72 mayumi ikeda

% Although the Morgan copy is bound in a single volume, for ease of comparison with the Burgos copy I will follow the conventional foliation of the Gutenberg Bible in two volumes, in which the second volume starts at the beginning of Proverbs. When a Morgan folio in the conventional second volume is mentioned, it is followed in brackets by the actual folio number of this copy.& John Bidwell of The Morgan

L & M has proposed that the insertion of the facsimile leaf and the repair were probably undertaken at the bookbinding firm of Francis Bedford in London sometime before the copy’s sale at Sotheby’s in 1881. See http://www.themorgan.org/ collections/works/gutenberg/binding [23. 3. 2012]. For the Morgan copy’s entry in the Sotheby’s auction catalogue of 1881, see ROLAND FOLTER: The Gutenberg Bible in the Antiquarian Book Trade. In: Incunabula:

Studies in Fifteenth-Century Printed Books Presented to Lotte Hellinga. Ed. MARTIN DAVIES. London 1999, pp. 271–351, here p. 306.' For the sizes of di!erent sheets of

medieval books, see PAUL NEEDHAM: Res papirea: Sizes and Formats of the Late Medieval Book. In: Rationalisierung der Buchherstellung in Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Marburg 1994, pp. 123–45, here p. 125.( JULIUS PETZHOLDT: Ein Gutenbergs-

bibel-Fund. In: Neuer Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Bibliothekwissenschaft (1874) II, pp. 369/70, here p. 370.) For washing and other kinds of

treatment on paper employed by restorers in the early twentieth century, see MAX SCHWEIDLER: The Restoration of Engravings, Drawings, Books, and Other Works on Paper. Ed. ROY L. PERKINSON, trans. ROY L. PERKINSON. Los Angeles 2006; MITCHELL STARRETT BUCK / ALFRED BONNARDOT: Book Repair and Restoration:

A Manual of Practical Suggestions for Bibliophiles, Including Some Translated Selections from Essai sur l’art de restaurer les estampes et les livres, par A. Bonnardot, Paris, 1858. Philadelphia 1918.!* A detailed provenance of the

Morgan copy including a biography of Hieronymus Opitius is found on http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/provenance [23. 3. 2012]. For a biography of Hieronymus Opitius see also JOHANN CHRISTIAN STERN: Lebensbeschreibungen derer Herren Pastorum und Superintendenten der Stadt und Diöces Bischofswerda, von der heilsamen Reformation an bis auf itzige Zeit, so viel von Ihnen aus alten Urkunden und theils gedruckten Personalien aufzubringen gewesen; Nebst angehängter kurzen nachricht von denen Archi- und Diaconis bey der Kirche Allda, etc. Dresden / Leipzig 1754, pp. 9–18.!! »[Hieronymus Oppitius Lobenda-

The Morgan copy has a near complete text of the Old Testament. However, nothing of the New Testament survives. The entire first vol-ume, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Psalms (i-1–324), and what remains of the second volume, Proverbs to the end of 2 Macabees (ii-1–189), are bound together, which makes this copy, altogether with 513 leaves, an extremely bulky book.5 From the Old Testament section it lacks ii-162 (fol. 486), which has been supplied in facsimile. In addition, the outer margin of ii-182 (fol. 506) has been repaired.6 The copy has been heavily trimmed: i-1 now only measures 37,5 # 27 cm, as opposed to 43 # 31 cm, the size of the standard Royal folio in an untrimmed state.7 The book had already been severely trimmed when it was discovered in a church in the Saxon town of Kleinbautzen in 1874, as a report of the discovery tells us that it meas-ured 37,75 # 27,5 cm when it was found.8

The pages of the Morgan copy apparently went through “cleaning”, as a result of which much of the paint has lost its brilliance, or in worse cases, has been partly or completely washed away. O"sets of many blue lombard initials not from the facing pages but from di"erent pag-es, certain colors in illumination that have completely come o" (for example, i-129r, 193r and 292v, possibly all in the same pigment) as well as the similar ways in which the blue mineral pigment (ultrama-rine?) of several initials appears smudged (for example, i-208r, 247r and 261r) strongly suggest that the pages were washed, although the condition of the illumination indicates that the treatment did not in-volve any use of chemical substance.9

The earliest known owner of the Morgan copy can be traced back to Upper Lusatia in the present day Saxony: the copy was owned by Hieronymus Opitius or Obwitz of Lobendau (1519–91), the first evan-gelical pastor and superintendent of the diocese of Bischofswerda (1558–91).10 He gave the copy as a gift in 1565 to Melchior Gaubisch,

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 73

nus] pastor et Superintendens Bischo!s Werdensis pietatis & singula-ris amicitiae ergo: Dono dedit hoc volumen S. Bibliae D[omi]no Melchiori Gaubisch Pastori in Lang Wolms- dor!: Anno 1565.« For a transcription of this inscription see also PAUL SCHWENKE: Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel: Ergänzungsband zur Faksimile-Ausgabe. Leipzig 1923, pp. 7–22 , here p. 19 (»Lobendanus« has been misprinted as »Lobeduanus«).!" The record, now lost, has been

transcribed by an anonymous finder of the Bible and o!spring of the von Nostitz (most likely Gottlob Adolf von Nostitz and Jänckendorf) in PETZHOLDT (see note 8), p. 370. On the left margin of I-1r of the Morgan copy is an inscription, probably an autograph of Carl Heinrich, which reads: » Carolus Heinricus [partially trimmed] a Nostitz 1677«. On the von Nostitz family, see GOTTLOB ADOLF

VON NOSTITZ UND JÄNCKENDORF: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Geschlechtes von Nostitz. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1874, of which pp. 127–54 are devoted to the biography of Carl Heinrich. See also WALTER VON BOETTICHER: Geschichte des Oberlausitzischen Adels und seiner Güter: 1635–1815. Vol. 2. Oberlößnitz bei Dresden 1913, pp. 259–369, esp. pp. 275–8, on Heinrich and Carl Heinrich von Nostitz. For a general introduction to the family, see J. F. MAYR: Introduction to the History of the Nostitz Family. In: The Nostitz Papers: Notes on Water-marks Found in the German Imperial Archives of the 17th & 18th Centuries, and Essays Showing the Evolution of a Number of Watermarks. Ed. The Paper Publications Society. Hilversum 1956 (Monumenta chartae papyraceae historiam illustrantia. 5), pp. 1–16. I am grateful to Paul Needham, who drew my attention to Mayr’s article.

!# »[E]in seltenes gut gehaltenes Alterthumsstück, nämlich einen Theil (das alte Testament) einer geschriebenen lateinischen Bibel.« The report appeared in Bautzener Nachrichten no. 57, which is quoted in VON NOSTITZ und JÄNCKEN-DORF (see note 12), p. 153. The Bible is identified as the Gutenberg Bible in PETZHOLDT (see note 8), in which has been mentioned that the copy was found in »der feuchten Sacristei« (p. 369).!$ »[D]ie Initialen sind in

bunten Farben zum Theil mit Gold höchst sauber ausgemalt in geschmackvoller Zeichnung, nirgends herausgenommen oder beschädigt«. PETZHOLDT (see note 8), p. 369.!% According to Alejandro

Carrión Gútiez of the B de Castillia y León, the bindings were restored in 1965. I am grateful to Mr. Carrión Gútiez for the information.

minister in Langenwolmsdorf, as is stated in the inscription on i-2r as thus: »Hieronymus Opitius of Lobendau, pastor and superintendent of Bischofswerda, out of piety and singular friendship, gave this vol-ume of the Holy Bible to Lord Melchior Gaubisch, pastor in Langen-wolmsdorf, in the year 1565.«11 Within half a century the copy must have entered the powerful noble family von Nostitz, since Carl Hein-rich von Nostitz (1613–84) left a note formerly attached to the Bible, dated 7 April 1677, describing his inheritance of this Bible from his father Heinrich (1563–1629).12 The copy was given by Carl Heinrich to the church of Kleinbautzen on the date of the note, and must have remained in that church until it was discovered in its damp sacristy in 1874: it was reported on 11 March of that year that the church held “a rare, well preserved antiquity, namely a part (the Old Testament) of a written Latin Bible” (emphasis added).13 We learn from the same report that back then the illumination of the Bible was still in good condition, as it states, “the initials have been very neatly painted with vibrant colors, partly in gold, in elegant design, in nowhere [are they] removed or damaged.” 14

The Burgos CopyThe Burgos copy lacks four leaves from volume one (i-1, 293, 320 and 321) and seven from volume two (ii-277–80, 308, 314 and 315), but is otherwise complete. Like many other Gutenberg Bibles, it is bound in two volumes, divided between the end of Psalms and the beginning of Proverbs. The bindings of both volumes have been restored,15 but they still conserve much of the dark brown leather from the old covers with blind roll stamps which has been pasted onto the modern leather covers. One of the two metal clasps from the first volume and both from the second volume are now lost, but all of the catches have sur-vived. The old bindings, of Spanish origin, have been dated to the first

74 mayumi ikeda

third of the sixteenth century.16 Combination of rectangular and geo-metric panels of di"erent sizes filled with rolled stamps without any use of panel stamps, and most notably the geometric design of the in-terlacing cords, seen in the outermost rectangular band, are typically Spanish.17 Several quires of the first volume are now bound out of order, which likely occurred prior to the twentieth century.18 The Burgos copy su"ered less trimming than the Morgan copy: fol. 1 of the first volume now measures 39,2 # 28,4 cm, and that of the second volume measures 39,9 # 28,5 cm. Besides a modern foliation executed in blue pencil in both volumes, there is an older foliation in roman numeral, written in red ink in the first volume and in sepia ink in the second.19 In addition, mostly in the gutter but also occasionally in the outermost margin, there are traces of what seem to be quire signatures written in dark sepia ink, probably written at the printing o!ce.20 Unlike the Morgan copy, the pages of the Burgos copy do not seem to have gone through any significant intervention and therefore it is in relatively good condition including its illumination, although there are many pages with stains and ink smudges.

One of the treasures of the Biblioteca Pública Provincial in Burgos, the Burgos copy was identified in 1913 as the Gutenberg Bible by Matías Martínez Burgos, the director of the library at the time.21 In 1952 Francisco Cantera Burgos associated this copy with a Bible that was recorded to have been donated to the monastery of San Juan de Ortega by Luis de Maluenda (1451–88), son of the bishop of the cathe-dral of Burgos.22 In his will dated 6 October 1488, Luis stated that he would give to the monastery »mi Biblia de molde, grande« which cost him 3250 Maravedis to ensure that prayers be said for his deceased uncle Juan Garcés de Maluenda, who was buried in the aforementioned monastery.23 Cantera Burgos’s theory has been accepted in later studies,24 but the fact remains that by 1488 there were a number of candidates for a “large printed Bible” and that whether Luis’s Bible indeed was the Burgos Gutenberg Bible cannot be determined.25 The Burgos Bible preserves many marginal and interlinear annotations and underlines, doubtless written by a diligent user or users of the copy. In addition,

!& See MATÍAS MARTÍNEZ BURGOS: La Biblia de Maguncia en Burgos. In: Boletín de la comisión provincial de monumentos históricos y artísticos de Burgos. 90 (1945), pp. 461/2. See also CARMEN MONJE MATÉ: Das Exemplar der 42-zeiligen-Bibel in der Ö!ent-lichen Bibliothek Burgos. In: Johannes Gutenberg: Die 42-zeilige Bibel. Kommentar zum Faksimile des Exemplars in Burgos. Valencia 1997, pp. 113–7, here p. 116; OTTO MAZAL: Die Buch-einbände der erhaltenen Exemplare der zwei undvierzigzeiligen Bibel. In: Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzig-zeilige Bibel: Faksimile-Ausgabe nach dem Exemplar der Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kultur besitz Berlin. Ed. WIELAND SCHMIDT and FRIEDRICH

ADOLF SCHMIDT-KÜNSEMÜLLER. Munich 1979, pp. 157–75, here p. 167.!' See HENRY THOMAS: Early Spanish

Bookbindings: XI – XV Centuries. London 1939 (The Bibliographical Society Illustrated Monographs. XXIII), Introduction, pp. xi – xlvi. Compare with Plates XVII – XIX.!( The 33 quires of vol. I are now

bound in the following order: 1–17, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 26–33.!) In vol. I, fol. 233 is incorrectly

foliated as 234 in roman numeral, a mistake that is continued to the end. Unlike the foliation in roman numeral, that in blue pencil must have been done after the quires became out of order, as the folio numbers follow the current folio sequence.

"* Leonhard Ho!mann argued that the foliation in roman numeral in the two volumes were entered by the rubricator at the printing o"ce, which he believed was meant to be trimmed away by the binder. This is highly unlikely because its script is evidently di!erent from that of the rubricator, and, because of these quire signatures found in this copy, the o"ce would not have needed to foliate this copy to compile the quires. LEONHARD HOFFMANN: Der Preis der Gutenberg-Bibel: Zum Kauf der »Biblia de molde grande« in Burgos. In: GJ 2002, pp. 50–6, here p. 51."! MARTÍNEZ BURGOS (see note 16).

The history of the Burgos copy is described in CARMEN MONJE MATÉ:

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 75

especially towards the beginning of both volumes, there are alphabets, mainly from A to D but occasionally up to G, written beside text col-umns which were probably inserted for liturgical readings.26

Illumination of the Two Copies: ComparisonEberhard König was the first to discuss the illumination of the Morgan and Burgos copies together, who pointed out the close similarity in the design of the two.27 However, beyond the comparison of the opening page of volume two of the two copies, no study has been made on the relationship of their illumination. A one-by-one comparison of the illu-mination of the two helps us see in more concrete terms how close the illumination of the two in fact is. It should be noted, however, that there of course is no objective standard for quantifying the degree of similarity in the illumination. Also, though comparison of the colors used in each page is likewise important, given the relatively limited number of them used in these two copies it is not easy to determine whether or not the correspondence or di"erentiation in color was by intention. With these qualifications in mind, out of 76 illuminated pages that can be compared between the two, 30 can be regarded as

“similar”, showing certain relationships in design.28 Thus, if we take these numbers one could say that 39 percent of the entire illumination of the two copies is similar, which is a high enough figure to conclude that there is a meaningful relationship between the design of the Mor-gan and Burgos illumination. Moreover, in some examples similarities or manners of di"erentiation are such that the only reasonable expla-nation would be that one served as a direct model of the other.

The opening to the Book of Proverbs of the two copies, which has already been mentioned by König on its striking similarity, is worth re-considering [figs. 1 and 2]. As the first page of the second volume, it is the most richly decorated page.29 This opening page shows the closest correspondence in the two copies. The text begins with the Prologue written by St. Jerome followed by the main text of the Book. In both copies this page has been stained and damaged, the condition of the Burgos copy being more serious. In terms of design, both copies are

La Biblia de Gutenberg de Burgos y sus peculiaridades. In: Boletín de la institución Fernán González. 72 (1996), pp. 57–64; and Eadem (see note 16). I am grateful to Carmen Monje Maté and Alejandro Carrión Gútiez for provid-ing the first two articles listed here."" FRANCISCO CANTERA BURGOS:

Alvar Garcia de Santa Maria y su familia de conversos: Historia de la judería de Burgos y de sus conversos más egregios. Madrid 1952, pp. 136 and 399."# Ibid., pp. 136 and 399."$ See MONJE MATÉ (see note 16),

pp. 113–5; HOFFMANN (see note 20)."% I am indebted to Eric Marshall

White for his insightful comments on this question, who questioned the Burgos copy’s accepted provenance and also

correctly translated »mi Biblia de molde, grande« as a “large printed Bible” and not as a “Bible in large print”, as has been generally interpreted. See also ERIC M. WHITE: A Forgotten Gutenberg Bible from the Monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos. In: GJ 2012, pp. 25–30."& Similar alphabetical notations are

found in the copy of the Gutenberg Bible held at the Harry Ransom Center, U of Texas at Austin, although the placement of alphabets in the Austin and Burgos copies shows no correspondence. Eric M. White found a correspondence between the notation system of the Austin copy and of several Carthusian Bibles. See ERIC MARSHALL WHITE: The Gutenberg Bible at The Harry Ransom Center: Description and Analysis. In:

The Gutenberg Bible at The Harry Ransom Center. CD -ROM Edition. Vol. 1. Austin 2004, pp. 5–23, esp. pp. 16/7."' Discussed for the first time in

KÖNIG: Influence of the Invention of Printing (see note 2), p. 88."( The pages where the comparison

could not be made are where the corre-sponding pages are missing or replaced by a facsimile page in either of the two copies. There are three places in which an initial was illuminated only in the Burgos copy and the lombard was inserted in the Morgan copy, but they are included in the 76 examples.") The first page of the first volume

in the Morgan copy is also elaborately decorated, but the Burgos counterpart is unfortunately now lost.

[Fig. !] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( ( -'r

[Fig. "] !"#, ! Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. )), ( ( -'r

78 mayumi ikeda

nearly identical: the two initials, the marginal J in the left margin and the six-line P in the right column with its descender extending into the intercolumn, are rendered in the same design, corresponding even to the small details of the decorative leaves. The marginal ivy decoration, which grows from the initial J and covers nearly the entire margin, also corresponds closely down to individual motifs. The only instance in which the motifs do not correspond is the decorative element at the top left corner: in the Burgos copy there is a flower in a shape that re-sembles an ice cream on a cone, while in the Morgan copy the same type of flower is depicted without a cone-shaped form. There are also some minor shifts in size and placement of motifs. For example, the length of the initial J is di"erent, and the flower that is placed in the center of the upper margin in the Burgos copy is shifted to the right in the Morgan copy. As for the two branches crossed in the X shape occupying the center of the lower margin, the way in which they are crossed with one another is di"erent in the Burgos and Morgan copies: in the Morgan copy, the branch that runs from upper left to lower right is placed on top of the other branch, while it is in the reverse order in the Burgos copy. In addition, while these crossed branches appear to be more or less in the upright position in the Burgos copy, those in the Morgan copy are slightly rotated anti-clockwise.

A second example is from i-160v [figs. 3 and 4]. Besides the generic similarity in the framed initial E in the two copies, which belongs to the Fust Master’s usual design, the design of the foliage is noteworthy both in their similarities and di"erences: in both copies the foliage grows in a similar form from the intercolumn, extending into the upper margin and branching out into flowers and leaves. While the branch in the Burgos copy grows out from a decorative ball, that in the Morgan copy grows out from a branch with an edge that has been snipped o". In both, there is a flower in the shape of ice cream on a cone appearing roughly in the same place, but while the cone in the Morgan copy points upward, that in the Burgos copy curls downward.

Like this example, most of the other illuminated pages with com-parable design in the two copies involve only one initial and some mar-ginal foliage, but in i-266r with two initials, the design spreads onto the entire page as was the case with ii-1r [figs. 5 and 6]. In this exam-ple, not only the design but also the colors correspond in a significant way, though the colors in the Morgan copy appear duller, very likely due to the cleaning done in the past. The shape of the smaller initial A

[Fig. #] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( -')*v, detail

79

in the left column is similar in the two copies, and furthermore the colors of the letter and its background are inverted – in the Morgan copy, the initial is gray and the background is green, whereas in the Burgos copy the initial is green and the background is gray. The colors of the leaves growing out of this A are also the same in the two copies: a small beige leaf grows from the top left corner of the initial and a pink leaf from the lower left. The only di"erence is that in the Morgan copy the branch with the pink leaf is cut o" into two pieces and looks as if the branch is piercing through the page surface and appearing back again. This playful e"ect, which is a kind of trompe-l’œil, is a method frequently used by the Fust Master. The larger initial A in the right column is also nearly identical in the two copies including the colors, except that the Morgan initial is not framed whereas the Burgos initial is. In both copies a green branch hangs from a needle-thin tail growing from the lower left end of the initial, although here it is the Burgos branch that is depicted with trompe-l’œil. They further correspond in the depiction of the branch that runs down the intercolumn, diverts in two and fills the lower margin, though they finish in di"erent designs.

Like the examples discussed above, the illumination of the Morgan and Burgos copies, when they are found similar, often display inten-tional copying and di"erentiating of design. This kind of correspond-ence in design cannot be realized by copying independently from a model book or model sheets, since most of the designs are accommo-dated to the page layout, such as the long branch running down the intercolumn on i-266r [figs. 5 and 6]. It rather seems that such a corre-spondence or variegation in design and in some cases also color was a result of the direct copying from one copy to the other.

Illumination: Which Came First?Because of the closeness displayed in the Morgan and Burgos illumi-nation, one may imagine that the two were illuminated simultaneously, side by side and page by page. However, there are two cases that dis-prove this assumption. First, there are two initials that are correct in the Morgan copy but incorrect in the Burgos copy. On ii-131v (455v), the Burgos copy has an initial O instead of the correct initial A for the word »Anno«, and on ii-160v (484v), the Burgos copy has an initial U instead of the correct initial O for the word »Onus«. It is unlikely that the illuminator made this kind of mistake in only one copy if the two were illuminated side by side. Second, there are three initials that have

[Fig. $] !"#, ! Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. )), ( -')*v, detail

[Fig. % ] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( -#)) r

[Fig. & →] !"#, ! Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. )), ( -#)) r

#* For comparison, see the eye-filling tendrils of the copy of the 48-line Bible held at the Scheide L, Princeton, which was illuminated by the Fust Master. A full digital facsimile of this copy is available at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/gt54kn106 [9. 1. 2012].

been illuminated in the Burgos copy but not in the Morgan copy. They are the three-line initial P on ii-104r (428r) and the marginal initial Js on ii-156r (480r) and ii-156v (480v), respectively. Instead of illuminat-ed initials, lombard initials have been inserted. Since the three-line initials, which are smaller than the more usual four-line or six-line in-itials, are easy to miss out, as are the marginal initial Js, the likeliness is that the illuminator overlooked these initials in the Morgan copy, which were subsequently filled in by the lombardist. If the two copies were illuminated simultaneously, it is unlikely that the illuminator skipped initials of only one copy.

If the two copies were not illuminated side by side, which was illu-minated first? The mistakes made in the initials in the Burgos copy may suggest that this copy was illuminated first. On the other hand, the abovementioned three initials that were left unilluminated in the Morgan copy may indicate otherwise. A few subtle clues to this ques-tion can be found by comparing the illumination of the two copies.

One hint is found in the quality of the Fust Master’s illumination, although the damaged state of the Morgan illumination can be mis-leading and thus should be considered with the utmost care. With this reservation, it does seem that there is a di"erence in the level of stand-ard in the illumination of the two copies especially in the fine tendrils that fill the eyes of the initials (for example figs. 3 and 4). This motif is found in nearly all of the works by the Fust Master and shows high consistency in its design and style, which means that it plays an impor-tant role in assigning works to him. These tendrils, probably drawn with a very fine brush, usually form large curves accompanied by many o"shoots that are heightened by two short strokes; some of the ten-drils finish in six dots arranged in the shape of a flower, usually added with five short lines radiating from the central dot [fig. 11]. In the Bur-gos copy, the quality of this tendril design is consistent and is compat-ible with the Fust Master’s other works.30 In contrast, the quality of the tendrils in the Morgan copy shows some fluctuation. While some tendrils conform perfectly to his standard tendrils [fig. 7], there are some that appear somewhat confused and less delicate [fig. 10]. Ob-serving all eye-filling tendrils in the Morgan copy, their shift in quality appears less due to the participation of di"erent hands than to the in-stability of work by a single hand. It seems as though the Fust Master was yet to establish his “signature design” when he was working on the Morgan illumination.

A slightly more obvious clue is found in the underdrawing of the illumination of the two copies. In his works, the Fust Master seems to have used a pencil-like material for sketching out designs, while he used darker ink with a sharper line to finalize them. In general, marked discrepancy between the initial sketch and the final design occurs more frequently in the Morgan copy than in the Burgos copy. Furthermore, there are two examples that seem to point to the prece-dence of the Morgan design to the Burgos design. The first example is the initial B on i-323v that opens Psalm 143 [figs. 8 and 9]. In the Mor-

82 mayumi ikeda

[Fig. '] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( -#+*r, detail. Six lineshigh at right edge

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 83

gan copy, the branch that grows out from the three-line initial B into the upper margin ends in a curly stroke that clearly deviates from the underdrawing which extends straight from the decorative ball [fig. 8]. The same initial in the Burgos copy, whose design is generally the same as that of the Morgan copy, does not show any deviation from the underdrawing [fig. 9]. Significantly, its design for the extending tendril above the letter B follows the finished design and not the underdrawing of the Morgan copy. The shifting of design in the Morgan copy implies that the illuminator was creating a new design for this page rather than copying an already existing model, and together with the fact that the Burgos design is closer to the finished design of the Morgan copy, this instance seems to point to the precedence of the Morgan illumi-nation.

Another example again betrays a process of designing and copying between the Morgan and Burgos copies [figs. 10 and 11]. On i-63v of the Morgan copy, the underdrawing of the initial L shows that at the beginning the shape of the L was conceived to have a vertical shaft with a pointed top that stands outside the initial space and in the marginal area, and the flower beside the initial was to be in a di"erent position [fig. 10]. Several di"erent underdrawings for the shape of the vertical shaft suggest that the artist was making adjustments to the design. However, the finished paint reveals a complete change of design: the vertical shaft of the L is now painted within the given initial space, and instead of a pointed top it now has a flat head with a horizontal bar that runs to the right. The flower to the left of the initial likewise does not entirely follow the underdrawing. The reason for the change of design could have been that the vertical shaft of the L and the flower were deemed too close to each other. The same initial in the Burgos copy, which does not show any sign of change from the underdrawing to the finished paint, has a pointed vertical shaft, a design which was aban-doned in the Morgan copy [fig. 11]. In addition, no flower is painted in the space beside the initial, as a result of which the area appears less crammed. It would seem that the Fust Master attempted to improve the design when painting the Burgos initial.

If we go back to the opening page of the second volume of the two copies, the slight di"erences in the positioning of motifs seen in them may now be understood as a result of an e"ort to improve the design [figs. 1 and 2]. In this regard, two motifs, namely the flower depicted in the upper margin and the two branches crossed in the X shape in the lower margin, are notable. In the Morgan copy, the flower, painted in gray, is slightly o" the center and appears tilted to the right, whereas the same flower, painted in dark pink in the Burgos copy, is placed in the centre of the upper margin and appears upright. A similar adjust-ment in positioning is observed in the crossed branch motif in the lower margin: whereas that in the Morgan copy is slightly to the right from the center and tilted anti-clockwise, that in the Burgos copy occupies the center of the lower margin and is in the upright position. Another di"erence is that the branches in the Morgan copy with smooth surface

#! The survival rate of the Tabula rubricarum, which was obviously meant to be ephemeral, is much smaller than the Gutenberg Bible itself; it survives in only two copies, one at the ÖNB, the other at the BSB. See WIELAND SCHMIDT: Zur Tabula rubricarum. In: Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel (see note 16), pp. 177–83; see also the contribution by GERHARDT POWITZ: Tabula rubricarum der Gutenberg-Bibel. In: GJ 2012, pp. 31–52.

#" The following are the places where the rubrics have not been entered. In the Morgan copy, it is the explicit to Ruth (I-128v), explicit to the Prayer of Solomon (II-45v [369v]) and explicit to 2 Maccabees (II-189r [513r]). In the Burgos copy, they are the explicit to Deuteronomy (I-102r), the titulus to Psalm 143 (I-323r) and the explicit to the Epistle of Judas (II-309r).

are depicted less realistically compared to those in the Burgos copy, which have been made to look more branch-like by adding short dark strokes on the surface to imitate the rough texture of the bark, although the damaged condition of the page does not allow us to see properly the e"ect especially on the green branch, of which the paint has come o" and become thin. The smooth surface of the Morgan branches on the other hand is not due to the damage of the paint, which was deter-mined through the examination of the original.

From the series of indirect indications discussed above it may be concluded that the Morgan copy was illuminated first and the Burgos illumination was copied after it with occasional improvements. This conclusion however leaves us with one vexing question: as already discussed above, there are two mistakes in the initial of the Burgos copy that are correct in the Morgan copy. No clue, such as an incorrect guide letter, has been found that would explain these mistakes. We may only speculate that the illuminator was misled by a factor unknown to us.

The Rubricator of the Two CopiesAs with many copies of the Gutenberg Bible, the rubrics of these two copies were left unprinted and were expected to be added manually. As a reference for rubricators, the printing o!ce published the Tabula rubricarum.31 In both the Morgan and Burgos copies the rubrics have been duly inserted except in a few places.32 Judging from the script and ink of both copies, the running titles were also inserted by the ru-bricators on the same occasion. A close comparison of the Morgan and Burgos rubrics allows us to observe that there is a complex relation-ship between them.

First, the script of the rubrics in the two copies is very similar. The correspondence in the script is not surprising, as that used in both copies is essentially an imitation of the printed type used in the text of the Gutenberg Bible, the textura quadrata. However, their similarity goes beyond the fact that they were based on a common type; in fact, through a close comparison of them it becomes clear that the rubrics in both copies were written by the same hand. For example, in both copies the two minims that compose the letter u or n often do not touch each other; a fine diagonal line is added to the short s, which makes the s look like the Arabic numeral 8; the abbreviation mark » } « that stands for »us« is not superscribed, and due to the addition of a final stroke at the bottom it appears more like 2 than 9, which is a highly un-usual feature [figs. 3, 4, 10 and 11]. These characteristics do not derive from the model since the type used in the Gutenberg Bible has none of the abovementioned characteristics, but they rather seem to betray quirks of an individual. It appears, then, that the rubricators of the Morgan and Burgos copies were the same scribe.

If the rubricator of the two copies was the same, there are nonethe-less clear di"erences in the number and nature of mistakes found in the rubrics of the Morgan and Burgos copies. Comparing the Old Tes-

mayumi ikeda

[Fig. ( a] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( -,#,v, detail. Three lines high at right edge. For underdrawing, see edited close- up [fig. ( b]

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 85

## In the New Testament rubrics in the Burgos copy, three mistakes were found, out of which one is a spelling mistake; there is no grammatical mistake.#$ They are found on I-29r, I-114v,

I-226v and II-178r (502r).

tament (as mentioned above the New Testament does not exist in the Morgan copy), there are more mistakes in the Morgan rubrics than in the Burgos rubrics: with my counting, 23 mistakes were found in the Morgan rubrics as opposed to twelve in the Burgos copy. What is par-ticularly significant is that out of these mistakes in the Morgan rubrics, as many as seventeen can be categorized as grammatical or spelling mistakes, while others are omissions or incorrect use of words or phrases. In contrast, out of the twelve mistakes in the Burgos rubrics, merely five are grammatical or spelling mistakes.33 The significant amount of elementary mistakes found in the Morgan copy may be an indication that the rubricator was either being careless while working on the Morgan copy or, perhaps more likely, he was still not used to his trade.

Besides the mistakes in the rubrics, the use of the abbreviation » } « in the two copies should be noted. As a rule, this abbreviation stands for »us« or »os«. In the Burgos copy, it is used consistently in place of »us«, but in the Morgan copy, the rubricator used this abbreviation to replace »mus« in four places,34 while in the rest it follows the norm and replaces »us«. Thus, for example, in the incipit to Exodus on i-29r, the word »dicimus« is abbreviated as »dici}« in the Morgan copy, as opposed to »dicim}« in the Burgos copy. The inconsistency in the way the abbreviation » }« is used in the Morgan rubrics in contrast to the Burgos rubrics may once again be an indication that the rubricator was not yet used to his craft when working on the Morgan rubrics. This may mean that the rubricator worked first on the Morgan copy and then, having gained some experience, worked on the Burgos copy.

The Text of the RubricsNot only the scribe but also the text of the rubrics is the same in the two copies. A word-for-word examination of the Old Testament rubrics in the two copies confirms that both texts are essentially identical. In general, there is no textual deviation between the two, and where there are di"erences, they are mostly due to mistakes made in either of the two. The close textual similarity in the rubrics of the two copies could be explained either by assuming that the same textual source(s) was used for both copies, or that the rubric of one copy served as a model for the other. For possible sources of these rubrics, there are two likely candidates: one is the text of the Tabula rubricarum, and the other is the text of the rubrics that were printed in Fust and Schö"er’s 48-line Bible printed in 1462, to which I refer as the b48 version.

The b48 version essentially follows the text of the Tabula, which is not surprising since Fust and Schö"er were both involved in the print-ing of the Gutenberg Bible. However, there are some di"erences in the two texts, which seem to arise from the e"ort on the part of the Fust and Schö"er o!ce to correct the mistakes in the Tabula, an attempt to standardize certain phrasings or simply due to a matter of preference. On the whole, it can be concluded that the b48 version is an improved text of the Tabula. For example, if an explicit or incipit was omitted in

[Fig. ( b]

mayumi ikeda

the Tabula, it was added in the b48 version, and spelling mistakes, whenever being noticed, were rectified. In some places it was chosen to use a di"erent spelling for certain words; addition or omission of a word or a phrase was also made; and word order was changed.

When one compares the Morgan / Burgos rubrics with the Tabula and the b48 version up to the end of the Old Testament, it becomes ev-ident that the textual model of the Morgan / Burgos rubrics is much closer to the b48 version than to the Tabula. Of the 30 places in the Old Testament where the Tabula and the b48 version di"er, the Morgan / Burgos rubrics are the same or closer to the b48 version in 23 places.35 On the other hand, only in five places are the Morgan / Burgos rubrics the same as the Tabula. The remaining two do not fall into either of the two categories, although they both do seem to have derived from the b48 version.36 Some of these 23 rubrics that are the same as the b48 version are specific enough to exclude the possibility that the similarity was by chance. The most conspicuous of such cases is the rubric that opens the second volume. Here the Tabula reads: »Incipit prologus sancti ieronimi presbiteri in parabolas salomonis.« The b48 version, followed in both the Morgan and Burgos rubrics, is completely di"er-ent from the Tabula text, which is: »Epistola sancti ieronimi presbiteri ad chromatium et eliodorum episcopus de libris salomonis.«

How did the rubricator of the Morgan and Burgos copies come to follow not the rubrics prepared for the Gutenberg Bible but for another edition of the Bible published in 1462 by Fust and Schö"er? It could either be that the rubricator had at disposal a copy of the 48-line Bible from which he copied the rubrics, or that he was employed by the Fust and Schö"er o!ce to rubricate the two Gutenberg Bibles and was given the b48 version directly by them. This question will be brought back after we discuss the New Testament rubrics later in this study.

Copying the RubricsWe have seen above that the Old Testament rubrics of the Morgan and Burgos copies are essentially the same. This leads us to suspect whether the rubrics were copied directly from one copy to the other. A few in-stances suggest that at least on several occasions direct copying occurred between them. For example, both copies have exactly the same mistake in the incipit to 2 Ezra on i-231v: it is the spelling of the Hebrew name »Neemie«, which in both copies have been incorrectly written as »neennie«. This mistake, which is easily understood as a confusion of the number of minims of a Hebrew name, is nevertheless a very unusual one. No such mistake is found in the Tabula, the b48 version or the ten copies of the Gutenberg Bible that I was able to examine.37 That this unusual mistake occurs both in the Morgan and Burgos rubrics may imply that this rubric was copied directly from one copy to the other. In the following rubric, namely the explicit to 2 Ezra on i-238v, the Morgan rubric has again spelled »neemie« incorrectly but this time as »neenne«; here at least the number of minims is correct. In the same place the Burgos copy has the correct spelling »neemie«.38

[Fig. )] !"#, ! Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. )), ( -,#,v, detail. Three lines high at right edge. No underdrawing visible

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 87

#% There is no standard for counting the number of rubrics. Particularly problematic is whether to count an explicit to one Book and an incipit to the following Book or Prologue, which are usually written in one textual space, as one rubric or two rubrics. Following Wieland Schmidt, who compared selected rubrics of the Gutenberg Bibles at Berlin, Munich and Vatican (Barberini copy) to the Tabula, I have chosen to count this explicit-incipit group as one rubric, as it is likely that the scribe also perceived this set as one and thus worked without a break. I have adhered to this counting system even when there is a page break between an explicit and the following incipit, which is a necessary compromise as the page break does not always occur at the same place in the Morgan and Burgos copies. Also, I have not included the rubricated Hebrew alphabets and the word »Alleliua« in Psalms and Jeremiah’s Lamentation in my counting, as they are mostly single words and thus do not adequately represent textual deviations. See SCHMIDT (see note 31), pp. 180–2.#& These two, which are the incipits

to the two prologues to the Book of Job, will be discussed below.#' The copies examined, either by a

digital image or by a paper facsimile edition, are those at the University of Texas, Austin, SBB -PK, Cambridge UL, Cambridge, the NL of Scotland, Edin-burgh, the NSuUB, the Grenville and the George III ’s copies at the BL, the Schuckburgh copy at the GM, the BSB, the High Priest’s Seminary L, Pelplin and Keio University L, Tokyo.#( In the same rubric in the Berlin

copy, the rubricator dropped one e of »neemie« and it thus reads: »nemie«.#) These are the three rubrics from

II-277v, II-279r, II-308r, respectively, and three from II-308v.

A series of mistakes occurred both in the Morgan and Burgos rubrics to be discussed here presents us with an interesting “lost in transla-tion” in the course of copying, which on the one hand gives evidence to the copying of rubrics between the Morgan and Burgos copies but on the other hand is a puzzling mistake for which there is no clear expla-nation. They are the incipits to the two versions of Prologue to Job, those for the Septuagint and the Hebraicum, respectively. For the former incipit, the Tabula rubricarum has the following phrase: »Incipit prologus primus in librum iob«, whereas that in the b48 version is more specific: »Incipit prologus in Job secundum translacionem septu-aginta«. The Morgan rubric on i-279r followed the b48 version, copy-ing word for word, but with one crucial mistake: it dropped the final word »septuaginta«, by which the incipit now translates as: “here be-gins the Prologue in Job according to a translation.” Exactly the same mistake was made in the Burgos copy. For the incipit to the second Prologue, where the Tabula again has a generic incipit that reads: »Pro-logus secundus«, the b48 version reads: »prologus in Job secundum hebraicum«. In the Morgan copy, the rubric once more drops a word, which is »secundum«, and thus reads: »Prologus in iob hebraicum«. This can be translated as “Prologue to the Hebraicum [version of] Job”, which incidentally makes sense. The Burgos rubric on the other hand drops the word »hebraicum« and thus reads: »Prologus in job secundum«. This could be translated awkwardly either as “Prologue to the second Job” or as an incomplete sentence, “Prologue to Job according to”.

There is no clear explanation as to why a series of peculiar mis-takes occurred in the Morgan and Burgos rubrics for the two prologues to Job. If we believe that the Morgan rubrics were written before the Burgos rubrics as has been argued above, for the mistake in the first Prologue it can be explained that the incorrect Morgan rubric was cop-ied into the Burgos copy word for word. On the other hand, for the sec-ond rubric one may assume that when writing the Burgos rubric, the rubricator made a failed attempt to rectify the mistake made in the Morgan rubric. It is possible that the actual exemplar which the rubri-cator used already contained some confusion, but without a further clue the true reason for these curious mistakes must remain open.

The Rubrics in the New TestamentThe rubrics in the New Testament, found only in the Burgos copy, show an unexpected change of text source. From what we have seen in the Old Testament, we may suppose that the text of the New Testa-ment rubrics continues to follow the b48 version. However, examina-tion of them leaves us with little doubt that for the New Testament, the Tabula rubricarum was used as the main textual source. Of the rubrics inserted in the New Testament, there are fourteen that di"er between the Tabula and the b48 version. Excluding the six rubrics from the missing folios of the Burgos copy,39 all the remaining rubrics, eight in total, are either exactly the same as or very close to the T abula text. Among them, the incipit to the General Prologue to Paul’s Epistles

[Fig. !!] !"#, ! Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. )), ( -),v, detail

[Fig. !*] !"#, Pierpont Morgan $ , New York, %&$ '#, ( -),v, detail

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 89

$* Cf. IKEDA (see note 3).

is of particular note. That in the b48 version runs, »Incipit prefacio sancti ieronimi in omnes epistolas sancti pauli«, while that in the Tab-ula runs, incorrectly, »Incipit prefatio in omnes epistolas sancti pauli apostoli ad romanos«. The last two words »ad romanos«, which must have been taken inadvertently from the incipit to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, obviously do not belong here. In the Burgos copy, the rubric corresponds precisely to the Tabula text, complete with the two redun-dant words at the end. This correspondence can hardly be by chance but must have derived from copying the Tabula rubrics into the Burgos copy.

It thus appears that at least in the Burgos copy the textual model of rubrics was switched from the b48 version to the Tabula when the ru-brication reached the end of the Old Testament. Indeed, the switch might have well occurred just before finishing the Old Testament, since its final rubric in the Burgos copy, the explicit to 2 Maccabees, follows the Tabula text, which reads, »Explicit secundus liber machabeorum«, while the b48 version reads, »Explicit liber secundus Machabeorum«. The corresponding rubric in the Morgan copy was left blank, which means that the Burgos rubric was not copied from the Morgan rubic.

How did the Morgan / Burgos rubricator obtain a textual model (or models) which closely corresponds with the b48 version in the Old Testament and follows the Tabula rubricarum in the New Testament? While one cannot rule out the possibility that the rubricator himself was responsible for procuring both texts, a more likely scenario is that he was employed by the Fust and Schö"er o!ce, which no doubt had both texts at disposal, to rubricate the two copies of the Gutenberg Bible. It will be recalled that several quires of the Morgan and Burgos copies were used as compositor’s exemplar of the 48-line Bible, indi-cating that at least some quires were kept at the Fust and Schö"er o!ce when the publication of the 48-line Bible was being prepared.40 It is certainly possible that in fact all quires of what now make up the Morgan and Burgos copies were kept at the o!ce and were made into two sets of saleable copies by adding the rubrication. While the rubrics may have been entered directly from a published copy of the 48-line Bible, given that not all of the Morgan / Burgos rubrics follow the b48 version (in particular the New Testament rubrics), it may well be that the 48-line Bible was yet to be published when the Morgan and Burgos copies were rubricated and that the rubricator used a draft of the rubrics being prepared for the new edition of the Bible, which is in essence an improved version of the Tabula rubricarum. This would also explain one minor textual di"erence between the Morgan / Burgos rubrics and the b48 version; in the incipit to the Prologue to the Book of Tobit, both the Morgan and Burgos rubrics have »sancti iheronimi«, whereas the b48 version has »beati Ieronimi«. It could be that the actual exemplar given to the Morgan / Burgos rubricator also had »sancti iheronimi« but this was changed at the printing stage of the rubrics of the 48-line Bible. Perhaps the Fust and Schö"er o!ce used the Morgan and Burgos copies to have a “preview” of rubrics for their new Bible edition before its publication?

90 mayumi ikeda

$! On I-1r, I-5r, I-29r, I-63v [fig. 10], I-84r, I-102r (twice) and I-127r the illumination runs over part of the rubric, and on I-114v the illumination runs over part of the running title, all of which indicate that the rubrication was done before the illumination.$" The rubric runs over part of the

illumination (thus the illumination was executed before the rubric) on the following pages: in vol. I, fols. 160v, 226v, possibly 261r, 279r, 293r and 303v, and in vol. II, fols. 9r (334r), 46r (370r), possibly 99r (423r), 105r (429r), 131v (455v), 145v (469v), 150r (474r) and possibly 154v (478v). On I-226r and I-239r the rubric avoids the illumination, again showing that the rubric was entered after the illumination was executed.$# In vol. I of the Burgos copy, rubrics

on 4r and 5r are printed, but on fols. 63v (possibly), 127r, 129r, 147r, 160v [fig. 4], 193r, 226v, 231v, 247r, 261r (twice), 272v, possibly 280r and 307r the rubric runs over part of the illumination. On I-102r the rubric seems to avoid the illumina-tion. In vol. II, on fols. 1r [possibly; fig. 2], 11v, 15v, 17r, 24v, 70v (twice), 99r, 105r (twice) and 131r the illumination runs over the rubric.$$ On II-190r (possibly), II-235r

(twice), II-249r, possibly II-249v, II-262r (twice), II-266r, II-268r, II-270r, II-272r, possibly II-275r, II-276r, II-285r (twice), II-303v and II-310r the rubric runs over the illumination, and on II-274r and II-276r the rubric avoids the illumina-tion, which means that the illumination was executed first. In addition, though it is extremely di"cult to judge, tip of the rubric seems to have been written over the illumination on II-151r and II-156v.

Working Relationship of the Illuminator and RubricatorWe have seen that the Morgan and Burgos copies share the same illu-minator and rubricator. Examination of their working order in the two copies further reveals that there is an intimate working relationship between these two craftsmen. By observing the places where illumina-tion and rubric overlap each other or where either illumination or rubric was inserted in a manner so as to avoid running on top of the other, it is possible to reconstruct the working order of the illuminator and rubricator in the two copies and thus to visualize their working order.

In the Morgan copy, it appears that from the beginning of volume one up to i-127r, that is, the beginning of Ruth, the rubricator worked before the illuminator.41 On the next occasion where the overlap of illumination and rubric occurs, which is i-160v, the illumination was painted before the rubric was written, in which the long s of »secun-dus« clearly runs over the ivy [fig. 3]. From then on the illumination was executed consistently before the rubrication until the end of the Old Testament and thus the end of the present Morgan copy.42 One may suppose that the illuminator and rubricator began their work simul-taneously from di"erent portions of the Morgan Bible, the rubricator starting from the opening page and the illuminator possibly from i-129r, the first folio of quire fourteen, or at the latest from i-160v, the second folio of quire seventeen. There are 33 quires in volume one, so it would seem that the quires of the first volume were roughly divided in two between the rubricator and illuminator. It also seems that the illuminator continued working straight into the second volume before going back to the first portion of the first volume, since the prece-dence of the illuminator continues into the second volume.

In the Burgos copy, volume one was apparently begun by the illu-minator, whereas volume two was begun by the rubricator.43 However, in volume two the order of execution seems to have changed at the beginning of the New Testament (ii-190r) or possibly as early as ii-151r. From then on it seems that the illuminator worked first, after which came the rubricator.44 ii-151r belongs to the sixteenth of the 32 quires of the second volume, which is roughly in the middle of this vol-ume. In the Burgos copy one may assume that the illuminator began his work with the first volume and the rubricator with the second vol-ume. Around the middle of the second volume, however, they appear to have switched the order of work. Or, perhaps more likely, both crafts-men might have begun the work from the second volume: the rubrica-tor took the first half of this volume, while the illuminator began with the second half. When the illuminator completed his half, he might have gone to work on the first volume instead of working on the first half of the second volume, while the rubricator finished o" the second volume and followed the illuminator in the first volume.

The abovementioned interchange of work between the illuminator and rubricator in the Morgan and Burgos copies asserts that they worked together at the same time in these two copies. Indeed, the close-ness of these two craftsmen is such that one must assume that they

Illumination and Rubrication of Two Gutenberg Bibles 91

$% Cf. PAUL NEEDHAM: The 1462 Bible of Johann Fust and Peter Schö!er (GW 4204): A Survey of its Variants. In: GJ 2006, pp. 19–49, here p. 26. See also IKEDA (see note 3), esp. note 9.$& Cf. IKEDA (see note 3).

worked under the same roof. This assumption is also in keeping with the conclusion that both the illuminator and rubricator worked first on the Morgan copy and later on the Burgos copy. Furthermore, since the rubricator was very likely employed by the Fust and Schö"er o!ce, it follows that the illuminator, who physically worked close with the rubricator, was also commissioned by this printing o!ce to embellish the two Gutenberg Bibles.

The Morgan and Burgos Copies: A Unique Pair or Two of Many?Considering how precarious and narrow a path for survival was for a book as old as a copy of the Gutenberg Bible, it is almost miraculous that a pair of Gutenberg Bibles with the same illuminator, the same rubricator and even with the compositor’s marks used for the printing of the same edition of the Bible has come down to us. This naturally brings us to the question of whether the two copies in fact belonged to a larger group of the Gutenberg Bibles that was kept at the Fust and Schö"er o!ce, finished by the same team of illuminator and rubrica-tor and perhaps also used as compositor’s exemplar. From Paul Need-ham’s study on the text of the 48-line Bible, we know that the texts of the Morgan and Burgos Gutenberg Bibles alone cannot fulfil the tex-tual variation observed in the 48-line Bible and therefore some other copies of the Gutenberg Bible, or rather, quires of this Bible, must also have been used as compositor’s exemplar.45 It is conceivable that these quires were also made into complete or quasi-complete sets of the Bible and were illuminated and rubricated by the same team.

If the Morgan and Burgos copies indeed were two of several copies with the same illumination and rubrication, they should nonetheless be singled out as a pair. It has been argued in a previous study that two copies were used to set the same two sections of the 1462 Bible, and that the Burgos copy was used as a kind of backup to the Morgan copy.46 Furthermore, the similarity of the illumination and also the close correspondence in the rubrics of the two copies, in which even mistakes were occasionally copied from one to the other, indicate that within the hypothetical group of the Gutenberg Bibles illuminated and rubricated by the same hands, these two were particularly close to each other. In this sense, the two copies represent a rare pair of the Gutenberg Bibles that has withstood the challenge of time and has been passed down to us.

ConclusionThrough the scrutiny of their illumination and rubrication, we have learned that the two Gutenberg Bibles under discussion were rich in information on what happened to them in their “post-printing process”. We first saw that the illumination of the Morgan and Burgos copies, known to have been executed by the Fust Master, demonstrates a sis-ter relationship, in which the Morgan copy appears to have been the

“elder sister”. Not only the illumination but also their rubrics likewise show a close connection both in their script and text, which proves

92 mayumi ikeda

that they were done by the same scribe and with the same textual sources; indeed, perhaps in many places the rubrics of one copy were directly copied into the other. Like the illumination, the Morgan rubrics seem to have been finished before the Burgos rubrics. Furthermore, their textual models, which included the rubrics of the 48-line Bible of 1462 and the Tabula rubricarum, point to the Fust and Schö"er o!ce as their likely provider and thus the responsible agent for having the two copies rubricated.

There also was a physical and temporal closeness between the illu-minator and rubricator, whose working order in the two copies sug-gests that the two craftsmen toiled away at their tasks under the same roof and very probably under the direction of the Fust and Schö"er o!ce. This means that, unlike what has been previously believed, the Morgan and Burgos copies were illuminated not for the printing o!ce of the Gutenberg Bible, but for their more prosperous successor. This conclusion accords with the already shown evidence that these two copies were used as compositor’s exemplar at the Fust and Schö"er’s o!ce for their own publication of a Bible edition. Thanks to the com-mercial acumen of these publishers, the Morgan and Burgos copies were “freshened up” with rubrics and fine illumination that turned them into attractive products for potential buyers.