A study of the first book printed in Lyon

Transcription

1 A study of the first book printed in Lyon in 1473 Gerald Bettridge (member of the Friends of the Museum of printing and graphic communication of Lyon) Introduction Abbreviations used Historical Background The typography Comparison of the French copies The sources of the books in the Compendium Overall structure Conclusions Thanks and acknowledgements Bibliography Appendix technical terms Appendix quires and folios Appendix Latin abbreviations Appendix Latin language Appendix Choice of initials Appendix Satan s suit 1

2 Introduction back The first work that can be dated with certainty as printed in Lyon, in 1473, is now very rare, and there is no copy in Lyon itself. The Friends of the Museum of Printing and graphic communication of Lyon thought that more should be known about this work, and decided to compare the known copies of it. I was shortly afterwards entrusted with the research. It is a theological work, and as its title Compendium Breve Cinque Libros Continens implies, is made up of five books, claiming to be by Innocent III while he was just Cardinal Lotharius. There are six known copies, three in France. The French ones are in the French National Library (BnF) in Paris, the municipal library in Grenoble, and the Media centre in Niort. Outside France there is an incomplete copy in the British Library, another incomplete copy in Turin and a complete copy in Manchester. Given the proximity of Grenoble to Lyon, and the interest shown by the Librarian in our project, we were able to visit the library there and were given facilities to scan the work for ourselves, so we now have a complete scan of that copy. It lacks two sheets, and the first sheet is seriously damaged. One of the sheets is bound in the wrong place, and two of the rubricated initials are incorrect. (For the non-specialist, all the technical terms are explained in the Appendix technical terms ). The University Library in Turin very kindly sent us scans of 1r, 2r, 12v and 13r. Those pages are in good condition, carry manuscript comments and underlinings but are not rubricated. Two sheets are missing, given as 44 and 68, but as we shall see the modern folio numbers in pencil vary from copy to copy. The British Library copy lacks the fourth of the five books. The BL kindly sent us some study photos of a few pages, showing us that it is in good condition and rubricated. We were unfortunately unable to discover any details of the Manchester copy. Given the interest our study has for the history of printing in France, we were able to obtain full scans of both the Paris and the Niort copies. The BnF, for a modest fee, sent us a medium resolution complete monochrome scan as well as a colour scan with lower (but still good) resolution. This prompted them to add the work to those available on line in Gallica, for which we are very grateful. In terms of the number of bound sheets, it is the only complete full copy, and is the only copy to have an illuminated page, which was specially reset by the printer to accommodate the design of the illuminated initial. It has all the rubricated initials bar one, but seven are incorrect. It has one defect, in that two pages are exchanged and upside down, following a printing error. The Médiathèque Pierre-Moinot in Niort has very kindly scanned the entire work for us. It is as it came from the printers, with no rubrication. It is complete, apart from a few blank pages which were suppressed. Its only defect, not obvious at first sight, is that for some reason two 2

3 leaves are interchanged. Another interesting feature is that two other works of the same period, both more legal than theological, are bound with it. (Other copies of these two works can be found on line.) With the kind permission of M. Surget, director of the Médiathèque de l agglomération de Niort, I have used the images as the basis for a reference Compendium. Various errors in the choice of initials and the chapter numbering are noted in the margins. There is also a system to navigate between the lists of contents and the chapters. The misplaced folios have been corrected. A version is available on this site, but the images are only medium resolution. The high resolution version will be available on the site of the Médiathèque Pierre-Moinot in due course. (However the images of the Paris copy are on line at the BnF choose the thumbnail view to navigate with the same folio numbers). In terms of the typography of the work, I shall limit myself to comparing the three French copies with each other. When it comes to the content of the work, however, I shall compare the Compendium with other similar printed works of the period. Abbreviations used back The source of the images is given for every image which is not ours, in square brackets. Aud Le Grand siècle de l imprimerie lyonnaise, Maurice Audin, 1974 (fascicule) BL British Library, London BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris DocCat Documenta Catholica Omnia (web site, in Latin) GLib Guildhall Library, London Gren Bibliothèque municipale de Grenoble München Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich Niort Médiathèques de l agglomération de Niort ÖNB Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna The historical background back In 1473, printing was becoming well established in Europe. Lyon at that time, whilst a very important banking and trading centre, lacked a university, so that the élite of the town were men of action rather than scholars. The merchant Barthélemy Buyer, after a visit to Paris, decided that Lyon too should have its printers, and engaged a printer who had left Liège in 1468 after the sack of the town to come to Lyon, probably with his typographical material. His name in Latin was Guillermus Regis and in French Guillaume le Roy. Buyer was a prosperous merchant, and set up a workshop for le Roy, but Buyer was never himself a printer. He did in later life set up a business in Toulouse as a bookseller, and this might possibly explain the presence in that part of the world of one of his books. (It was in a monastery, and after confiscation at the Revolution, ended up in the town of Niort). 3

4 The position of the Church in 1473 was somewhat fragile. The Western Schism was less than a century distant, and the then Pope, Sixtus IV, to whom we owe the Sistine chapel, was scarcely a paragon of virtue. Wyclif in England and Huss in Bavaria had been silenced (Huss at the stake) so the ground was ready for the upheaval of the Reformation. Men such as Buyer, good Catholics with an interest in established order, were happy to uphold the doctrine of the Church. One might wonder why Buyer should have chosen works by Innocent III for his first book. Lotharius was a deacon and a cardinal, but not a priest. His election in 1198 to the papacy was due to his reputation as a theologian, and he took the organisation of Church in hand, setting up the basis of the its administration which is still largely in force. He also, with some but not total success, established the absolute power of the papacy. (His bull annulling Magna Carta must be counted as one of his failures). Lotharius best known work was on the miseries of the human condition, De Contemptu Mundi sive de Miseria Conditionis Humanae Libri Tres, and some hundreds of manuscripts of it survive to the present day. Perhaps one could look at his reign with some nostalgia, before such trials as the loss of Jerusalem and the Western Schism. Certainly his name was a guarantee of interest, and it was not only in Lyon that the early printers produced his work. We must now consider the general background to producing books during the period just before and after the invention of printing in Europe. While St Jerome was at pains to establish authentic texts for the Bible by translating from the original Hebrew, and Alcuin at Tours around the year 800 worked hard on a revision of the Vulgate, for the most part books were reproduced by monks who did their best simply to copy what was put in front of them, working long hours in badly lit and unheated cells. They made free use of abbreviations to hasten the work, and the occasional error cannot be wondered at. A mistake once made would be perpetuated, and sometimes a work would be put together with other texts and that particular set of texts would take on a life of its own a tradition. The early printers worked in much the same way. Whether they were setting text from a manuscript or from another printed work, they simply copied, and indeed did not always have the knowledge to correct errors. It was the humanist movement that introduced the idea of comparing sources in an effort to establish an authentic version of a text. So by the 1470s many similar, but not identical, manuscripts of a particular tradition were in circulation. Different traditions of the same works were also in evidence. Printers were not above copying each other s works, but in the early days manuscripts were more widespread than other books. 4

5 The typography of the work back General presentation The work is in-quarto, with a page size of about 19 5 cm 13 5 cm with type of about 16 4 pt (reckoning 72 points to the inch, which is close to British and American printers points). There are generally 24 lines per page of gothic characters without line space. The language is Latin. The set of letters used Gothic letters are now unfamiliar to most people, and this is the first obstacle to reading the text of these early works. But it not a serious obstacle : with a little practice it becomes quite easy. The letters s ( s ) and f ( f ) are however easily confused. Only at the end of a word is ሄ used. Much more of an obstacle is the use of special characters to reproduce the abbreviations commonly used in handwriting. The simplest of these is the bar (or macron) over a letter to denote a missing letter. The use of these has not entirely died out : in English the apostrophe is used to denote the missing letter e of the Anglo-Saxon possessive, and frequently in French a circumflex accent denotes a missing letter s. The most serious obstacle these days is simply that the language is medieval Latin. Even if one has studied Latin at school, the language is no longer that of Cæsar, let alone Cicero. However, there are resources on the internet to help, and the language is simpler than classical Latin. It is, after all, still one of the working languages of the Vatican, and there it is still spoken fluently. Although the style of the letters is gothic, there is no attempt to even out the distance between the vertical strokes of the letters as was done by Gutenburg and Schöffer in Mainz a quarter century earlier, by using special forms of the letters in certain cases. They were at pains to reproduce the gothic textualis style of lettering, the most beautiful of the gothic manuscript styles if one of the least legible. If we take a line from Ezekiel in Gutenberg s bible, it looks like this: rᐉt. Cᐣᔷ ingᐒᐅᐄiᑢᐔᐉᑖ ingᐒᐅᐄieᔲᗒ:& cᔷ eᐇᐒᐅ- but if the special forms after cefgrtxy, which closely abut the preceding letter, are not used one gets rit. Cᐣᒼ ingrediᑢtiᑖ ingredieᒲᗒ:& cᒼ egre- notice how ragged it looks by comparison. In this simplification (no longer making special shapes for letters) Le Roy s font is akin to Fraktur. It somewhat resembles in style Gutenberg s DK or B36, especially for the capitals. The digital copy of the font we have made is not very accurate but does reproduce the text fairly well. The type used in the Compendium lacks any allowance for kerning. Without going into detail, type allowing this is difficult to make, and here any combination of letters requiring kerning was 5

6 accommodated by special characters for ligatures. However this is only a partial solution : it does not allow for the letter s to overlap its neighbour in every case, for example. For more detail, see the Appendix technical terms The special characters which reproduce the abbreviations used by the scribes in their manuscripts would have been familiar to readers of the period. While Gutenberg and Schöffer were sparing and systematic in their use of these abbreviations, here no concessions are made and the abbreviations are sometimes hard for present day readers to decipher. Here is a list, which I believe to be complete, of all the characters present in the work. First the basic alphabet: A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T U a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r ሂ s ሄ t u v x y z Note that u and v are the same letter: v is used at the start of a word, with a few exceptions such as ut and uel. The same capital U serves for both. As was common then, e is used both for e and ae. In this work in Latin, one does not find j or w, and the capitals of X, Y and Z do not exist either (unless I have missed one!). The characters for punctuation are. : - /. There is no question mark. The two oblique strokes are equivalent and are used at line ends to indicate word breaks. These hyphens are only found towards the end of the first and fifth books, not at all in the second and fourth, and throughout the third. This is a clue to the order of composition. The special characters are & ሁ ሃ ሀ ቆ ሊ ሉ ሌ. The round r ሂ and the z also serve as special characters. Letters can also have diacritics or accents. The meanings of these will only be of interest to those reading the Latin. There remain the ligatures, ቀ ቃ ቁ ቌ ቍ ቈ ቇ and ቆ. See Appendix Latin abbreviations The nature of the types and their fixing in the formes A lot of the information in this section comes from a work by Maurice Audin, of the wellknown family of Lyonnais printers. It was produced in 1974 for an exhibition at the Lyon Museum of Printing and graphic communication. The BnF has a number of copies. We have a good idea of what early Lyonnais type was like thanks to a chance discovery in 1868, when specimens of type were dredged up from the mud in the river Saône, close to the area which held the early workshops. Augustin Claudin considered some came from the workshop of 6

7 Guillaume le Roy. Generally, of course, type metal was recycled so that early type is very rare. How these types came to be thrown in the Saône is a mystery. The type was cast, then the end was cut to make a bevel so that the exact height could be adjusted by filing. Some Figure 1 [Aud] types then had a Figure 2 [Aud] slot or a hole made in them, probably to allow them to be tied together in some way. This was done for blocks of type to be printed in red so that they could easily be removed, re-inked, and reinserted in the forme, as was done in the Mainz Psalter. The type on the right shows signs of having been filed down to shorten it. The alloy used for these was similar to that used for modern type and some seems to have come from the mines at Ste Foy l Argentière, which belonged to Jacques Cœur, the well-known financier. But the composition was very variable from one sample to the next, the lead content varying from 40% to 80% and the antimony from 7% to 28%. When one looks at the Compendium first one is struck by the irregular lines and the variable inking. Le Roy s first type seems not to have been carefully enough filed to a uniform height. The irregularities in the type are of two kinds, which could be called random and systematic. The typographer at the Lyon Museum of Printing and graphic communication, Fernande Nicaise, thinks that the irregularities are due to the type not being separated into lines, but assembled into place and then clamped. The random irregularities are then due to slight variations in size, and the more systematic ones to a complete line of type being bowed up or down, influencing the lines above and below. I would go one step further, and postulate that the rows of type were tied together on a wire, rod or string in some way through the holes or slots. The irregularities are then partly due to the inaccuracies in drilling the holes or cutting the slots. None of the types supports kerning, so assembling them is this way would be simple if somewhat time consuming. In his work l Invention de l Imprimerie, (Paris, 1809) Meerman talks of these practices. The purpose of Meerman s work is to gain recognition for the early printing with moveable type done in Haarlem, while recognising that while the Haarlem printers used moveable type, they did not cast it that was Gutenberg s great contribution. Meerman quotes Paul Pater who claims to have seen this system of tying letters together in use, and Théodore Bibliander who wrote of it in

8 Figure 4 [Niort] Figure 5 [Gren] Figure 3 [BnF] Thanks to the internet which enables us to compare works from different places side by side, I have been able to find a piece of evidence which strongly supports the idea. On page 81r (Paris numbering), on the sixth line down, the topic is the oak trees of Basan. In the Niort copy Basan appears normally as basan. However, before the Grenoble copy came to be printed, the s of Basan broke, probably around the hole or slot which would be its weak point. The pieces were then removed to make ba an. Now normally when a letter breaks it is replaced, but this was not done here. The reason could well be that this would have involved dismantling the whole line of type and re-threading it. The Paris copy was printed later still, and there the a following the b has slid along to give b aan. Another more subtle clue is afforded by the very first page 1r. On the left Niort, and on the right London (BL). In in London copy the last t of tractat has slipped down and in so doing has pushed down the u of ipsላuሄ. The wire might well have broken between the t and ቀ causing a shear at this point. Figure 7 [Niort] Figure 6 [BL] At the Bibliothèque Municipale in Lyon I was able to examine seven other books printed in Lyon in the last 25 years of the fifteenth century, six of them using the same font as the Compendium. Already by 1476 some books showed well-aligned type, showing more modern means of assembling the formes had been adopted. The need to incorporate wood-carved initials and illustrations into the text would have encouraged this. (Even when there is no apparent line space, that does not necessarily imply there are no separators, as the ink spreads over the paper by capillary attraction.) Comparison of the three French copies back The rubricated initials Throughout the work the printer indicated the letter to be supplied for the rubricated initials only when the initial extended over more than two lines. For most of the initials, therefore, the rubricator was on his own, and the Paris one made a number of mistakes. I have established the correct initial in two ways in books 2 and 4, where most of them appear in a collection of Innocent III s works printed in The first word of a chapter sometimes differs from the that in the Compendium, but in these cases the correct choice is fairly obvious. The other way of deciding is to look carefully at the Latin text, and judge from the context. (In one case for example one had to decide between Quis (who) and Avis (bird). The chapter went on to consider birds.) Only the Paris and Grenoble copies are rubricated, so we can only compare those two. In just one case both made the same mistake, as the context clearly shows. 8

9 Artistically the Paris copy is the best, and of course it is on line and easy to consult, (Choose the mosaic view to navigate). The Latin context of the wrong initials is in Appendix Choice of initials Paris The Paris copy is the most complete in that all the folios are bound, including the blank ones. I have used the Paris folio numbers for all three copies partly for this reason, and partly because the Paris copy is the only one so far on line. It is in excellent condition, showing few signs of serious use, and is the only copy to have an illuminated page. A strange feature here is that this page 2r has an illuminated initial D which extends over 4 lines, whereas all the other copies we have seen (5 out of 6) have a space of 5 lines for this initial. Lines 5 to 8 of the page were reset especially for this copy, it would seem, and they form a good example of how to try to justify type by appropriate choice of abbreviation. Originally these read fላlላuሄ generaቭ a patre solo. sሦሄ sanctሁ ሊcedit ab vtroqህ scilicet a patre et fላlio and after recomposition with all abbreviations removed they became fላlላuሄ generatur a patre solo. spirituሄ sanctuሄ procedit ab vtroqህ scilicet a patre et fላlio but this was insufficient to make the justification correct. Figure 8 Exchanged pages There is one imperfection in the Paris copy, in that pages 41v and 44r have been exchanged and appear upside down. This is due to a printing error since they are on the same sheet in the quire and the paper was turned round before printing as shown. Grenoble This copy lacks two folios, and folio 1 is severely damaged. One or two other folios show lesser damage. At some point, after it came into the possession of the library at Grenoble, it was rebound. The pages were trimmed slightly, probably to cut away the damaged edges. Folio 1 was very badly damaged and had to be stuck onto a supporting sheet hiding the verso completely. It had become detached from folio 10 at the end of the quire and this folio was bound after the end of the second quire instead of after the end of the first as it should have been. In two cases it seems that two blank pages might have been torn out at the end of a quire to be used for other purposes. This caused the corresponding first leaves of the quires to become detached and they were then lost when the rebinding was done. This accounts for the two missing leaves. This happened before rebinding since the pencilled folio numbers have no gaps. (The observations about the quires have been checked with this copy which we examined in situ). 9

10 The work shows signs of serious use with some marginal notes. Blank leaves have been omitted in some cases which also makes the folio numbers different from the Paris ones. Niort This copy is bound together with two other works of the same period (Antonionus Florentinus «Tractatus de sponsalibus ( )», on matrimonial law, Heinrich Turner, ca. 1476, Toulouse and Johannes Gerson «De contractibus ( ), on contract law, Ulrich Gering, Martin Crantz & Michael Friburger ) It is as it came from the printer, with no rubrication. Its only defect is that two folios have been exchanged for some reason, but this is not obvious unless the text is read carefully. (I have no special merit here I simply compared the copy with Paris page by page and the pages in question were obviously different. Then and only then did I look at the context.) The differences in the copies are summed up in the Appendix quires and folios. 10

11 The sources of the books in the Compendium back Briefly, this is how the work is arranged. On the first page there is a summary of the overall contents, more or less a title page, which states that the work is by Cardinal Lotharius. There are five books in the work, the first being on the Trinity, the creation of the world, and other useful subjects. The second is on the miseries of the human condition, the third on the Antichrist, the fourth on sins to be avoided and the fifth on a mock trial in which Satan claims the souls of men, with Mary as the advocate of humanity and Christ as the judge. (Predictably, Satan loses his case). When the quest started I had no real idea of how to set about it, except that I needed to look among the known works of Innocent III. It was Madame Barbet-Massin of Grenoble who told me about the site for Catholic documentation: icus.html This page gives the writings of all the popes. It is not immediately obvious one needs to look under SS for SS Innocentius III. Most of the references here come from the Patrologia Latina by Jacques Paul Migne. (217 volumes!) My attention was immediately caught by the title De Contemptu Mundi sive de Miseria Conditionis Humanae Libri Tres which resembles the title of the second book of the Compendium. It was clear that the first two books of this were the source for books 2 and 4 of the Compendium, although there are many slight differences. Migne gives his source as a work published in Cologne in 1575, and I was able to examine this in the BnF in Paris. It is a large work and purports to contain all the known writings of Innocent III. Migne copied it in a more accessible typography but not, alas, without the occasional error. I have since discovered the existence of a work published in Cologne in 1552 on the same subject. It has the advantage of being on line on the site of the Austrian National Library. It is time to label all these different works. I shall call the extract from Migne Migne, and the 1552 Cologne work Cologne. The Compendium Breve will be Lyon. Cologne (and the 1575 work) are, luckily for us, indexed, though the index is based on the marginal notes. But it does allow for searching the work for a topic. The index of Cologne and that of 1575 are word for word the same, though the folio numbers to which they refer differ. Cologne is a little tricky to use because some groups of pages are duplicated. The Catholic database also lists a document (Microsoft Word doc format), not from Migne, of the De Contemptu Mundi, which comes from the Vatican library. I shall call this Vatican. The 11

12 chapter titles are a little different and the order of chapters not always the same as in Cologne, so it represents a slightly different tradition. It also lacks two chapters of the second book (book 4 of Lyon). This work by Lotharius is very well-known and many manuscripts survive, so it is not surprising to find other early printed books containing it. I looked at one of these in the BnF, printed in Cologne around 1473, which is a beautifully printed work in pristine condition. It contains the three books by Lotharius as well as another text. The book from Strasbourg But there is another, printed in Strasbourg (or Straßburg, as it then was) this time, probably between 1472 and It is online on the site of the Bavarian State Library: ztsenfsdrfsdreayaewqxseayaenqrs&no=34&seite=1 I shall call this version Straßburg, and it merits detailed description. There is no title page, at least not in the Munich copy, nor the Vienna copy, nor the three Paris copies (Here I am indebted to Dr Egger of Vienna and Mme Coilly of the BnF). Just as with the labels on food packets, it is not what the book claims that is interesting, but what it does not claim. Page 1r has the incipit of De Contemptu Mundi, with the contents of the first book. (This work of Lotharius consists of three books). This clearly states that the author is Lotharius. The first book continues to page 13r, and there is no explicit for the first book, just the incipit of the second. The second book goes on until page 28r, and similarly this has the incipit of the third book (which does not appear at all in Lyon). This ends on page 36r with an explicit for the whole of De Contemptu Mundi. The text of books 1 and 2 is practically word for word the same as in Lyon, though different from both Cologne or Vatican. The rest of the page is blank, and the work continues afresh on page 36v. Since this is on the verso of 36r the continuation is an integral part of the whole work, and not a separate work bound with it. The remainder of the work consists of four more books, not all by the same author. The incipit of the first of these books on page 36v makes no claim of any kind as to authorship, so there is no telling who wrote it. My opinion, but I am not an expert in the field, is that it seems very unlike something Lotharius might have written. Now this book is in two parts. The first is exactly the same as book 1 of Lyon, on the subject of the Trinity and other matters, again word for word. The next part starts on page 46r and is the same as book 3 of Lyon, on the Antichrist. It is in a very similar style and since it seems likely that the two parts of the book are by the same author, we can reasonably assume this to be so. A 12

13 new book starts on page 59v, which is absent from Lyon. This continues to page 64v, to be followed on a book of sermons for the dead, again absent from Lyon. This in turn continues to page 70r, where it is followed by the Litigacio sathanæ contra genus humanum, which makes up book 5 of Lyon, again word for word. This last work is thought to be by Bartolus de Saxoferrato, although Straßburg makes no mention of this. It is true that Bartolus was above all a lawyer and did not write any another texts on religion, so his authorship has been questioned. But given that the genre of a mock trial in which Satan claimed human souls by right already existed, it seems plausible that Bartolus might have tried his hand at such a text as a diversion, or simply reworked an earlier text. The question here is whether this work was partially copied by Buyer, or whether this particular assembly of texts represents a tradition and Buyer used as his source a similar manuscript, probably from Lyon. If this is a tradition, then for the texts by Lotharius to have gathered these other writings on the way, it is likely to be a fairly distant cousin of the original work by Lotharius alone, so the original texts by Lotharius are likely to have suffered more errors. The commonest error in copying is an omission because the eye of the copyist skips a line, but he is unlikely to add something on his own initiative. The writings of Lotharius listed in the enormous Cologne work of 1552 might be supposed more reliable than most, given the efforts made to assemble them and the supposition that some critical appraisal might have been made by then. The text of Straßburg, by comparison, is somewhat corrupt. Not only are there changes of wording that seem doubtful, but there are omissions which are important for the meaning. This sort of omission is easy to understand on the part of a weary scribe whose eye slips. Such errors occur when copying a printed text to create a new version one has to look no further than the version given by Migne of a passage Figure 10 Migne [DocCat] which would have been copied from Cologne. Figure 9 Cologne [ÖNB] Notice how the compositor s eye skipped a line of Cologne. These questions are treated in detail in the Appendix Latin language Another problem of Straßburg is the list of chapters given on pages 1r and 1v for what corresponds to book 2 of Lyon. There are 32 initials in the text that follows, which one would assume delimit the chapters. There are 32 chapters listed. However there is not the one-to-one correspondence expected. Comparison with Cologne and Vatican allows one to unravel the confusion. The chapters follow the order of Vatican rather than Cologne, which just exchanges two of them (numbered as 28 and 29). However what is listed in Straßburg as 1 is in fact the Prologue. 13

14 This mistake is compensated by the omission of a title, De vicio conceptionis, which ought to be chapter 3. So far we have that 1 should be Prologue, 2 should be 1, 3 should be 2, then comes the missing title so that from 4 onwards the numbers tally. At the very end a long title about a horrible event, that is to say (scilicet) a woman who ate her own child, has lost the scilicet and become two chapters. We end up with a prologue and 31 chapters rather than 32 chapters. Lyon shows a similar, though worse, confusion in these chapter numbers. We have corrected them in the reference Compendium. Mme Coilly of the BnF, as well as confirming the absence of a title page, has very kindly sent me some photos of one of the copies of Straßburg in the BnF, in which the text is annotated to help the reader navigate through the chapters. The problem of the missing title could not be satisfactorily resolved however! It looks as if Lyon could have been copied from Straßburg. The texts seem to be word for word the same, but there are three things that make one hesitate. The most important is that Straßburg does not contain the incipit and explicit used in book 5 of Lyon. Another is that the dates seem rather close Le Roy would have had to have worked quickly. The third is a small matter, in book 4 chapter 39 of Lyon, page 84r, which corresponds to book 2 chapter 39 of Straßburg, page 26r. This starts, in Straßburg, as CUm quidᐁ pᐜᑈ But in Lyon this is Cum quidem philosophuሄ. Quidam is correct rather than quidem, so here the texts are not quite word for word the same. Further, Le Roy would have had to interpret pᐜᑈ as philosophus, when one might have expected him to copy the abbreviation. Nor is it an easy abbreviation to guess. The book from Louvain Now there is another incunabulum, dating from about 1484, printed in Louvain, which has much the same selection of texts as Straßburg and Lyon. We shall call this book Louvain. There is a copy in the Guildhall Library of the City of London, and several of the pages have been scanned and put on line. It follows the same order as Straßburg, but there are two extra texts added at the end. This book is very instructive. There is no printed title page, any more than there is in Straßburg, but the contents are handwritten inside the cover. We can compare the first two pages of Straßburg and Louvain, which are the contents of the first book of Lotharius, the second book of Lyon. They are identical except that in the body of the text a chapter heading has been added, which could not have been copied from Straßburg. It might have been added to correct the error in the contents already described, but that seems unlikely. There are two other pages we can compare, one from book 1 of Lyon and one from book 3 of Lyon. The first shows the end of chapter 14 and the beginning of chapter 15 of book 1, and whilst the subject and chapter number are the same as for Straßburg, the text is far from the same and could not possibly have come from Straßburg. It looks as if at one point someone ordered a new version of a text thought to be too difficult, which implies that the Louvain text is the older. The other page shows the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 of book 14

15 3, and again the wording is different, though only in a few words which nevertheless cannot be simple copying errors. If some of the work in Louvain had been copied from Straßburg, then surely all of it would, but since this is impossible, we must conclude that the source is a manuscript of the same tradition. The handwritten title page gives the first part as due to Lotharius, but the next part books 1 and 3 of Lyon is given as a tract. The mock trial (book 5 of Lyon) too has a different title from the usual one and the first few words of the text are not quite the same as in Lyon or the later printed works written by Bartolus. (See the Appendix Latin language ) The incipit of book 5 of Lyon is interesting because it often turns up in later works. It contains a word which is clearly wrong but which is copied every time. This incipit is the same as in a book of Bartolus works printed in Vienne France in 1478, and also in two other incunabula of Bartolus works (Toulouse 1485 and Paris 1550), but not in three others (of which the earliest is 1473). In another (Memmingen 1500) the incipit is the same except that the word et is missing near the end. This does not affect the meaning. (This book is on line at ). A book printed in Cologne in 1550 has the same incipit without et. (The Bodleian library in Oxford maintains a database of incunabula which gives the incipit and explicit of the works it mentions. I am indebted to Mme Coilly of the BnF for this information). The Litigacio sathanæ contra genus humanum is interesting in many respects see Appendix Satan s Suit Search among Innocent III s work for books 1 and 3 of the Compendium The texts which have become associated with De Contemptu Mundi sive de Miseria Conditionis Humanae Libri Tres in Straßburg, Lyon and Louvain are not stated to be by Lotharius except in Lyon, and this is probably due to a misunderstanding on the part of Buyer. So it is of interest to see whether there is any evidence that they are by Lotharius. Book 5 of Lyon clearly is not, even if it is not certain it is by Bartolus. What of the others? I searched Cologne for any references to the topics of books 1 and 3. None was found nothing on the Creation of the World, nothing on the Antichrist, and so on except for the Trinity, on which Innocent III did write, on more than one occasion. So here it was possible to compare book 1 chapter 1 on the Trinity with what Innocent put in a sermon preached for All Saints Day. Here is a translation of an extract from Lyon : (the original Latin is given in Appendix Latin language) What one must remember about the Trinity is that three persons are in one entity, that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father is generated from nothing. The Son is generated from the Father alone. The Holy Ghost comes from each, that is the Father and the Son. Nevertheless the Father did not exist before the Son nor the Son before the Holy Ghost, but the Father always existed, the Son also and the Holy Ghost also. And here is an extract from Innocent : 15

16 In God are three persons in one entity. In the three entities there is another entity but not another person. Also in the three persons there is another person but not another entity : because the three are one, eternal and not composite : for it has neither beginning nor end, for a beginning implies an end and an end implies a beginning. The Trinity does not possess either a multitude of parts, nor a unity of qualities, because it has nothing in itself except itself. The first is in a simple Latin, and the second in a precise, subtle and well-constructed style. It seems hard to believe they can be from the same author, but that is not a proof. (It would be of interest to see the Louvain version of this chapter but the page in question is not on line) If one were naming these texts today, one might call the second Some notes on the theology of the Trinity and the first The Trinity for Dummies. Overall structure of the work back We recall that there are five books in the work, the second and fourth definitely by Lotharius. On the first page 1r there is a summary of the overall contents, more or less a title page, with a list of contents of the first book continued on the verso. This summary serves also as incipit for the first book. The explicit of the first book states it is by Lotharius although this is doubtful. The incipit of book 2 repeats the authorship of Lotharius (correctly this time), but the explicit is just the single word Finis. This may well be due to lack of space at the bottom of the last page of the quire. The incipit and explicit of book 3 make no claim of authorship. In book 4, the incipit and explicit say correctly it is by Lotharius. In book 5, neither incipit nor explicit mentions an author, and the explicit is merged with the colophon giving the publisher s and printer s names, with the date. But neither incipit nor explicit comes from the Strasbourg work. The quires The quires tell us quite a lot about the process of assembling the books from their source. Each book starts on a fresh quire. The quires are generally of 16 pages, with half-quires of 8 pages or even a quarter quire of 4 pages at the end of a book as needed. The first quire is a special case; it looks as if it were printed with just the text of the first book starting at page 2r and finishing therefore with the page 9v. Before the next quire was started it was decided to add the title page and a list of the chapters of the first book, so an extra two leaves were added to the outside of the quire, making the folios 1 and 10. Only then was the second and last quire of the first book composed, of folios 11 to 18. The incipit of the first book is combined with the incipit of the whole work. The hyphens too have something to tell us. They do not occur at all in books 2 and 4: in books 1 and 5 they occur from about half way, and in book 3 they are present from the beginning. So it looks as if books 2 and 4, which are the ones known to be by Lotharius, were set first. That is what one might expect, given the notoriety of those texts. The third book of Lotharius work, however was not used at all, and one has to ask why. It may have been absent from the manuscript Buyer used, or he may have preferred the other easier texts. It is true Lotharius does 16

17 not make easy reading. His account of the miseries of the human condition (book 1 of his work) is not optimistic, and his writings on sins to be avoided (book 2 of his work) and how easy it is to descend the slippery slope from virtue to sin, not very cheerful either. The remaining book 3 is about corruption and decay, and Buyer may well have felt that enough was enough, so he did not include it. When the extra sheet was added to the first quire, then, the final makeup had been decided, but perhaps the choice of the Antichrist text for book 3 had only just been made. That would explain how it was the last to be typeset. The explicit of book 1 clearly states that Lotharius was the author, but we have seen that this is very doubtful. Was Buyer in good faith? Probably: for it is unlikely to have been clearly stated that the text was by a different author. At most there would not a been a statement that the author was Lotharius. Conclusions return to Start Putting together all of the evidence, while certainty seems elusive, it looks very likely that the Compendium was composed by selecting texts from a manuscript source of a tradition that associated other texts with the main ones by Lotharius. This same selection of other texts occurs in two other incunabula of the period, but there are differences which exclude the hypothesis of a simple copy of one printed work from another. The authorship of the extra texts, apart from that by Bartolus (and even that is not certain) remains unknown. The typographical evidence of the hyphens and quires leads us to think that Buyer chose five texts from a manuscript, but that he had not made a final choice before the work had started, which explains the extra sheet in the first quire. One might suppose that Buyer had access to more or less the same texts as in Straßburg : but he chose to include only five, whence the title of Compendium breve. Choosing something lighter and amusing for the last text was not exceptional: in another book of a different tradition the last text was the story of a fictional bishop, who, after a life of debauchery, died and went to hell. The tortures he went through are related enthusiastically and in great detail 17

18 Thanks and acknowledgements back Without the help of the French National Library (BnF), the Grenoble Municipal Library and the Niort Media Centre, it would have been impossible to conduct this study. Mme Coilly of the BnF sent us complete scans of the Paris copy, and the icing on the cake le Compendium breve is now available in the Gallica online collection. Every time we needed to consult a book in connection with our study she helped us with the administrative difficulties, and she personally showed us the incunabula. Mme Barbet-Massin of the Grenoble Municipal Library kindly put a scanner at our disposal so that we could make a complete scan of the Grenoble copy. M Grassin of the Niort Media Centre took the trouble to scan the Niort copy himself, and gave us details of the other works bound with it. Because this copy is complete and not rubricated, we have been able to use the images to make a Reference copy. The British Library and the Turin University Library have sent us several images of their copies. Well before this study was mooted, M Guy Parguez, sometime conservator at the Lyon Municipal Library, lent me the little book by Capelli on the abbreviations used by medieval scribes. (An English translation of the most important part of this work has been published by the University of Kansas and can be downloaded from their site). M Pellegrin, of the Friends of the Lyon Museum of printing and graphic communication, told me about the free software FontForge, a powerful tool without which I could not have made copies of the 15 th century fonts. The staff of the Lyon Municipal Library have always been very helpful with my research. In particular Dr Ravier-Mazzocco has been very informative on the subject of manuscript traditions and the role of the humanists. Mme Barbet-Massin told me of the Catholic databases which were the starting point in the search for the sources of the Compendium breve. Mme Coilly made me aware of the important role of the incipit and explicit, and acquainted me with the database maintained by the Bodleian Library which gives them for the incunabula cited in it. She also was good enough to examine the three copies at the BnF of the Strasbourg work similar to the Compendium breve. Dr Egger of the University of Vienna has shown a keen interest in my study and told us of his doubts concerning the authorship of part of the Compendium breve. He also examined for me the Vienna copy of the work so similar to the Compendium breve. 18

19 Dr Pauline Adams, sometime librarian of Somerville College Oxford, and Mr Robert Franklin, fellow of All Souls College Oxford and sometime colleague at Eton College, were kind enough to look over a résumé in English of my work, especially for the historical part. The director of the Lyon Museum of printing and graphic communication, M Joseph Belletante, as well as all his staff, have given me and the Friends every support in conducting the study. Many others too have helped, either by examining works on my behalf, or by pointing me in the right direction. One must recognise the determining role of the internet in this study. Without the Google search engine, without the possibility of examining an incunabulum in Munich virtually turning its pages as much as we liked, without the efforts of the libraries in digitising their works, this study could not have got off the ground. Who would have thought even twenty years ago that Google would have digitised Bossuet s work comparing the Vulgate translation of the Psalms with Jerome s translation from the Hebrew? 19

20 Bibliography back The works we have consulted were generally on the internet. In this case the institution is indicated in square brackets (list of abbreviations here) Compendium breve quinque libros continens, Innocentius III et al, Lyon 1473 [BnF][Gren][Niort] Patrologia latina, Migne, Paris , extract [DocCat] Opera D.Innocentii Pont. Max. eius nominis III, Cologne 1552 [ÖNB] De miseria condicionis humane, Innocentius III, (transcription) [DocCat] De miseria condicionis humane + autres textes, Innocentius III et al, Straßburg c1473 [München] De miseria condicionis humane + autres textes, Innocentius III et al, Louvain 1485 [GLib] I have nevertheless consulted some real books printed on paper : Le grand siècle de l imprimerie lyonnaise, Maurice Audin, Lyon 1974 De l invention de l imprimerie, Meerman, Paris 1809 Reading Medieval Latin, Sidwell, Cambridge 1995 La Bible, Histoire du Livre, Phaidon, Christopher de Hamel, Paris 2002 (French translation) 20

21 Appendix technical terms back to Start Introduction Typography Every profession has its own technical terms. They are needed so as to be able to convey one s meaning exactly and concisely. However, they should not be overused. In the world of books and printing words are often used in a loose way, so that the exact meaning depends on the context. We shall follow the lawyers and define the terms we use in this study. A word can have several meanings, as Lewis Carroll explains in Through the looking glass: The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master that s all. Our first problem is the word book itself. If you take the case of the Bible, it is a book. But it contains books, such as Job or Revelation. When considering old books, I shall use book for one of the parts, like a book in the Bible. The entity will be called just a work. The physical object is a volume, which may contain only some of the books of a work, or books from more than one work. In this meaning book will be in italics. I shall also use book in its more everyday meaning, but then not in italics. So the Compendium is a work containing five books, the London volume contains only four of them, and the Niort volume contains the whole work plus two others. When I say the book printed in Straßburg it is in a general sense. We are concerned here with one of the first printed books, an incunabulum, that is a book printed before Not everything could be printed at that time and some things needed to be added by hand, generally by the customer. Printing in two or three colours was not impossible, as witness the Mainz Psalter of 1457, but it was very slow and very costly. Generally the coloured text was added by hand, usually in red ink, whence the terms rubrication and rubrics. Blue ink was also used. The large letters at the start of chapters the initials also needed to be added by the rubricator who rubricated the book. Each book in a manuscript and often in the incunabula was delimited by an incipit at the beginning and an explicit at the end. In the Bible, for example, one might put Here begins the book of Job and Here ends the book of Job. The incipit and explicit are important for this study. I must now define the words sheet, leaf, folio and page. When one prints a book, one starts with a sheet of paper of parchment. On this, in the simplest case, one prints four pages, two on each side. Then one folds the sheet in two to make two leaves or folios. Each leaf has therefore two pages, a recto and a verso. Early books had no page numbers, so the pages are referred to by the sheet or folio number, recto or verso, for example the page 36r or 72v. In the Compendium, the folio numbers are not always the same from one copy to another, because of the variable number of blank or missing pages. 21

22 The printed sheets are grouped, often in fours, and folded to form a quire or gathering. The quires are bound together by the bookbinder to make a volume. This is the simplest case : such a book is called in folio. But one can print eight pages on a sheet, and then fold it twice to make four leaves. This is called in quarto : once the quire is assembled the pages are joined at the tops or bottoms according to the system of folding and someone has to cut them, at that time the customer. If you are not used to quires, I strongly recommend you to do the following practical exercise. Take two A4 sheets. Write the page numbers 2r, 3v, 6r and 7v as in the figure on the left, with 3v and 6r upside-down. There is no need to colour the sheet : that is just to make the explanation easier to follow. Then, on the second sheet, write in the same way 1r, 4v, 5r, and 8v as in the figure on the right. Put this sheet on top of the first so as to hide it completely. Now fold the two sheets together about a Figure 12 In quarto 1 horizontal axis, putting the upper half under the lower, with the fold at the top. Now you should only see the half-sheet 8v, 1r. Finally fold everything about a vertical axis, putting the left half under the right with the fold on the left. Only the leaf 1r is now visible. You have just made your quire : but to open it you will have to cut the pages. After that you will have the quire as shown below, open at the middle, with the view of the cover and of the inside. Figure 11 In quarto 2 Each leaf carries a single page number, either on the recto or the verso. If you have the patience to complete this exercise, not only will you thoroughly understand quires, but you will be indulgent towards the printers who make the occasional mistake. Figure 14 Outside of quire Figure 13 Inside of quire If you like brain teasers, you might try to make the quire starting with a single sheet of A3, and folding it three times to make the 16 pages. This is called in octavo. The Compendium is printed in quarto. But once the pages are cut, it is exactly the same as in folio with sheets half the size. For this study of the 22

23 Compendium, I shall call the half-sheets simply the sheets. The quires in the Compendium are generally made up of 16 pages, from four sheets, that is two large sheets. I continue to consider leaves and folios as the same. Justification is the practice of making all lines of text the same length, nowadays entirely by varying spacing, but then also by choosing abbreviations carefully. Kerning is the adjustment of the spacing between letters, often making one letter overlap another, in order to make the text more aesthetic and indeed readable for example in headlines involving the letters VA the letters are often made to overlap. A type which overlaps another is difficult to cast and fragile. A ligature is a special character combining two or more letters, often when one has to overlap the another. for example ቁ for ho, or ቃ for ff. The first of these is optional, the choice depending on justifying the line of text. The second example, ቃ, is always used. An initial is a letter at the beginning of a passage larger than the others. In the Compendium they had to added by hand by the rubricator. An initial is often decorated in some way and sometimes illuminated with an image, or historiated with an image illustrating the text. A diacritic is a mark, often an accent, placed around a letter in some way so as to modify its meaning. A colophon is a short piece of text at the end of a work to say who published and printed it, where and when. An incunabulum is a work printed before A tradition of a manuscript is a version which is clearly different from another, rather as chimpanzees are different from gorillas, while both are apes. The forme is the frame in which the type is assembled for printing. Two pages are normally assembled side by side and printed together. In the case of a quire of 16 pages, all 16 must have been set to enable 8v and 1r to be put side by side for one side of the cover sheet of the cahier, as well as 8r and 1v for the other side. If there was insufficient type for this, the sheet would have to be printed in two passes per side, leaf 1 having been broken up to recover the type before leaf 8 was composed. Back to Introduction Typography 23

24 Appendix quires and folios Back to Start Comparison I II III IV V

25 Folio numbers indicated in pencil on the pages of the Compendium I II III IV V P N G P N G P N G P N G P N G folio badly placed Grenoble pages exchanged Paris folios exchanged Niort folio with missing text (Gr) blank folio Paris In red, pages where the text is not correctly ordered. 25

26 Appendix Latin abbreviations back to Start Typography The special characters are & ሁ ሃ ሀ ቆ ሊ ሉ ሌ. The round r ሂ and the z also serve as special characters. The uses of these are as follows: & is simply the ampersand. ሁ is the ending -us. It occasionally doubles for con- at the start of a word. Gutenberg uses two different characters here, ᒺ and ᗌ. ሃ is rum, usually as a genitive plural ending but not always. Gutenberg uses ᒢ. ሀ and ቆ are both quod. ሉ is per and ሊ is pro. ሌ is often ul, but there are special cases, as in ihሂሌm iherusalem, and gሌia gloria. ሂ, the round r, is often used after a round letter, especially o. But it would not be used in this way after the letter q. qሂ is an abbreviation for quia. z is also used as a special sign, as well as the letter z (quite rare). Its commonest use is in qህ, the ending -que meaning and. (Gutenberg has both qᒹ and z). After a or e ህ commonly stands for m, as in etiaህ etiam, Iteህ Item, patreህ patrem, morteህ mortem, rሥeህ rationem. There are also xሦህ christum, and idiሦህ ibidipsum, as well as some special cases like scህ scilicet, lህ licet, hህ habet, dህ debet, sህ sed. However ለieለi is just a Hebrew proper noun (z and ለ are equivalent). Notice viz, vidilicet, which survives in the English viz. (In christum the x and p stand for Greek letters χρ. Compare English Xmas). Abbreviations are often indicated by diacritics. The commonest is a macron or bar, but the dieresis or umlaut is fairly common as well. Then there is an i superscript, a comma, and a kind of zigzag used on the letter t. The macron commonly stands for a missing final n or m, but there are other uses, such as ሧ que, and ሦ pre or præ. The dieresis is used in ቪ quam, ቨ qua, and በ are. The remaining diacritics are used as follows: ቩ qui, &ቡ etc, iudiቡ iudicia Luቡ Lucæ, hብt habent. The letter t can have two diacritics, ቬ -ter as in ቍቬ propter, and eቨnamiቬ æquanimiter ; and ቭ -tur, as in loquiቭ loquitur. There remain the ligatures, ቀ ቃ ቁ ቌ ቍ ቈ ቇ and ቆ. ቇ can mean se or ser. 26

27 Appendix Latin language Back to Start Sources Omissions Some illustrations of omissions in the text of Straßburg: In the chapter marked as ii in Straßburg, one finds Quis ergo det oculis meis fontem lacrimarum ut fleam miserabilem humane condicionis ingressum. Consideraui Vatican gives for this Quis det ergo oculis meis fontem lacrimarum, ut fleam miserabilem humane condicionis ingressum, culpabilem humane conversacionis progressum, dampnabilem humane dissolucionis egressum. Consideraverim Notice how the structure of the sentence so typical of Lotharius has been mutilated by the omission. (ingressum progressum egressum) Another similar omission is to be found on page 1v of Straßburg, where the text is An ad aliud (the rubricator chose the wrong initial) forsitan respondebis tu autem ex humano semine procreatus at ille formatus ex semine sed immundo Vatican gives An illud forsitan respondebis quod Adam ipse fuit de limo terre formatus, tu autem ex humano semine procreatus. At ille fuit formatus de terra, set virgine; tu vero procreatus de semine, set immundo. Note how the omission of set virgine destroys the balance of the sentence. Comparison of Straßburg and Louvain Back to Sources First for Ch 15 livre 1 Lyon : the subject is the Ten Commandments. The first Commandment in the Louvain version: P receptᑐ diuinᑐ ᐐ imperiᑐ ᒐciᐐdi aliquid uel nᐰ ᒐciᐐdi & ᕂnt quedᐁᐵcepta aᒟirmatᐠa ut hᐰra patrᐐ alia negatiua ut nᐰ occideᑈ prima obligᐁt ᔴm per ᕈ nᐰ ad ᔴmᐷ ᔲᐌa obligᐁt ᔽ & ad ᔴmᐷ. Et ᕂnt x quoᑅ tria pertinᐐt ad deuz cetera ᔴptᐐ ad proximuz. Primᑐ eᕁ non habebiᑈ deoᑈ alienoᑈ & ᐠ hoc ᐸ hibeᑎ oᐠᑈ vana ᕂᐷᕁicio. In normal Latin: Preceptum divinum imperium faciendi aliquid vel non faciendi et sunt quædam precepta affirmativa ut honora patrem. alia negativa ut non occides. prima obligant semper sed non ad semper. secunda obligant semper et ad semper. Et sunt x quorum tria pertinent ad deum. cetera septem ad proxmum. Primum est non habebis deos alienos. et in hoc pro- 27

28 hibetur hominis vana supersticio. Translation following the text as closely as possible: A divine precept is the command to do something or not to do it. Some precepts are affirmative, such as honour your father, others negative, such as thou shalt not kill. The first compel always but not in every case, the second always and in every case. There are ten among which three concern God, and the other seven one s neighbour. The first is thou shalt have no other gods (but me) and by this men are prevented from vain superstition. The idea here comes from Thomas Aquinas: the Commandments which must be obeyed always but not for ever, as the Latin has it, applies for example to the obligation to help the poor. If one helped every pauper one met, one would no longer have the means to nourish one s own family, which is absurd. Killing, however, is absolutely prohibited. The same thing for Straßburg, (the same text as in the Compendium) same book, same chapter, same subject. Both texts go up to the start of the second Commandment. D E pᑄeᑳpᓆᑈ diuiniᑈ et diuine legiᑈ ᑟ Sᑶendᑐ eᕁ ᑀ ᕃt ᓳᑳm digito ᓳi in duabz tabuliᑈ lapi ᓳiᑈ ᔲripta & data moyᔸ ᐠ monᓃ ᔸnay ut ᓳᑳret po pulᑐ & quilibet ᔉmo ᓳᓣt ac ᓃneᓌr ea ᔲire ac obᔴr uareᑬᑟᑬpᑄimᑐ quᒮᑐ eᕁᑬᑟᑬnᐰ haᓣbiᑈ ᓳoᑈ alienoᑈ pᑄe ᓃr meᑬᑟᑬin ᔉc ᓳᕁruiᑎ erᑄor illᒮᑐ qui ᓓneᒰbᐁᓌr ᓳ- oᑈ plureᑈ & aᓹᒰbᑐt ydolaᑬᑟᑬnoᑈ aᑐt ᓳᓣmuᑈ aᓹᑄa re & creᓳᒳ vnᑐ ᔼlᑐ ᓳᑐ qui eᕁ creatᒮ omniᑐ ᑳli et ᓃrᑄeᑬᑟᑬIuᓳx viuᒮᑐ & mᒮᓌoᑅ vnᓳ diᑶᓌr ᐠ exodo Audi israhel ᓳuᑈ ᓌuᑈ vnuᑈ ᓳuᑈ eᕁ. De preceptis divinis et divinæ legis. Sciendum est quod sunt decem digiti dei in duabus tabulis lapideis scripta et data moysi in monte sinay ut doceret populum et quilibet homo debet ac tenetur ea scire ac observare. Primum quorum est. Non habebis deos alienos præter me. in hoc destruitur error illorum qui venerabantur deos plures et adorabant idola. nos autem debemus adorare et credre vnum solum deum qui est creator omnium celi et terræ. Iudex vivoroum et mortuorum unde dicitur in exodo. Audi israhel deus tuus unus deus est. 28

29 Of divine precepts and divine law one should know that they were ten, given to Moses, written by the hand of God on two stone tablets, on Mount Sinai, so as to teach the people. Everywhere man is subject to them and has to know and obey them. The first is thou shalt have no other gods but me. By this is eliminated the error of those who worship several gods and adore idols. We must also adore and believe in one God who is the creator of all things in heaven and earth, the judge of the quick and the dead: as it is said in Exodus: Hark Israel, thy God is the only God. The Straßburg version is much simpler and more naïve (based on Exodus chh 20 & 31). One might even believe that the Louvain version could be by Innocent III, with its references to Thomist philosophy. The really interesting thing here is that the Straßburg and Louvain versions are identical for the texts of Innocent III, but for the texts of book 1 of Lyon, the titles are the same, the subjects treated in the same chapters are the same, but the texts are completely different. It would be instructive to consult the Louvain book so as to examine all the chapters of this book 1 to find out more. I hope to be able to do this sometime in the future: the result might be worth a further article. Now for Ch 3 book 3 Lyon Again, the chapter numbers are the same and the subject, the day of judgement, is the same, but though the wording is different the texts are the same in essence. Figure 16 Straßburg [München] Figure 15 Louvain [GLib] The contents list from Louvain : Here we see that the writer did not consider that the extra texts were by Lotharius. The title of the mock trial is Settlement between humankind and the demons. Another difference. Figure 17 Louvain [GLib] 29

30 Comparison of the texts about the Trinity Back to Sources Here is an extract from Lyon : De trinitate dei hoc tenendum est quod in una substantia sunt tres personæ scilicet pater filius et spiritus sanctus. Pater generatur a nullo. Filius generatur a patre solo. Spiritus sanctus procedit ab utroque scilicet a patre et filio. Nec tamen pater ante filium fuit nec filius ante spiritum sanctum, sed semper fuit pater semper filius semper spiritus sanctus. And here is an extract from Innocent : In deo sunt tres personæ in una substantia. In tribus substantijs est aliud sed non alius. In tribus autem personis est alius sed non aliud : quia tres unum sunt, quod est æternum et simplex : quia nec principium habet nec finem, sed est principium sine principio et finis sine fine, quasi principium fit ad finem et finis fit ad principium. Nec habet multitudinem partium, nec habet concretionem proprietatum, quia nihil habet in se nisi se. Notice how Innocent uses aliud, neuter, for the substance, and alius, masculine, for the person. 30

31 Appendix Choice of initials Back to Start Comparison Here I examine the cases where the choice of initial is different in the Paris and Grenoble copies. Here is a table with the initial and the word it is part of : Page (p) Paris Grenoble. 21v In An 26r Quis Avis 33r Dilicia Milicia 70r Cur 76r Spes Opes 84r Cum Dum I shall examine each difference in its context: 21v In/An ad aliud forsitam respondebis quod adam ipse fuit de limo terre formatus. If you replied to another that Adam himself was formed of earth If you replace if by in it makes no sense. Therefore An. 26v Quis/Avis ergo nascitur ad volandum et homo nascitur ad laborem Birds are born to fly and man is born to work Obviously this should be bird therefore Avis. 33r Dilicia/Militia est vita hominis super terram A quotation from Job : The life of man on earth is the life of a soldier Besides it would be delicia and not dilicia. So Militia is correct. 70r Difficult to see any other word than cur. One wonders why there is a blank in Paris. 76r Spes/Opes inique cupidus congregat et avarus conservat voluptates gulosus degustat The envious collect and the miserly keep riches unjustly, the glutton tastes with voluptuousness The construction of the sentence requires that the first word be an accusative. But, spes, hope, is a nominative singular feminine noun. Opes, riches, is a feminine plural noun which can be nominative or accusative. Besides, hope in this context makes no sense so Opes. 31

32 84r Cum/Dum quidem philosophus in habitu contemptibili principis aulam adisset et, diu pulsans, non fuisset admissus, sed quociens temptasset ingredi, tociens contigisset repelli, mutavit habitum et assumpsit ornatum: tunc ad primam vocem aditus patuit venienti. The printed references here give Cum, and the following word is quidam and not quidem. One should prefer quidam because that makes quidam philosophus, a certain philosopher. Quidem is an adverb meaning certainly. But in medieval Latin Dum and Cum are more or less interchangeable so Dum cannot be considered false. The translation is then: When a certain philosopher of a contemplative disposition found himself in front of a prince s palace, and knocked, he was refused entry, and every time he tried to enter, was denied, he changed his clothes and put on rich apparel : then he was admitted at his first try. Conclusion : Cum is to be preferred, but Dum is also allowable. There remains one initial where the Paris and Grenoble rubricators both made mistakes. On page 66v (Paris), ch 5 book 4, they put N instead of V. It must be Vos and not Nos because the verbs datis and redditis are in the second person plural. 32

33 Appendix Satan s Suit Back to Start Sources For those who want to go into some depth, there is a dissertation on line at the University of Arizona (2005) This kind of text served in training law students, by presenting arguments for and against the plaintiff s cause. A trial in which Satan claimed men s souls by right following the Fall, with Christ as the judge and the virgin Mary as counsel for humanity, somewhat satirical and not without humour, would have pleased the students. During the trial, the demon objects to Mary on the grounds of her relationship to the judge, and also because the profession was closed to women. Mary refutes the arguments but later when she feels her arguments lack weight she falls to her knees, bares her breasts, and bursts into tears, imploring her son to remember his filial duty. In the end, after many technicalities, Satan loses his case. The incipit used by Buyer, which turns up in later printed books of Bartolus work, is interesting too. Here is the text : Spurcissime Sathane infernalisque nequitie procuratoris Contra genus humanum Coram domino nostro Iesu christo agitate Beata virgine Maria eius matre pro nobis advocata et comparante Liber feliciter incipit. In the works published after 1473, while one can find the same incipit, the word et between advocata and comparente is sometimes missing. But the word agitate never changes. Now this word makes no sense in all the catalogue entries it is preceded by sic. My opinion is that the word should be agente. The error would have occurred at an earlier stage of the tradition but been hard to correct, so it was just left. If the word is agente, the meaning is clear : agente goes with advocata, in the ablative after coram, in the presence of. Then we have in the presence of our lord Jesus Christ, (and) the Virgin Mary, acting as counsel for humanity and present Now the Compendium is the first incunabulum I know of to have this incipit. The next dates from 1478 and was printed by Johannes Schilling in Vienne, just downstream from Lyon. He might have copied the incipit from Buyer. Figure 18 Manuscript [BnF] the Louvain version Nostis karissimi qualiter sathanas. One of the manuscripts quoted by the author of the Arizona dissertation is now available on Gallica. This shows that making an accurate copy from manuscripts is not a task for the faint-hearted. Here is the very first line: Nostis fratres karissimi quomodo sathanas. In the copies we have considered it is Nostis fratres karissimi qualiter sathanas. and in 33