Bibliographical Society of America356

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 357

PBSA 106:3 (2012): 357–72

Mayumi Ikeda is a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellow atKeio University and wrote her dissertation on the ‰fteenth-century German illumi-nator known as the Fust Master. She is currently working on the decoration and illus-tration of early German printed books.A research trip made for this study to the Morgan Library and Museum, New York, wasfunded by the Central Research Fund of the University of London. The author receivedgenerous support from the Digital Archive Research Center and the HUMI Project ofKeio University in carrying out the research for this study, which included funding re-search trips to New York and Valladolid and making digital images of the MorganGutenberg Bible. The author wishes to thank John Bidwell at the Morgan Library andMuseum and Alejandro Carrión Gútiez at the Biblioteca de Castilla y León in Valla-dolid for facilitating research at the respective libraries. She is particularly grateful toMasaaki Kashimura, formerly of the HUMI Project, for assistance in examining theBurgos Gutenberg Bible in Valladolid. Paul Needham very kindly read an earlier draftof this article, checked Appendix II, and oˆered insightful comments. The article wasmuch improved in the last stage thanks to Eric White’s careful reading and suggestions.

Two Gutenberg Bibles Used asCompositor’s Exemplars

Mayumi Ikeda

Two surviving copies of the Gutenberg Bible (issued c. 1455; ISTCib00526000), both on paper, were decorated by a Mainz illumina-

tor known as the Fust Master. One is at the Biblioteca Pública Provincialin Burgos (Inc. 66), and the other, which contains the Old Testament onlyand is bound in a single volume, is held in the Morgan Library and Muse-um, New York (PML 12).1 The Fust Master has long been discussed in

1. Although the Morgan copy is bound in a single volume, for the foliation Iadhere to the conventional two-volume system of the Gutenberg Bible, in whichthe ‰rst volume ends at the conclusion of Psalms (I 324v) and the second volumestarts at the beginning of Proverbs. The actual folio number in the conventionalsecond volume of the Morgan copy is given in brackets following the conven-tional folio number. A complete digital facsimile of this copy, accompanied by a

Bibliographical Society of America358relation to the earliest printing business in Mainz, not least because ofthese two richly illuminated Gutenberg Bibles, the ‰rst printed Bibleedition issued by the printing shop presumably organized by JohannGutenberg in Mainz. In fact, the Fust Master’s works are found inseveral editions of books published between 1457 and 1465 from anotherprinting o‹ce in Mainz run by Johann Fust and Peter Schöˆer, hintingat a close relationship between the illuminator and this o‹ce.2 It must,therefore, be no coincidence that these two Gutenberg Bibles, embel-lished by an artist who worked for the Fust and Schöˆer o‹ce, werefound to contain evidence that physically links them to this o‹ce, as willbe reported in this article; in these two copies were discovered so-calledcompositor’s marks. In this study I will make a detailed analysis andinterpretation of this new ‰nding in an attempt to make the best possiblesense of the traces left by the compositors. As will be shown in this study,the compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos copies provide crucialinformation not only on the use of the two copies at the Fust and Schöˆero‹ce, but also how these two copies were closely related to each other.

detailed description of it by John Bidwell, is available online at http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/default.

2. The Fust Master’s work in incunables was ‰rst discussed in Adolf Gold-schmidt, “The Decoration of Early Mainz Books,” Magazine of Art 31 (1938):579–81. See also Eberhard König, “The In!uence of the Invention of Printingon the Development of German Illumination,” in Manuscripts in the FiftyYears after the Invention of Printing: Some Papers Read at a Colloquium at theWarburg Institute on 12–13 March 1982, ed. J. B. Trapp (London: Warburg In-stitute, University of London, 1983), 85–94, esp. 87–9; Eberhard König, “Für Jo-hannes Fust,” in Ars impressoria: Entstehung und Entwicklung des Buchdrucks;Eine internationale Festgabe für Severin Corsten zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Hans.Limburg, Hartwig Lohse, and Wolfgang Schmitz (Munich: Saur, 1986), 285–312;and Eberhard König, Biblia pulcra: Die 48zeilige Bibel von 1462; Zwei Perga-mentexemplare in der Bibermühle. Mit einem Census der erhaltenen Exemplarevon Eberhard König und Heribert Tenschert (Ramsen: Antiquariat Bibermühle;Rotthalmünster: Antiquariat Heribert Tenschert, 2005). For recent studies ofthe Fust Master, see Mayumi Ikeda, “Illuminating Gutenberg: The FustMaster and Decoration of Incunables and Manuscripts in Mainz and PalatineHeidelberg” (PhD diss., the Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London,2010); and Mayumi Ikeda, “Illumination and Rubrication of Two GutenbergBibles: Unravelling their Links to the Fust and Schöˆer O‹ce,” Gutenberg-Jarhrbuch 87 (2012): 71–92.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 359compositor’s marks and their use

Compositor’s marks, which could be a simple vertical line or an “X” or “#”written in ink or scratched with a stylus, are commonly inserted by thecompositor in a source text or exemplar when setting a text for printing.The compositor’s mark could serve either of two functions: to indicatehow far the compositor had set his text, or to “cast oˆ” page calculationson the exemplar or certain sections of it in order to estimate the numberof pages of the set text or to distribute the task of type-setting to severalcompositors. A well-known example of the use of compositor’s marks isthe Gutenberg Bible at Cambridge University Library, which is shownto have been used as an exemplar at Heinrich Eggestein’s printing shopin Strasbourg to set his third Vulgate Bible printed c. 1469.3 The com-positor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos copies correspond tothe page breaks of the Bible published in 1462 by Fust and Schöˆer(ISTC ib00529000). It has been known that the 1462 Bible based its texton that of the Gutenberg Bible,4 and the marks found in these twocopies, as will be analyzed below, con‰rm the use of the Gutenberg Bibleas a direct model for the text of the 1462 Bible.

In the abovementioned Cambridge Gutenberg Bible, the composi-tor’s marks appear throughout the entire text, whereas in the Morganand Burgos copies they appear only in limited sections, which impliesthat quires from another copy or copies of the Gutenberg Bible were alsoused as exemplars for the 1462 Bible. The occurrences of the compositor’smarks in the Morgan and Burgos copies are detailed in Appendix II, andthe collation of the two Bible editions are shown in Appendix I (in thefollowing discussion, all the folio numbers and quire numbers in theseunsigned, unfoliated Bibles are inferred). In volume one of the Morgancopy there are twenty-four compositor’s marks on the last pages ofPsalms between I 298r and I 324r, which fall within the four ‰nal quires ofthe ‰rst volume (Illus. 1 and 2). In the second volume seven marks appear

3. Paul Needham, “A Gutenberg Bible Used as Printer’s Copy by HeinrichEggestein in Strassburg, ca. 1469,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographi-cal Society 9 (1986): 36–75.

4. Paul Needham, “The Text of the Gutenberg Bible,” in Trasmissione deitesti a stampa nel periodo modern: II Seminario internazionale, Roma-Viterbo,27–29 giugno 1985, ed. Giovanni Crapulli (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1987),43–84; and Paul Needham, “The 1462 Bible of Johann Fust and Peter Schöˆer(GW 4204): A Survey of its Variants,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 81 (2006): 19–49.

Bibliographical Society of America360between II 181r (505r) and II 188v (512v), which are in the last two quires of2 Maccabees, the ‰nal book of the Old Testament.

In the Burgos copy there are numerous marks, including vertical lines,hash marks, and X-marks in drypoint or ink, though only a few of themcan be determined as compositor’s marks. The purposes for the remain-ing marks found in this copy are unclear. In the ‰rst volume what clearlyseems to be a compositor’s mark ‰rst appears in Exodus (I 46r) and threemore occur in Psalms (I 307v, I 308v, and I 309r; Illus. 3). In the secondvolume four compositor’s marks appear on II 182r, II 183r, II 184r, and II185r, all in 2 Maccabees. In both copies marks are usually placed rightabove the space between two words, and frequently a second mark isplaced in a marginal area or between the columns near the ‰rst one inorder to “signpost” it (Illus. 1 and 3). The hash marks found in the twocopies are similar in shape and seem to be written with a similar type ofpen, though it cannot be established whether or not they were insertedby the same hand.

In both the Morgan and Burgos copies it seems evident that thecompositor’s marks were used not to cast oˆ pages but to mark the actualpage breaks of the set text (that is, of the 1462 Bible), ‰rst because themarks are inserted irregularly, that is, they are not inserted for every pagebreak, without which it is di‹cult to estimate the number of set pages.For example, a mark was inserted on I 298r of the Morgan copy to indicatethe ending of I 223r of the 1462 Bible, but the next mark does not appearuntil I 300r, which marks the ending of I 224v of the 1462 Bible; theendings for I 223v and I 224r are therefore not indicated. Second, most ofthe marks are placed not at the end of sentences or phrases, which wouldbe a more logical and textually satisfactory page break, but within sen-tences; an example is “: et # confusio” on I 302r of the Morgan copy. It ispuzzling to say the least why the pages would not be cast oˆ at the end ofsentences, since the compositors could easily adjust the page or line breakby abbreviating or expanding words. The example on I 302r is particular-ly telling, as the mark (and thus the page break of the 1462 Bible) wasinserted just one word after the ending of the previous phrase. This ofcourse does not mean that the setting of the 1462 Bible was not cast oˆ atall. In fact, the four composition or printing units determined in thisBible by Paul Needham demonstrates that the text was set from fourdiˆerent points (see Appendix I): the ‰rst composition unit begins atthe prologue to Genesis that opens the ‰rst volume (quire 1), the second

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 361

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

Illus. 3: The Gutenberg Bible. Biblioteca Pública Provincial de Burgos, Inc. 66.393 " 282 mm. I 309r, detail.

Illus. 2: The Gutenberg Bible. The Morgan Library and Museum, PML 12.375 " 270 mm. I 309r, detail.

AU: please supply newcopy of Illus. 3.

Bibliographical Society of America362at 1 Kings or 1 Samuel (quire 11), the third, which opens the secondvolume, begins at Proverbs (quire 1), and the fourth begins at the open-ing to the New Testament (quire 15).5 These four composition units werepresumably set side by side to speed up the setting. It is important tonote that, except for the mark on I 46r of the Burgos copy, all thecompositor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos copies belongeither to the second or third composition unit of the 1462 Bible; thispoint will be recalled later in the discussion.

In the Morgan copy there are three hash marks (on I 316v, I 320v, and I321r) that do not correspond to page breaks of the 1462 Bible. Thereason(s) for these discrepancies can only be speculated. One possibilityis that the compositor placed the mark at an incorrect place. The mark onI 316v could be one such example: the compositor placed the markincorrectly in front of “eos” at line a40 instead of placing it before the“eos” two lines above at line a38, which would have corresponded to the‰rst word of I 237r of the 1462 Bible. If the misplaced mark created anerror in setting, it must have been corrected at an early stage of proo‰ng,for so far we do not know of an incorrect transition of text from I 236v toI 237r of the 1462 Bible.6 The hash marks on I 320v and I 321r cannot beexplained so neatly, and we can only suppose that the compositor stoppedfor a pause before he had ‰nished setting a full page of the 1462 Bible andused the hash mark to indicate this.

In the Burgos copy the mark on I 46r does not correspond to a pagebreak of the 1462 Bible but only to a line break. Again, the mark maymean that the compositor took a pause before reaching the end of a page.In fact, as has been mentioned above, this mark is isolated from the othermarks in that it belongs neither to the second or third composition of the1462 Bible; it may therefore mean that it was an ad hoc insertion.

In the Morgan copy there is another mark that does not indicate a pagebreak of the set text, though in this case the purpose for its insertion isclear: at line a12 of I 302v there is a faint vertical line drawn between the “n”and the “m” of the phrase “inmedio” (Illus. 1). This line obviously indi-cates that the phrase should be correctly separated into “in” and “medio.”7

5. Needham, “1462 Bible,” 25.6. I am grateful to Paul Needham for providing this information to me.7. This “inmedio” in the Morgan copy seems to represent a rare uncorrected

state of this phrase in the Gutenberg Bible, which apparently was recti‰ed dur-ing the printing. In all other copies of the Gutenberg Bible I was able to examine,

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 363The phrase was recti‰ed in the 1462 Bible, in which a space was insertedbetween the two words.

a link between the morgan and burgos quires

Because the compositor’s marks in both copies are con‰ned to a smallsection of the entire Bible, there must have been other (presumablyunbound) quires of the Gutenberg Bible at the Fust and Schöˆer o‹cethat were likewise used as compositor’s exemplar for the 1462 Bible.8

Furthermore, the placement of the compositor’s marks in these twocopies strongly suggests that they were paired together when used forsetting. As noted above, in the ‰rst volume of the two copies the marksappear only on the ‰nal pages of the volume except for the single occur-rence on I 46r of the Burgos copy. In the Morgan copy, the ‰rst mark isfound on I 298r in Psalms and six marks (excluding the abovementionedvertical line at I 302va12) follow until I 304v. Turning to the Burgos copy,the ‰rst mark in Psalms appears on I 307v, as if to pick up the sequencefrom the Morgan copy; this is followed by two more marks on I 308v andI 309r (Illus. 3). The sequence then goes back to the Morgan copy, wherethe mark is repeated on I 309r (Illus. 2) and continues until the ‰nal pagebreak in Psalms on I 324r. In the second volume, marks similarly go back

a space has been correctly inserted between “in” and “medio.” The copies exam-ined are (‰gures in brackets correspond to those used in Paul Needham, “The Pa-per Supply of the Gutenberg Bible,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Amer-ica 79, no. 3 [1985]: 355–8): Göttingen, UB (V 6); London, BL, Grenville Copy (V10); Munich, BSB (P 13); Mainz, Gutenberg Museum, Shuckburgh Copy (P 16);Pelplin, High Priest’s Seminary Library (P 25); London, BL, George III’s Copy(P 27); Austin, Texas, UL (P 30); Cambridge, UL (P 33); Edinburgh, NL (P 37);Tokyo, Keio UL (P 39). In addition, Paul Needham kindly informed me that thecopy at Washington, D. C., LC (V 8), has also been corrected. This type of cor-rection, the so-called stop-press or in-press correction, has been studied in de-tail in Mari Agata, “Stop-Press Variants in the Gutenberg Bible” (PhD diss.,Keio University, 2006). I wish to thank Dr. Agata for her insights on this matter.

8. Having examined the text of the 1462 Bible, Needham concluded that itscompositorial model was a Gutenberg Bible with quires 2, 3, 14, and 16 of vol. Iand the ‰rst quire of vol. II in the second setting and all others in the ‰rst set-ting. This condition cannot be ful‰lled by the Morgan and Burgos copies puttogether (neither of the two copies has the ‰rst quire of vol. II in the secondsetting), which means that there was at least another quire used to set the 1462Bible; see Needham, “1462 Bible,” 26.

Bibliographical Society of America364and forth between the two copies: the ‰rst mark appears in the Morgancopy in 2 Maccabees on II 181r (505r), followed by two marks on II 181v

(505v) and II 182r (506r). This last mark is repeated in the Burgos copy,which is continued by three more to II 185r, where the Morgan copy bearsa mark at the same place. Marking in the Morgan copy continues fromthere and ends at II 188v (512v), the ‰nal page break for 2 Maccabees.

The unbroken sequence of the compositor’s marks running throughthe Morgan and Burgos copies demonstrates an undeniable link be-tween them. Moreover, since the compositor’s marks in the two copiesappear at the very end of the second and third composition units, the twocopies must have been used at a late stage of setting the text of the 1462Bible: Psalms is the ‰nal book of the second composition unit, whichends at quire 25 of vol. I, and 2 Maccabees, the last book of the OldTestament, is also the ‰nal book of the third composition unit, ending atquire 14 of vol. II (see Appendix I). It is worth considering the reason(s)why the compositor’s marks seemingly went back and forth between thetwo copies. One that may immediately come to mind is that when used ascompositor’s exemplar, the respective sheets in the Morgan and Burgoscopies were compiled as one set, which were afterwards separated andused to compile several copies of the Bible including the present Morganand Burgos copies. However, this does not explain the three occasionswhere the mark appears at the same place in the two copies, namely on I309r (Illus. 2 and 3), II 182r (506r), and II 185r (509r). Similarly, the mark onI 304v in the Morgan copy and that on I 307v in the Burgos copy are bothon sheet 4.7 of quire 31.

Another possibility is that the task of setting was temporarily distrib-uted to two setters, by which the second setter used the Burgos sheet asexemplar. Yet this is also unlikely because, as has been discussed above,the pages do not appear to have been cast oˆ. Or the use of the two copiesfor setting might be related to the duplicate setting of the 1462 Bible; ithas been shown that quires 10 (unit one), 22 (unit two), 24 (unit two) involume one and part of quires 13 (unit three), and 24 (unit four) involume two of the 1462 Bible are in duplicate settings.9 However, if theuse of the Morgan-Burgos sheets was indeed related to the duplicatesetting of the 1462 Bible — quire 24 of volume one was evidently setfrom the Morgan-Burgos sheets — from what we know at present we

9. For a detailed study of the duplicate settings of the 1462 Bible, see Need-ham, “1462 Bible.”

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 365are unable to establish how these copies could have been engaged for thatpurpose.

Another hypothesis that explains the interchanging use of the Mor-gan and Burgos sheets is that since many more marks are found in theformer, the latter was employed as a temporary replacement when theformer became unavailable. This would explain why there are severalmarks that appear in both copies: the compositors would have needed tomark the Burgos copy to indicate where to pick up from the Morgancopy, and once the Morgan copy was returned to them, the ‰nal mark inthe Burgos copy was copied into the Morgan copy to indicate where torestart. It is worth noting that the switching to the Burgos copy occurredaround the same place in the second and third composition units: pro-vided that the Burgos copy was employed after I 228r (unit two) and II137r (unit three) of the 1462 Bible were set, at that point setting of therecto pages of the 135th folio of unit two and of 140th folio of unit threeshould have been completed. Since the second and third compositionunits, as with the two other units, were likely set synchronically, it istempting to assume that the Morgan copy became temporarily unavail-able when the compositors (perhaps one compositor each for the twounits) just ‰nished setting the abovementioned pages. Then the Morgancopy might have been returned around the time the recto pages of the138th folio of unit two (I 231r) and of the 142nd folio of unit three (II 139r)were completed. If this indeed was the case, the rather brief use of theBurgos copy may thus indicate the precise moment when the Morgancopy was inaccessible to the compositors. This hypothesis, however,presupposes that the Morgan and Burgos sheets were separated in dis-tinct groups, if not already bound separately, and that no mixing ofquires between the two or with others occurred during or after their useas exemplar.

the gutenberg bible and the fustand schöffer office

The compositor’s marks in the Morgan and Burgos copies show thatthey have been used by, and by extension kept at, the Fust and Schöˆero‹ce at the time of the publication of their ‰rst Bible edition issued in1462. If we consider the relationship between Gutenberg and Fust, it isnot di‹cult to understand how this printing o‹ce came to possess sets ofquires of the Gutenberg Bible, which now compose these two and very

Bibliographical Society of America366probably also other copies. It is known that Gutenberg was ‰nanciallysupported by Johann Fust for his printing enterprise (to which theprinting of the Gutenberg Bible must have been central) and had PeterSchöˆer as one of his assistants. Now, we are informed by the documentknown as the Helmasperger Instrument, dated 6 November 1455, thatFust brought a lawsuit against Gutenberg to claim the money he hadadvanced to the latter.10 The outcome of the suit is unknown to us, but itis generally agreed that Fust took possession of some printing materialsfrom Gutenberg to recover at least part of the loan, and then opened anew printing o‹ce in association with Schöˆer, which would later issuea Bible edition in 1462. While the Morgan and Burgos copies could wellhave been acquired by Fust by purchase like any other copies, it seemsalso probable that they were two of the Gutenberg Bibles that stillremained at the printing o‹ce at the time of the suit and eventually fellinto Fust’s hands as part payment. It should be noted here that the sheetsof both copies are of late compilation.11 As has been shown by Needham,out of the ten quires of the Gutenberg Bible that come in duplicatesettings, six in the Burgos copy are in the second setting, which is arelatively high number for a paper copy; the only other surviving papercopies with more quires in the second setting are that at the New YorkPublic Library with eight such quires and the Edinburgh copy withnine.12 The Morgan copy is even more suggestive of late compilation in

10. On the Helmasperger Instrument, see Ferdinand Geldner, “Das Hel-maspergersche Notariatsinstrument in seiner Bedeutung für die Geschichtedes ältesten Mainzer Buchdrucks,” in Der gegenwärtige Stand der Gutenberg-Forschung, ed. Hans Widmann (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1972), 91–121; ElmarMittler and Stephan Füssel, eds., Gutenberg Digital: Göttinger Gutenberg-Bi-bel, Musterbuch und Helmaspergersches Notariatsinstrument (Munich: Sauer,2000); Sabina Wagner, “Bekannter Unbekannter — Johannes Gutenberg,” inGutenberg Aventur und Kunst: Vom Geheimunternehmen zur ersten Medienrev-olution, ed. Wolfgang Dobras (Mainz: Schmidt, 2000), 114–43; and Hans-Michael Empell, Gutenberg vor Gericht: Der Mainzer Prozess um die erste ge-druckte Bibel (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2008). I wish to thank Paul Needhamfor drawing my attention to Empell’s work.

11. Eberhard König, who also noticed the late compilation of the two copies,interpreted the evidence as an indication that the Fust Master illuminated thetwo copies for the printing shop after the sale of the Bible had already begun;see König, “Für Johannes Fust,” 310.

12. Needham, “Paper Supply,” 355–8.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 367that it comprises twenty-two pages printed in so-called replacementsettings, unique settings found in no other surviving copies. Pages inthese settings were gathered with pages in normal settings to completequires 1, 5, and 14 of the ‰rst volume. From a detailed analysis of the paperused for these settings, Needham concluded that these anomalous pageswere printed on leftover sheets after the main print run, including thereprint, had been completed, and that the replacement settings are theresult of an eˆort to make best use of incomplete sheets left at the press.13

It may not be farfetched to speculate that it was Fust’s initiative to setand print these replacement pages in order to complete the sheets thatnow make up the Morgan copy and to make it saleable.

With the discovery of the compositor’s marks in the Morgan andBurgos Gutenberg Bibles, we shall brie!y revisit the famous passage in aletter of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, then bishop of Siena and futurePope Pius II, on a contemporary description of what must be quires ofthe Gutenberg Bible.14 Dated 12 March 1455, the letter vividly describeshow swiftly the ‰rst printed Bible found its purchasers: Piccolominireports with regret that copies of the Bible are said to have been pur-chased even before they were completed and therefore it was not possibleto procure one for Cardinal Juan de Carvajal, the recipient of the letter.15

However, the compositor’s marks found in the Morgan and Burgos

13. Ibid., 334–6. In the online description of the Morgan copy, John Bidwell,who pointed out that there is no evidence that this copy ever contained theNew Testament, suggested that there may not have been su‹cient sheets re-maining at the press to compile a complete New Testament; see http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/gutenberg/old-testament-copy. This conclusionwas also arrived at independently in Ikeda, “Illuminating Gutenberg,” chap. 4.

14. The letter was ‰rst introduced to bibliographers by Erich Meuthen, “Einneues frühes Quellenzeugnis (zu Oktober 1454?) für den ältesten Bibeldruck:Enea Silvio Piccolomini am 12. März 1455 aus Wiener Neustadt an KardinalJuan de Carvajal,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 57 (1982): 108–18. Martin Davies pro-vides a careful review of Meuthen’s ‰ndings as well as a fresh interpretationof the pertaining passage in the letter, supported by a source not used byMeuthen; see Martin Davies, “Juan de Carvajal and Early Printing: The42-line Bible and the Sweynheym and Pannartz Aquinas,” Library, 6th. ser.,18, no. 3 (1996): 193–201.

15. Cited in Davies, “Juan de Carvajal,” 196: “i…iantequam per‰cerentur volum-ina paratos emptores fuisse tradunt.”

Bibliographical Society of America368

16. The earliest known owner of the Morgan copy is Hieronymus Opitius orObwitz of Lobendau (1519–91), the ‰rst evangelical pastor and superintendentof the diocese of Bischofswerda, who, according to the inscription on I 2r, gavethe present copy to Melchior Gaubisch, minister in Langenwolmsdorf in 1565.The Burgos copy probably belonged to a Castilian monastery. See Ilona Hu-bay, “Die bekannte Exemplare der zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel und ihre Be-sitzer,” in Johannes Gutenbergs zweiundvierzigzeilige Bibel: Faksimile-Ausgabenach dem Exemplar der Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz Berlin Kom-mentarband, ed. Wieland Schmidt and Adolf Schmidt-Künsemüller (Munich:Idion, 1979), 146–7. Francisco Cantera Burgos identi‰ed the description “la miBiblia molde, grande” in the will of Luis de Maluenda of Burgos written in1488 as the Burgos copy; see Francisco Cantera Burgos, Alvar Garcia de SantaMaria y su familia de conversos: Historia de la judería de Burgos y de sus conversosmás egregios (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1952), 135–6. However, EricWhite rightly cautioned against this identi‰cation for lack of conclusive evi-dence; see Eric Marshall White, “A Forgotten Gutenberg Bible from theMonastery of Santo Domingo de Silos,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 87 (2012): 25.

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

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 369

appendix iCollation of the Gutenberg Bible and the 1462 Bible

Quire numbers are assigned by the author.

Gutenberg Bible (ISTC ib00526000)2º. 643 leaves. Commonly bound in two volumes. Unsigned and unfoli-

ated.Vol. I: [1–910 1010(8+*8) 11–1210 136(4+*4) 14–2410 2510(7+*7) 2610(9+*9) 27–

3210 334]. 324 leaves.Vol. II: [1–1510 1610(10+*10) 17–2610 2712 2810(7+*7) 29–3010 314(3+*3) 3210].

319 leaves.

1462 Bible (ISTC ib00529000)2º. 481 leaves. Designed to be divided in two volumes (the printers’ device

is printed at the end of each volume). Unsigned and unfoliated.Vol. I: [Unit One: 1–810 9–108]; [Unit Two: 11–2310 24–258]. 242 leaves.Vol. II: [Unit Three: 1–1310 1412]; [Unit Four: 15–2310 246(5+*1)]. 239 leaves.

Bibliographical Society of America370

appe

nd

ix i

iC

ompo

sito

r’s M

arks

in th

e M

orga

n an

d B

urgo

s Cop

ies o

f the

Gut

enbe

rg B

ible

# in

dica

tes

the

plac

emen

t of a

com

posi

tor’s

mar

k; /

/ in

dica

tes

a pa

ge o

r lin

e br

eak;

Bol

d nu

mbe

rs in

the

quire

/she

et c

olum

nin

dica

te th

e fo

lio o

n w

hich

the

com

posi

tor’s

mar

k ap

pear

s in

the

Mor

gan

or B

urgo

s co

py.

Boo

k/M

orga

nB

urgo

sQ

uire

/14

62C

hapt

erT

ext

Cop

yC

opy

Shee

t B

ible

Not

e

volu

me

1

Exo

d. 3

4re

dim

es:

# ne

c ap

pare

bis

46r a

35/

5.6666 6

35r b

32 /

/ b3

3Ps

. 26

trad

ider

is m

e in

# a

=29

8r a6

30/3

. 8888 822

3r //

223

vT

he m

ark

in th

e M

orga

n co

pyis

ver

y fa

int.

Ps. 3

5ap

ud t

e #

est

fons

300r a

1230

/1. 1

0101010 1022

4v //

225

r

Ps. 4

0d[

omi]

n[u]

s#.

[D]o

min

[us]

301r b

3031

/ 1111 1.10

225v

// 2

26r

Ps. 4

3: e

t# c

onfu

sio

302r a

1731

/ 2222 2.9

226r

// 2

26v

Ps. 4

5in

|med

io30

2v a12

31/ 2222 2

.922

6v b16

Spac

ing

is c

orre

cted

in th

e14

62 B

ible

.Ps

. 47

cong

rega

ti #

sunt

:30

2v b10

31/ 2222 2

.922

6v //

227

r

Ps. 5

4[E

]xpe

ctau

i #

eum

304r a

3931

/ 4444 4.7

227v

// 2

28r

“exp

ecta

ui”

is c

orre

cted

to

“exp

ecta

ba[m

]” i

n th

e14

62 B

ible

.Ps

. 57

et #

non

vid

erun

t so

lem

.30

4v b36

31/ 4444 4

.722

8r //

228

v

Ps. 7

0to

ta d

ie#m

agni

tudi

nem

tua

m.

307v b

1631

/4. 7777 7

230r /

/ 23

0v

Ps. 7

2pr

opte

r in

iqui

tate

m#s

uam

308v a

1131

/3. 8888 8

230v

// 2

31r

Ps. 7

5af

fer=

//

tis #

mun

era.

309r b

730

9r b7

31/2

. 9999 923

1r //

231v

Bot

h co

pies

hav

e th

e m

ark

inth

e sa

me

plac

e.

Gutenberg Bibles as Compositor’s Exemplars 371

Ps. 7

7qu

areb

ant#

eum

: e

t re

uert

e=31

0r a2

31/1

. 10101010 10

231v

// 2

32r

Ps. 7

8ex

prob

raue

runt

# t

ibi d

omin

e.31

0v b8

31/1

. 10101010 10

232r

// 2

32v

Ps. 8

2#

poss

idea

mus

san

ctua

riu[

m]

311r b

4232

/ 1111 1.1

023

2v //

233

r

Ps. 8

6[D

]om

i=//

nus

# na

rrab

it i[

n]31

2r a29

32/ 2222 2

.923

3r //

233

v

Ps. 8

8pr

opha

nabo

# te

stam

entu

[m]

312v b

1232

/ 2222 2.9

233v

// 2

34r

Ps. 9

1i[

n] f

actu

ra#

tua:

313r b

3732

/ 3333 3.8

234r /

/ 23

4v

Ps. 1

00co

rde

:# c

u[m

] ho

c no

[n]

314v b

532

/ 4444 4.7

235r

// 2

35v

Ps. 1

03#[

B]e

nedi

c an

ima

mea

315r b

3032

/ 5555 5.6

235v

// 2

36r

Ps. 1

04se

r=//

uum

suu

[m]:

#aar

on31

6r a11

32/5

. 6666 623

6r //

236

v

Ps. 1

05se

pe li

bera

uit

# eo

s31

6v a40

32/5

. 6666 623

7r a2

// a

3T

he m

ark

does

not

cor

resp

ond

to t

he p

age

brea

k.Ps

. 118

meo

. #[

D]e

duc

me

319r b

1032

/2. 9999 9

238v

// 2

39r

Ps. 1

18pe

ccat

ores

# ut

319v b

3432

/2. 9999 9

239r /

/ 23

9v

Ps. 1

18V

idi

p[re

]uar

ican

tes

# &

320v a

1732

/1. 1

0101010 1023

9v b45

//

The

mar

k do

es n

ot c

orre

spon

db4

6to

the

pag

e br

eak.

Ps. 1

25d[

omi]

n[u]

s#

capt

iuita

te[m

]32

1r b1

33/ 1111 1

.4w

ithin

The

mar

k do

es n

ot c

orre

spon

d24

0r b41

to t

he p

age

brea

k.Ps

. 145

[E]x

ibit

spir

it[us

]#ei

[us]

324r a

133

/1. 4444 4

242r

// 2

42v

appe

nd

ix i

i—co

ntin

ued

Boo

k/M

orga

nB

urgo

sQ

uire

/14

62C

hapt

erT

ext

Cop

yC

opy

Shee

t B

ible

Not

e

Bibliographical Society of America372

volu

me

11

2 M

acc.

4ita

q[ue

] an

tioch

us#

anim

o18

1(50

5)r a

618

/1. 1

0101010 1013

6r // 1

36v

2 M

acc.

5se

d pr

opt[

er]

gent

em#

locu

m18

1(50

5)v a

3618

/1. 1

0101010 1013

6v // 1

37r

2 M

acc.

6et

ing

enite

// #

nobi

litat

is18

2(50

6)r

182r b

21//

19/ 1111 1

.1013

7r // 1

37v

Bot

h co

pies

hav

e th

e m

ark

inb2

222

the

sam

e pl

ace.

2 M

acc.

7in

vte

ro /

/ #m

eo a

ppar

uist

is.

183r a

4//5

19/ 2222 2

.913

7v //

138r

2 M

acc.

9in

tern

or[u

m]

# co

rmen

ta.

184r b

1619

/ 3333 3.8

138v

// 13

9r

2 M

acc.

10a[

n]ni

s ag

ere#

die

s is

tos.

185(

509)

r a2

185r a

219

/ 4444 4.7

139r /

/ 139

vB

oth

copi

es h

ave

the

mar

k in

the

sam

e pl

ace.

2 M

acc.

12

cong

ress

is#

co[n

]ti=

186(

510)

v b39

19/ 5555 5

.614

0v //

141r

2 M

acc.

13

abijt

? #/

/ #

co[m

]mis

it cu

[m]

187(

511)

v a25

19/5

. 6666 614

1r // 1

41v

2 M

acc.

15

dim

icar

e et

# c

o[n]

flige

re18

8(51

2)v b

3519

/4. 7777 7

142r

// 1

42v

appe

nd

ix i

i—co

ntin

ued

Boo

k/M

orga

nB

urgo

sQ

uire

/14

62C

hapt

erT

ext

Cop

yC

opy

Shee

t B

ible

Not

e