed incorrectly, e.g., wrong edition or wrong language. Some copies have been sold, transferred, or, sadly, “lost”.
To date, 117 responses for the Nov. 10, 1478 edition reveal the inverted “g” in only 8 copies, scattered worldwide [Budapest Ráday (Hungary), Cambridge King’s College (England), Cambridge UL (England), Esztergom Cathedral L (Hungary), Riga NL (Latvia), Stuttgart WLB (Germany), Waldoboro (Maine, USA), Worms StB (Germany)]. Apparently, only a small number of impressions of the folio lxxxij verso side of the sheet were made before someone noticed the “g” typo, had it corrected, and then continued to print. Koberger’s staff didn’t seem to throw away any sheets. Considering that the 8 sheets with the inverted “g” were printed sequentially, it’s amazing that they’ve been scattered so widely, from UK to Latvia.
In addition to the 117 Nov., 1478 copies, ten libraries revealed April 14, 1478 printings for folio lxxxij. One copy contains an April 14, 1480 printing and one copy is in German. About 90% of the approximately 145 copies listed in either ISTC or GW for this edition have now been surveyed.
How can sheets from different printings be bound together and not be noticed?
GW provided the answer with their collations of the five editions from July, 1477 to April, 1480:
468 Bl. [a¹²b–y¹⁰zA⁶B–N¹⁰OP⁶Q–S¹⁰TV⁸X–Zaabb¹⁰cc⁶]. Gez. [1]Fol.j.–cccclxj[6]. 2 Sp. 51–53 Z. Typ. 3:110G, 4:160G.
Collation: identical April, 1478; Nov., 1478; 1479; 1480
Font: identical April, 1478; Nov., 1478; 1479; 1480
First and last words in a folio: identical April, 1478; Nov., 1478; 1479; 1480
The 1477 edition doesn’t have numbered folios, so the sheets cannot be mixed with other editions. However, sheets from any of the later four editions can be bound together and will still read seamlessly. Between the first and last words of the folio the typesetter must fit the same words in the same order, but the manner in which they are abbreviated or not abbreviated can vary significantly so that the words fit snugly. One can determine the date of printing of any sheet by noting differences in the abbreviations.
In this survey 130 librarians checked only one sheet (lxxxij/xcj) of the 234 sheets making up 468 folios. We’ve found 10 copies with April, 1478 sheets. Five of these copies have confirmed April colophons, so they’re out of place in the ISTC listing, but at least one copy with an April sheet has a November colophon. I’ll call this copy a “hybrid” because it contains sheets from more than one printing. What would we find if we checked the colophons of the remaining four copies? What would we find if we checked some of the other 233 sheets?
Well . . . I did, by accident. In checking on an “sb” ligature in “presbiteri” on folio ccclxvj recto of the seven digitized editions, I discovered that the Zürich copy has an April 14, 1478 sheet (gasp!). It’s hard to tell if you have a hybrid copy. But does it really matter? Koberger’s typesetting method comes in really handy if the rubricator spills paint on a sheet. No problem – just substitute the same sheet from another printing. No one will ever notice.
Europe's printed and hand-written books in the spotlight 