Thank you, Alex. Whether by writing or printing the transfer of a text from one physical object to another by means of an intervening human hand,
an eye inevitably produces at some time or other copying errors.
The study of such errors excuse me, I have my own glasses on.
The study of such errors in the daily diet of those polygraphers bibliographer
is textual critics who study the transmission of text for single error may be,
in fact, almost always is more revealing of human processes than a long and wearying collection of invariably accurate sequences of words.
We may think of these as pleasant or pretty or even delightful errors, they instruct us such incidents or expected incidents that did not happen,
like dogs not barking in the night awakened the Holmesian chambers of our minds.
In 1710, the Scollard lead off Kuester reedited and enlarge the 1767 Greek New Testament with variant readings of John Mitchell,
who died very shortly after his magnum opus was completed.
Custer, a correspondent of Bently, had been one of the editors of the Cambridge edition of the Byzantine Encyclopaedia called Soudas or Suda.
In reworking Mills, Ed., the tireless customer found what he called a Lepidus error,
a pretty mistake in an Appendix M. had printed a phrase from the birds of Aristophanes as a variant reading of Luke 16, verse three.
The error must have arisen through some confusion,
Emile's notes for his edition includes a large number of indirect parallel passages from Greek sources.
And this is where the Aristophanes Salema obviously belonged.
But, yes, errors can indeed be pretty. Of the errors we have seen so far,
undoubtedly the prettiest is the one where the compositor of the 36 line Bible at four
is a chapter to set text directly from the unreciprocated line of the Gutenberg Bible,
thereby proving in just three position words that the Gutenberg Bible was his exemplar.
Another pretty but considerably more complex error in the 14 62 Bibo of First Shiffer, a rather a pretty error in some copies of that edition.
Is this one slide to please from least 74 recto of the first volume?
This is the paper copy at the Library of Congress. Bequest of Lessoning.
Rosenwald, the text of this column.
If you look at line three, the text of this column, the first three words of line three at Lapidary Argumentum is Deuteronomy 29 17.
The fourth word in after of line three, Moses, Joselo, etc., is Deuteronomy 31, verse 14, and so the remainder of the column continues.
Thus, the compositor jumped over some 48 verses in a single line of his composing stick.
But this error is not in all copies in the Bodleian copy, also on paper, we see slide three,
please, the words of Deuteronomy 29 17 continue correctly instead of Moses.
We have at our MacWhite Kaleigh. Aren't there idols of wood and stone, silver and gold, which they worshipped?
And then the next slide we see the two of them, the one above the other Library of Congress and taught bodily below.
The error is immediately explained when we examined the Gutenberg Bible and visualised
the first in Shiffer compositor standing with it before him and copying it.
He came to the end of the verse of one leaf of the Bible and set its last three words on what
would become law in three of Columbia of the page he was creating at Lapidary Argenton.
This was leifs 98, Versova, the Gutenberg Bible.
He then continued setting with the recto of the next page, but the next page in front of them was not 999 recto as it ought to have been,
but rather 100 directo, starting with the words Moisés at Yasushi in the midst of Deuteronomy Chapter 31.
So Leaf 99 was skipped over entirely. As for at least 74 of the body copy,
it is a corrected council leaf set after the original error of a skipped or misplaced leaf in the examplar was discovered.
So there's a difference in time between Leaf 74 Recto Body and Leaf 74 Recto Library of Congress.
This is the boiled down, simplified explanation of an unusually complicated accident,
the first in Shiffer compositor did not himself mistakenly skip over a leaf of his examplar.
Rather, that leaf he missed was a single turn and inserted leaf,
and it was placed in the wrong position in the copy of the Gutenberg Bible he had in front of him.
It was placed after rather than before Leaf 100.
From an examination of 25 copies, including two single waist leaves preserved in Paris,
it is possible to reconstruct the entire sequence by which interest in your first shop,
the original accident was made, discovered and gradually corrected with a couple of missteps along the way.
Over the course of composing four pages, 74 Recto and Verso and 75 Recto and Verso of each page,
three different settings are recorded, making 12 page settings in all.
Of one of the three settings of 74 Verso, there are two chronologically distinct states, and if one of the three settings of the last page, 75.
So there are three chronologically distinct states. So amongst these 25 copies, there are eight different combinations of settings over four pages.
We are reminded again of that fundamental distinction between a copy of an addition, a particular sample sheets and the additions itself,
which is notional but once existed in all the sheets that were printed from which complete copies could be made up,
some of those sheets being printed two or three years after other sheets of the same edition.
Of the early Bible set from copies of the Gutenberg Bible, the 462 Bible was by far the most important in a sexual influence.
Like all the other early Latin Bibles, leaving aside the experiment of the Krakow proof life using Imperial Paper,
it was a royal folio, but in several respects it was considerably more ambitious and in conception than the others.
We have mentioned the mental linen, 36 line Bibles and the three editions of Heinrich, Agustín and Strausberg.
The Toyota edition run must have been significantly greater than that of the Gutenberg Bible and more copies were printed on vellum than on paper.
There is no complete census. But of 82 pinned down copies that can be counted, 32 are paper and 50 are vellum.
Thus, it is likely that roughly three fifths of the edition was offered on the significantly more expensive Vellum 251 paper.
It may be recalled that other productions of the first in Shefer Shop, the 14, 57 and 14, 59 soldiers,
the 14 59 Durand's, the 14 60 Constitución, so Klement the Fifth were printed entirely on vellum.
The firm had experience and success in selling expensive books.
Unlike the other Bibles of the early group that left spaces for replicators
to supply book and prologue to Charlie chapter initials and chapter numbers,
the 14 62 Bible printed these in red and in certain sections.
The chapter, initials and numbers alternated between red and blue from one chapter to the next.
But this is highly variable. The early quires of the Bible left spaces for chapter numbers, but then numbers began to be printed.
Slide six, please. Not by setting individual characters of XVI from the typed case,
but rather by making in advance small task blocks with the full number and Lombard characters on the block.
So that, say, chapter number 18 is a single block containing XVI all on the same piece of metal.
Like the other editions, composition was divided into four main composition units.
Could we see slide seven, please? I'm sorry, this is handwritten.
I just somehow couldn't do it any other way.
And with a little bit of highlighter, the highlighter, if you can see it means these are the.
Quires of the book of which I investigated, this was spent so much time in this of which there are duplicate settings,
so there are two settings of each of those quires that's in yellow and the four composition units,
as in all the other printed Bibles, variations in printing the Bible,
such as the incomplete experiment with blue printing along with red,
are all to be studied by coordinating the composition units, because in each of the composition units,
they they show up for the first time at roughly the same time in the course of production because the composers were working at a pretty steady pace.
Although her concentration is on the text of the 14th to Bible,
this diagram of the composition units brings up two topics that should be mentioned briefly.
First, as I just mentioned, there are six choirs that are recorded in duplicate settings.
I would define them in detail in another publication and will not repeat here
except to point out they come at the end of their respective composition units.
Thus they are quite unlike the duplicate settings of the Gutenberg Bible and to a lesser degree, the 36 line Bible,
where the settings were made to print additional pages in response to a decision to increase the addition run.
In the first and Shiffer shop, with a duplicate settings coming near the end of production, our picture is has to be the two compositors.
We're setting essentially identical pages, more or less side by side, each with a copy or Unbound Quas of a copy of the Gutenberg Bible to set from.
And presumably the respective duplicate typed pages were sent to different presses.
But we don't really know that.
Several years after these duplicate sightings of quires at the end of the 14th Test-tube Bible were identified and published,
Mayumi Ikeda studied two paper copies of the Gutenberg Bible,
one at the Morgan Library containing the Old Testament only and one at the Bibliotheque, the prevention of Borgas.
The copies had been illuminated to closely similar patterns by a mind artist known as the First Master.
Dr Equador discovered that in both copies there were scattered marginal hash
marks and vertical strokes within lines marking page endings of the 14 62 Bible.
And these compositors marks were concentrated at the end of production that is in Psalms and in second Maccabees,
where in fact there is a duplicate setting. None of these pages, however, contains any marked emendations,
unlike the Cambridge Bible, thus at the time the 14th says the Bible was being produced,
the remained at least two sets of sheets of the Gutenberg Bible still in the shop, unsold.
And just as with the Gutenberg Bible at Cambridge, when it was in Heinrich Agustin's shop in Strasbourg,
after these sheets had finished being handled by Frost and Chipper's Compositors, they were bound up and sold as viable copies.
The sheets making up the Morgan Library, Old Testament, in fact, we're a little short of a full copy,
22 pages were missing, some four sheets had been depleted, had already been sold, and there were no more in the shop.
And in two cases, there was a sheet that had three of its four pages printing.
But a fourth page had by mistake, never gone under the press.
All these pages had to be uniquely reset and printed off to make a copy texturally complete and therefore saleable.
As was pointed out nearly 60 years ago by two people, I'm happy to remember his old friends, William H.
Qadi and his then Liberian miner Brian, a small,
easily overlooked layout error in the Gutenberg Bible proves to be remarkably powerful in outlining the first draughts,
so to speak, of the descent of Latin Bible printing from the Gutenberg Bible to the end of the 15th century.
This, too, qualifies in my mind as a delightful a happy ER in large part because it is so minor,
there is no textual error at all, only an absence of white space in one place.
And setting the gospel of Matthew, the compositor, whether by oversight or a flaw and the examplar,
did not set a two line initial space for Chapter 22. Could we see slide eight?
This was. Noticed in the printing shop before all the sheets had gone out and the Munich copy,
but not the Vienna copy of the printed lubrication guide has a handwritten annotation
you see in the lower margin on the left instructing how to correct this error.
And next slide is a close up. Of that instruction and it tells you a read paragraph mark was to be inserted before the chapters,
first words at respondants uses Dixit, Yttrium in parabolas, etc. and the number XXIII was to be added in the margin.
Slide 10, please. This instruction was carried out accurately by the rubric of a considerable number of copies,
such as that at the Bodleian Library, which you see here, although no lubrication guards accompany any of these copies.
We may presume that originally they had such cards with the same manuscript annotation we find on the Munich tabular rubric from.
At least 14 copies of the Gutenberg Bible marked Matthew 22 in the manner prescribed by the minute copy and that you see here.
Eight copies, slide 11, please, made no chapter division at this place,
their copies of the tabula rubric of may have been copies issued before the mistake was discovered and the annotation was added for correcting.
And then eight copies, Slide 12, including the Munich copy in the National Library of Scotland.
Copy had a different place for Chapter 22. They started it one verse later today.
It's Matthew 22, verse two beginning C.M.A. Factum est regnum Kyly to a king who prepares a wedding feast for his son.
The Kopi copy, in fact, though, it preserves the tabula rubick did not follow it anywhere in any of its rubrics.
The same is true of other copies marking Chapter 22 at similar Factum EST,
such as the copies that Stuttgart, Yale Humanities Research and National Library of Scotland.
The rubric nations are independent of the printed guide.
It matters little whether Matthew, 22, is marked out and Jesus replied and spoke again in parables or at the parable,
the kingdom of Heaven is like a king who prepared a marriage feast for his son.
It is just a matter of tradition.
Oddly, the two 13th century guides to Paris choppering or lanterne choppering, as they called it, mentioned in an earlier lecture, differ here.
The guide in the Bibliotheque Nacionale Latin one four four one seven, Maqsood at 22, one at respondants Yeezus.
We see the slide 13, please. And the guide here in Oxford at Modlin Latin one to 168 marks 22 to C.M.A.
Factum est. And just pause for a minute to see if you can spot the Red 22 and then go over to the left.
C.M.A Factum est Regnum Collura, one of the so-called crown witnesses to the Paris text.
The Sanjak Bible at the Bibliotheque Masino does mark at 22 one the way the Gutenberg Bible annotation said to.
But most of the Paris Bibles like the mean a copy of the Gutenberg Bible market in this way, similarly optimist.
When the various shops of Mentalist and Strausberg Fister in Bamburgh of Fiston Schiffrin Mights and a Vegas
Stein in Strasbourg were setting the respective editions from different copies of the Gutenberg Bible.
None of those copies had been lubricated yet, and so none of the composers working on Matthew saw a chapter division were Chapter two would begin.
They simply said text continuously at this place just as the exemplary stood slide.
14, please. So this is the 36 line Bible, the copy at shyte library.
You can see a later reader way over in the march.
And there wrote a little on 22 and he treated it as similarly factum est.
But in the first in Shefer Shop after the printing, but before the sheets were distributed for sale,
this error of omission of a Chapter 22 was noticed. The page containing the error was hand corrected or a combination of hand and typed corrected.
As you'll see, Chapter two being 22, being marked a 22 to similarly factum est.
Again, the correction was carried out in two different ways, one less elegantly for the paper sheets.
Slide 15. Bodily copy.
They're the last word of the line simile was partially scratched out, and that allowed a blank,
a little roughened blank piece of blank of paper where the S as a verbal letter could be written in red ink,
thus not as a full two line chapter initials. So it broke the hierarchy.
It wasn't elegant in the chapter. No, it was written in the entire column, which is, again, a slight inelegance.
Printed text on vellum can be carefully scraped and washed away without seriously damaging the surface.
So for the vellum sheets, you see the next slide, please.
The entire final word simile was scraped away to make a place for the chapter number 22 to be written in.
And then the following four lines of type were fully erased for new lines were set,
including a two line indentation to put in the initial and those new lines were stamped or printed
under the press in the correct position because these lines were not part of the original typed page.
They can often be seen to be very slightly skewed with respect to the lines above and below them,
varying from copy to copy, a pale iRace ghost of the original setting lies under them.
So there are actually two strata at that point on that page of the First and Shefer Bible.
William Shyte and miner Brian tracked the treatment of Matthew, 22, in all 15th century Latin editions, and they arranged the treatments and columns.
They found that the additions that made no demarcation of Matthew, 22, died out rather quickly.
Those early editions set from the Gutenberg Bible, followed by three Baso editions dying out in the mid 14th 70s.
A relatively small number of additions marked it Matthew, 22 one at Respondants Yasu,
starting with the Baso edition of 14 75 and all of Antonenko Burgers Mini Nurnberg editions followed that.
This column also includes two editions unconnected with the Gutenberg Bible, one printed in Pugin's in 14 75,
the other in Vicenza for 1876, both of which were set from independent manuscripts.
So there that's what their exemplar had as choppering.
But the major column is that with Matthew, 22 marked at 22, first to similarly Factum est,
beginning with the 14 62 Forstchen Shefer Bible continuing to Sweetenham in Pantazis 14 Seventy-one Bible from there to Franciscus
Renner's 14 75 Venis Bible and onward to all other Venice and Bazzel Bibles and then Bibles printed from other later shops in Naples.
Liohn Cologne's Strausberg SPIA and Brushoff. This is our strong hint that the long term descent of the Gutenberg Bibles text,
with whatever subsequent changes of readings in different places were made in later editions, was transmitted via the 14th 62 Bible.
I have not seen a return to marking Chapter 22 at 22 one at Respondants Iesus until Robert attends 1028 edition.
Although it has not been discussed as such,
the 14 62 Bible at places consciously revised the Gutenberg Bible text on the basis of other sources or some other source that is beyond the textual
profile of first and second settings in the copy or copies of the Gutenberg Bible used as examplar additional textual emendations were made.
In his monograph, The Text People, Heinrich Schneider listed a half dozen scattered places where the reading of the 14 62 Carex the Gutenberg Bible.
But he did not draw a general conclusion. The pathway toward a deepened picture of Emendations in the first inch of her
Bible was laid by Gerhardt Pervert's in his 2009 study in the Gutenberg yearbook,
where he examined manuscript emendations in several copies of the Gutenberg Bible,
including the Chingon vellum copy whose Illuminations can be localised to meIt's.
Profits did not examine the vellum copy at the Bibliotheque Nursing home to France,
some of whose illuminations are related to those of the Leuchtenburg of the Gutenberg
copy and whose original owner was the mine's Benedictine convent of St. James,
the great one of the leading convents to the Bernfeld reform.
Well, that copy also contains a sizeable number of emendations,
often so carefully and neatly made by erasure on the vellum that they can be hard to spot.
And there is a quite high but not invariable correlation between the emendations and the good Chingon and Paris copies,
both originally in mines owned.
It might finally, when these places of emendations are tracked down in the printed text of the first and Shiffer for 1862 Bible,
we very frequently find that they were included also in that edition.
Thus, notionally beyond the original exemplars for the Gutenberg Bible.
We further see in minds a few years later a kind of pool of corrections.
And we must suppose that there was some individual or small group of individuals who applied corrections to two local copies of the Gutenberg Bible,
the ones now and getting in in Paris, and also communicated them to first and Shiffer when a new Bible was being printed in 14 63.
So we have a triad of Bibles to study with regard to textual state.
A good example amongst many is a place where the Gutenberg Bible text was correct and where the
good can copy and the Paris vellum copy and the Paris vellum copy from the Convent of St. James,
the Yakob Spag and the first and Shuford printed Bible all add an inauthentic interpellation.
This is a wisdom. Chapter seven, verse nine, where we see the setting of the Gutenberg Bible.
That's Slide 17, please.
Last line is correct, and they can't say Nagant say victory marks the authentic end of that verse, the or the Paris vellum copy slide 18, please.
Added a clause in manuscript which is not authentic, is not part of the Hebrew, it's not part of Jerome's translation.
Well, no, I'm sorry Sapienza was not translated by Jerome, not part of the Greek text.
So there it's added in manuscript and the point of interpellation shown then slide 19, the first and Shiffer Edition has the identical interpolation.
The editors of the Rome Old Testament,
the standard scholarly edition record this interpellation in the Theodore Feehan reception of the Carolingian period and then in the Paris Bible.
So here again is a case where the Gutenberg Bible text is correct and is not that of the Paris Bible.
A copy of the first and Shiffer Bible was used as the exemplar for the Royal Folio printed by Sweetenham in Pinots in Room 14, 1871,
this Bible varied from the tradition of 15th century Bibles, both manuscript and printed to a degree that can almost be considered eccentric.
It was printed with the presses and Tykwer, a Roman font in long lines which do not make for comfortable reading.
As Preface was printed, a humanist Latin translation of the letter of Aristarchus, a Jewish Hellenistic Sude epigraph,
which recounts in detail a miraculous legend emphasising the accuracy with within
with with which the Septuagint Pentateuch have been translated from the Hebrew.
Apart from this humanist signal, Sweetenham in penance or rather their literary editor,
John Andreo Bussy consciously drew the addition closer to the tradition of the Paris Bible in several ways.
First, apocryphal for Essar, it was emitted as it was never part of the Paris Bible tradition.
Second, slide 20, please. Swaffham and Pantazis additions added for the first time,
the supplementary index of Hebrew names in alphabetical index was symbolic
etymology parsing of names that have been a standard feature of the Paris Bible.
This index has recently been very revealingly studied by Al Peleg in our sample group,
a 15th century manuscript, Bibles, 30 codices include the interpretations in 45 like it,
but its reappearance in print in the Swinomish Pinots edition encouraged a revival for became a standard feature of most later printed FOLGATE Bibles,
continuing well into the third decade of the 16th century. Third, slide 21, please.
Could you go back to slide 20 for a second? Yeah, I got the slides in the wrong order.
Go to the next slide, please. We're going to back up there is the index of Hebrew names could have sworn I put this in the right order.
Let's go to the next slide. And this is the other feature of swine pinots.
They added almost all of the standard Paris Bible prologues that were missing from the Gutenberg Bible and its immediate descendants,
and particularly the large group attached to the 12th minor prophets.
But also they added Paris Bible Prologues to Chronicles Wisdom, Matthew and Apocalypse.
The only omissions from the Paris group were the two Maccabees prophecies of ravenous Malphrus,
which thereby dropped out of sight in all later pure text editions of the Vulgate Bible.
So a Paris Bible, something very like it must have been at hand when a copy of the First and Shefer
Bible was being prepared a setting copy in the Swingman Pinots group shop.
But if any significant editing of the text occurred. But in Rome it is not so far been noticed.
As an edited text, then the first stage of the printed Latin Bible is the Gutenberg Bible, where signs of editing are especially strong.
And for Ezra,
the second stage is the first in Shefer Bible 14 62 with its emendations from what may be seen as a pool of variant readings gathered in minds,
perhaps centred in the Ya'akov Spirit convent and entered also in the Paris and getting in copies of the Gutenberg Bible itself,
the third stage and essentially the last until Robert Etienne's Paris Bible 1028 is the Bible printed in Venice.
Fourteen seventy five by Franciscus Renner and Nicholas de Frank Fortia.
See the next slide. Yes, that's it, unlike so in Pantazis Bible and all the northern European folgate bibles printed to date.
This was a chancery, not Royal Folio.
With leaf height of roughly 30 as against roughly 40 centimetres for a Royal Folio Royal Folio, Bibles continued to be produced in Germany until 1880.
But apart from these starting in 14 75, typical Latin Bibles were chancery folio in size.
A few were median folio, one printed by Jensen.
Eventually they were printed an even smaller formats, as in Yohann Froben 14, 1891 Bazzel Octavo Bible.
Larger paper was used only for Bibles with surrounding commentaries of the Glosser ordinary of Nickless to and a view of St. Share.
Renner's, 14 75 people use the swine himan pinots 14 seventy-one edition as its exemplar, but made extensive changes in both contents and text.
There needs to be a short side note here, for one good scholar has doubted this statement,
which admittedly I first made in a rather offhand manner in an auction catalogue description 30 plus years ago.
He has suggested forcefully, but without citing any textual evidence that Renner's Bible was set from a copy of the first in Shefer Bible.
To avoid seeming epidemic, Dick, let me review quickly reasons to believe that the Swine Human Pinots edition,
not Christian Shiffer, was the fundamental exemplar of the Renner Bible for 1875.
In his 1922 memoir on the text of the Arctic Dome on Recontact,
coalitions showed already three places in Genesis and numbers where swine himan pinots plus Renner shared readings against Western chauffeur.
In three Regnum, that is First Kings, Chapter three, the Gutenberg Bible and Christian Chauffeur both omit verse 23,
which has restored both in swingman pinots and in runner. Psalm 17, verse 14, 15,
Shiffer follows the Gutenberg Bible when printing erroneously the verb intro Evett
for in Tornoe it in both Twynam and pinots and render the verb is corrected.
All of these create difficulties. If we suppose the Regner edition to have been set from Christian Shiffer four, we must hypothesise that Swinomish,
Tanaz in 14, Seventy-one and Renren 14 75 independently and coincidentally made identical textual corrections in each place.
Still, other passages can be cited where swingman pinots and Renner share readings that differ from Twistin Shiffer, and in every such case,
the believer in Christian Shifter's Bible is the exemplar for Fariña must once more and once more again appeal to coincidence.
Moreover, in general,
in many dozens of places where the spelling of proper names differs between first and Shiffer and swingman pinots as they frequently do,
Renner's orthography follows 100 pinots. And finally,
it seems clear that the interpretations of Hebrew names in Renner's in Renner's edition copies that of swingman pinots hear the identify here.
The identity of orthography is especially persuasive. I believe we may accept that the first interfer Bible is a child of the Gutenberg Bible.
The Swinomish Independence Bible is a grandchild and the Bible is a great grandchild.
Renner's edition restored for Ezra, whose text could have been supplied from any of the Northern FOLGATE editions,
descended from the Gutenberg Bible, not excluding the first interfer Bible for four,
for indeed, we know from localiser, Illuminations and early provenances that the 14th 62 Bible was marketed in Italy,
as it was also in France and for that matter, in England.
As mentioned, Renner included the interpretations of Hebrew names, but not the letter of Aristarchus.
The letter stars appeared in just one more Bible that we know little in detail about the wider distribution of copies of Twynam and Pantazis Bible.
Some copies were sold north of the Alps,
as attested by the Bodleian copy of Volume two with its high quality South German two colour lubricated filigree initials.
Which we saw misplaced and which makes me think that.
The version of the PowerPoint we're looking at is not the latest version, but we will continue.
One copy reached Nuremberg, where the first prisoner of the city, Johann Vincent Schmidt, used it as exemplar for a Latin Bible,
completed the ninth of December 14th, 75, just three weeks after Koeberg completed the first of his numerous Latin Bibles in the same city, Zentan.
Schmidt copied the swingman pennants edition and four, including the letter of Aristarchus and omitting for Ezra.
His is a handsome book with headlines printed in Lombard capitals and with Read Printed Teacherly and Swinomish Pantazis Edition.
They're black.
And moreover, he printed his Bible on Imperial Paper significantly larger than royal with leaf height of a tall copy measuring some 47 centimetres.
Could we see Slide 24 in? That's the often and printers devices of this Vincent Schmidt edition.
The call often of Renner's edition contains no boasts, but it was an extensively edited production,
the additional Paris Bible prologues of the Swinomish pennants editions were included with one noteworthy exception.
But besides the Sun, 27 more prologues were supplied from older traditions.
That is none of our recent compositions. The 12 minor prophets were almost buried within a matrix of 28 prologues.
An argument to one change of prologue within the minor prophets provides an earmark by
which one can easily see how many subsequent Latin editions descended from Renner's Bible,
which was the link and by far the longest ascending chain from the Gutenberg Bible in Swinomish pinots.
The second prologue to Jonah is the traditional parece one no by colourist 32 beginning Younus Colomba, we see slide 25.
Yes. Its source was Isidore's tracked on the births and deaths of the church fathers.
Renner's edition substituted for this a much briefer prologue, likewise beginning Younus Colomba,
which is slightly modified from Jérome summary of Jonah in his long letter to Pollyannas Paul of NOLA,
the lengthy letter which became an iconic Bibles, and then on into the Gutenberg Bible,
the preface to the whole Bible prologue one thus far, the first few words we can immediately determine which prologue we have.
Younus Colomba Shadowlands Izidor from the Paris Tradition or Youngness Colomba Pope Kareema,
the most beautiful dive who in his shipwreck foretold the sacrifice of Jesus coming from Jarome.
In fact, apart from that for 1976 Zentan Schmidt edition, the Paris prologue now disappears.
Essentially, every succeeding edition uses the brief Jérome prologue of Renner's edition to
the end of the 15th century and again well into the third decade of the 16th.
The textural Emendations and Renner's Bible are extensive with many small corrections of textual errors, but the hidden,
strong influence of Renner's edition on the Vulgate text extending down to the
Clementine Folgate is perhaps more vividly seen in its errors than in its corrections.
This leads us back to the generalisation with which we closed the first lecture generalisation approved by the major scholars
of the history of the Vulgate that the Gutenberg Bible is in essence a descendant of the 13th century Paris Bible ascension.
In the second lecture, I argued against overconfidence in this formulation, not by putting forward a particular alternate hypothesis,
but only by emphasising that this generalisation needs to be tested by considering the evidence that goes against it.
In any scholarly investigation, if we agree that certain evidence agreeable to a hypothesis counts in its favour,
we must acknowledge the possibility of evidence that is not agreeable to the hypothesis and therefore weakens it.
And we must judge all evidence by an equal standard. If we play favourites, we close our minds.
The Paris Bible reception was heavily criticised for its errors in the 60s by the English Franciscan Roger Bacon,
who in fact first asserted what we know from surviving Bibles to be the case,
that there was in the 13th century such a concept as a Paris Bible, the exemplar,
Parisians say, as he referred to it in his opus, Maia's address to comment.
The fourth, Bakan gave an example of one such Paris error appearing at the end of Deuteronomy 27.
This chapter ends with a series of malediction to be proclaimed by the Levites, to each of which the assembled people are to call out Amen.
One of the malediction verse 24 is against he who shall have struck down his neighbour in secret kwi Klumb perquisite Proxicom sue him.
And then the next authentic verse 25 is against he who accepts a bribe to take an innocent
life kwi a chip it munira kutya animo sanguinis Innocenti slide 26 should show you the.
Correct, reading in the Gutenberg Bible. In Paris, Bibles, let's go to slide 27, a verse is interpolated between those,
it's a curse against he who sleeps with his neighbour's wife, KWI, Dormont Kormákur, approximately Sui and you should see it.
The third line down, beginning with the word Dormont. The Gutenberg Bible did not have that Paris interpretation,
nor was it included in the first in Shiffer Bible, nor in the swimming and pinots Bible set from Houston.
Shiffer, this interpolated verse first appears in Renner's edition.
The anonymous editor impending from a manuscript Bible at Sea Image 28, please, that had this Paris reading.
As Bakan pointed out more than 750 years ago, this reading is indeed characteristic of the Paris Bible.
It is present, for instance, in the manuscript we mentioned at the start, Bibliotheque 267,
which Heinrich Schneider identified as having other readings significantly shared with the Gutenberg Bible in the Pentateuch portion.
Amongst the sample group, a 15th century manuscript, Bibles, 46 of them have this Paris and interpellation,
do not sleep with your neighbour's wife and 28 Lockette, although in two of the latter it was added marginally by a second hand.
In his opus, Menas also addressed to Clement, the fourth Baker noted another Paris corruption occurring at the end of Chapter eight of Mark,
where Jesus challenges his disciples for whoever is ashamed of me.
In my words, then, when he comes before the glory of the father, the son of man will be ashamed of him.
The operative words for this state of shame in Mark are confuses and confound later.
But in the Paris Bible, the operative words or rather confesses at country to giving what really is an
opposite meaning whoever acknowledges me will be at his death acknowledged.
Completely backwards, this textile corruption of confesses Coffee-table Tabata is indeed an earmark of the Paris Bible.
Could we see slide 29? It's the very end of the second line is con abbreviated and then fussiest, starting third line, continuing from their.
The corrupt Paris reading was brought into print by the 14 75 Rennert Bible.
See the next slide, please. We are missing that, so I go back one more, please.
Charles. Yeah, I'm I'm sorry, this was my PowerPoint confusion.
Go to the next one. Which is Gutenberg Bible, that same slide again in the sample group of 15th century manuscripts at Mark 838.
This is a widespread error, 53 of the codices have incorrect confessors and only 12 joined the Gutenberg Bible and have incorrect
confuses the two and Cleanable mentioned editions briefly mentioned already set from Italian manuscripts.
Piacenza Vicenzo both have the incorrect Paris reading.
And in fact, the misreading confesses also went to middle English, for it is reflected in both of the Wickliffe eight versions.
Bacon was particularly scornful of this error in the Paris Bible,
for the passage was correctly cited by a guston in his controversial system, the monarchy.
He pointed out that the corresponding words of the Greek text clearly referred to shame.
And finally, what he called a provocative Simmo. He noted that if the U.S. and canons had been consulted,
readers would immediately have found the parallel passage in what we now identify as Luke 926,
where the corresponding verb is arabesque to blush, to feel shame, thus giving the lie to can to your.
But as he noticed, the Paris Bible had expunged the ECB and cannons from its text, so that useful tool was no longer available.
But in this Shote copy of the. Gutenberg Bible, you can see at the top there that the UCB and Canon numbers were written in by hand,
giving the cross references to the parallel passages in Luke and Matthew.
Bacon's treatment of this passage in the Paris Bible was a model of clear thinking,
and we may easily believe that he would not have been favourably impressed by the editors of the Vulgate Bible in the printing shops of the
later 15th and 16th centuries who passed the error on faithfully from one edition to the next dozens of times over for more than a century,
frequently in editions whose coliforms asserted that they had been dilettantism, amendatory or other words to like effect.
The distinctive Paris readings in Deuteronomy 27 and Mark eight absent from the Gutenberg Bible,
but entered into the printed tradition by an editor working for Renner and 14 75 provide further evidence.
Although this is not a numbers game,
that the characterisation of the Gutenberg Bible is a direct descendant of the Paris Bible is at least oversimplified.
The fact is, we do not have enough information to draw any valid picture of the very paths of transmission,
the Vulgate text in the 14th and 15th centuries. A first step might be to gather a much wider range of distinctive Paris Bible readings
that would cover the books of both testaments with a well-made checklist of,
say, 100 such readings.
We could, as a first step, score each manuscript Bible with the 14th and 15th century and consider whether plausible groupings begin to emerge.
It is only with the appearance of the Gutenberg Bible that we find again solid ground for its text,
taking into account the relatively small group of substantive variance between the first and second settings,
provides a measuring rod for nearly all subsequent Latin Bibles up to the establishment of the Clementine Vulgate,
only three 15th century printed Bibles.
The one of these, in addition of great importance, were set for manuscripts independently of the Gutenberg Bible.
Two of these have been mentioned several times in passing. The first is the fourth 1875 Chancery Cordeaux Bible printed in Pinkins.
We see slide 33. Yes, intended to be a truly portable Bible printed in a minute, but poorly made,
scarcely legible type, its order of text differs dramatically from that of the Paris Bible.
For instance, with Psalms following second chronicles in the New Testament, the Catholic epistles and acts both come after apocalypse.
Only about 15 copies survive, a surprising number of which have French prognoses.
The second is a 14 76 chancellory folio printed in Vicenza by Leonardo Cicatrice.
Its manuscript source presumably lacked both three and four Esraa, for they're included in the Bible.
But in the text that followed the Gutenberg Bible tradition,
both of these editions also Piacenza show their distance from the Paris Bible in their setting of the song of songs we see Slide 34, please.
They include the christianising rubrics that can be referred to as vote chase, that is the allocation of different verses to the voice of Christ,
voice of the church, voice of the spouse, etc. Ideally, the lubricator of this body copy would have underlined them in red for their text.
And slide 35 is an Italian Bible showing the song of songs, the beautiful Albergotti Bible 14 28.
And there you see all of the red rubrics added to the song of songs.
The third Latin Bible, whose text is independent of the Gutenberg Bible is the so-called rush gloss Bible,
a massive imperial folio of fourteen eighty,
which is printed by Adolph Rush in Strasbourg, but whose costs were primarily underwritten by Anton Berger of Nuremberg.
The addition must have been formed from multiple exemplars gathered from a variety of 13th and
very possibly also 12th century codices assembled to produce setting copy for complete Bible.
Essentially, nothing is known in detail about the Bible's exemplary,
but a compilation of almost any passage from any of its books will show that the copy
source for the Bible text itself was not taken from the Gutenberg Bible tradition.
Not that the text form is strikingly different, but rather that numerous small deviations, such as transpositions of words, of word of are pervasive.
On the other hand, three and four Esraa, which had no traditional glasses,
were included in the Bible and drawn from the Gutenberg Bible tradition for the sake of completeness.
We see the next slide.
Yeah, a considerable number of Paris Bible readings appear also in the Bible text, which may reflect on the dates of its exemplary status.
They may be more 13th century than 12th century.
One of these, as illustrated here from the beginning of song of songs, verse seven, if thou no, not a lovely amongst woman,
go and follow the path of the flocks the Volga text has oh lovely amongst woman oh poor care intermediaries.
But in the Paris Bible this is Highton to Paul Kareema, who loveliest amongst woman, amongst women.
And that's what we find in the Russian lost Bible.
The late Mary Dov's edition of the last song of songs has pole care based on the manuscripts she used.
But her apparatus notices the Rush Bibles variant of Paul Kareema, which is a Paris Bible reading.
At the two readings we just reviewed in some detail, that interpretation and Deuteronomy 27, the false reading confesses at the end of March eight,
the Rush Golos Bible leaves out the Deuteronomy interpellation, but reads, confesses and not confuses at Mach eight 38.
This, however, is not to be seen as a reading necessarily introduced from the Paris Bible Bibliotheque
you manuscript Lauten one four four eight is a mid 12th century glossed mark,
part of a large group of early gloss books from the library of St.
Victor of Paris. And it likewise reads, confesses and country Tabata.
It seems likely that the reading of the early gloss texts of Mark subsequently entered the Paris Bible text in the 13th century.
At this point, near the close of our final lecture, we take a long leap forward of more than a century and briefly reassert,
but with some qualifying inflexions, what has been said before, most notably by Dawn on Recontact,
early editor of the Rome Old Testament, a large number of readings of the Gutenberg Bible move on to and are embedded in the 16 Clementine
official editions of the Roman Catholic Church of 1090 and 1092 and all subsequent reprints.
The fundamental cause is the is that the base text, however corrected and modified by later editors,
was always some earlier printed edition whose base text was another even earlier printed edition and so forth.
Back to the Gutenberg Bible. It is rather like the 18th century.
Editors of Shakespeare Nicholas Rowe used to 16 85 fourth folios the base text of his edition.
Then Alexander Pope used Rose Edition as his base text.
Then Lewis Tybalt used Pope's edition as his base text.
However much each editor changed the text and perhaps castigated the recipients of his predecessor, portfolio readings persisted through all.
The qualification to be made, however, is that our equivalent foundation in the 16 Clementine editions is not the Gutenberg Bible,
just as the road to Shakespeare's did not have their foundation directly in the Shakespeare First Folio.
Its foundation, rather, is a doubly amended reception of the Gutenberg Bible,
the first group of emendations was made in the shop of Justin Shaffer and 14 62,
drawing on what we have referred to as a pool of meit's variance readings, as noted.
The basis may have been correction's corrections made at the Benitec Benedictine Convent of the Yakob spag for the first interfer emendations shohei,
but not complete correlation with hand corrections entered in that convent's vellum copy.
Then a second round of emendations, extensive but still not yet fully defined,
was made at the printing shop of Franciscus Renner and Nicholas de Frank Fortia in Venice in 14 seventy five.
And it is the text of this edition. This spread so widely from one addiction to another to the end of the 15th century and far beyond.
A well-rounded account of the transmission of the Vulgate text in the 16th century, down to the 16 Clementine editions would require a six lecture,
perhaps even a seventh lecture, which you would not get one of the most important chapters in the 16th century history.
The text has never been investigated with anything like the fulness it deserves, namely the successive editions of Ruber in the room.
Old Testament scholarly edition regularly gives the readings of Etienne's 15, 32 and 140 editions and its apparatus.
But Eighteens work on the Latin texts cannot be understood without studying side by side.
All three major editions 1028 15, 32 and 15 40.
Moreover, the Rome Old Testament apparatus not infrequently records and unfavoured reading from HCN.
Without Remarque, we see the next slide 37. Yes, look at the third line down, you see the word amen, and you see the little mark after it,
18 mark readings with special symbols to indicate that they were dubious,
such as Latin Interpolations and Old Testament in books that had no Hebrew equivalent.
And this is that same interpretation at Latin at Deuteronomy 27 24, where HCN put a little more long line in front of it and two dots after it.
And that was his way of saying that it isn't really authentic. But he's putting it there because it's part of the tradition.
But his own knowledge tells him it shouldn't be there.
And so in the apparatus of the room, Old Testament, they really should have indicated when Actaeon made an editorial remark,
they should have had a way of distinguishing between that. Eighteens engagement with the Latin Bible text can, in fact,
only be studied from his physical editions and not from the text your apparatus of either the Rome Old Testament or of the Oxford New Testament.
The latter citing only the 1046 reprint of a 1040 royal edition.
See the next slide, please. We'll look briefly at two early 16th century editions to confirm that the influence of the Renner texts was wide ranging.
The first of these is the famous Complutense polyglot, the great multilingual Bible printed at great cost at uncoloured day,
anatase between 15, 13 and 15 17 under the patronage of Cardinal Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo, sometime region of Spain.
Amongst the manuscripts in various languages assembled for consultation on the project
were two major 10th century Bibles in Visigoth script referred to as Complutense,
this one and two. It has repeatedly been stated that these ancient manuscripts were used in establishing the Vulgate text printed in the polyglot,
which thereby was improved beyond the then current standard.
There is no evidence for this, and it could be said with some confidence that for its Latin text, the Complutense, in addition,
simply copied from one of any number of printed of printed Vulgate Bibles of the Renner
kind through a dozen or more editions would have been available in the early 16th century.
All of this type we see this at the passage we have examined and other editions, Mark 838.
Do you see the word confess? It's the eighth line down and it start to me, confesses Furat.
And in front of confessors is a little superscript in that superscript m is to match it up with the corresponding Greek word in column A.
Well, that Greek word in Column A, which has the M is by Shinsei ashamed, and so they matched them up, but they have opposite meanings.
There was no thinking, whatever, no correspondence, whatever, in terms of a mental process.
They just put the superscripts in and kept on going.
And there was a similar dissonance later on at Coffee-table to the compositor set
the Latin text from a random printed Vulgate Bible without any regard to the Greek.
Those fine ancient manuscripts never come into the picture at all.
The second edition to look out briefly, go see the next slide.
Yes is a Corto Bible published by Janta in Venice in 15 11, edited by Venetian Dominican Alberto Castellano.
It was mentioned briefly by Kantai in his 1922 memoir.
It's the first printed edition to include variant readings. And indeed, these variants are advertised on the title page of the book.
It says, with the addition in the margin of diverse variant texts,
an excellent recent study by toonies Fun Lockpick has made a detailed analysis of Castellano sources for the various readings he has added,
showing that he made extensive use of the printed editions of the massive pastilla of U.S. share and also the gloss of ordinary.
And here to we may consider the treatment of Mark 838 and it's at the very top.
There could be a name May and then a kind of a Maltese cross confesses and then in the margin is a well alias found elsewhere.
Confuses. So marked out, no preference is indicated, it should be noted that in the early 14th century, in his widely read Pastilla on the Gospels,
Nicholas Steelier had already identified confesses and contrary to voters, corrupt readings like Roger Bacon.
He pointed to both the Greek text and the parallel passage in Luke, where the verb Arabised Skari was used.
The basis of Castellanos addition was a runner derived edition for it shows the characteristic Grinner earmark in the second prologue to Joona,
that short prologue, which is not the Paris Bible prologue.
Let us conclude and let's go to the final slide. Good one very small place,
two words only where we can say with some confidence that the Gutenberg Bible workshop
invented text that has now become part of the standard modern edition of the Vulgate Bible,
two words that before the Gutenberg Bible was set in time, had no place at all in the Vulgate Bible tradition.
This insertion occurs in four Ezri at what by modern numbering is chapter seven, verse 113.
At this place in the Sangamon manuscript, the source of all later for Ezra TEKS,
there is a statement the day of judgement will be the end of present time and then the immediately following words after that fatuity immortalise.
Temporaries seem to be somewhat untethered syntactically. The 19th century Cambridge editor Robert Bensley found these following words
preceded by a Nissim and the 1092 Clementine Edition producing a smooth reading.
So we have the day of judgement will be the end of this time and the beginning at an axiom of immortal time to come.
He did not find those words at the Newseum and any of the manuscripts he had seen,
and he suggested that the words may have been added in the early years of printing,
his instincts were very good, having consulted many more late manuscripts for Ezra than Bensley saw.
We can confirm that the words and Nissim are, to the best of our knowledge, absent from the four Azrael manuscript tradition,
the modern edition of the Latin Bible, which you see below noon as the Stuttgart Folgate,
a revised readmission of the Rome Old Testament and the Oxford New Testament retained at the Newseum in its for Ezra,
and it's sourced in its apparatus to the Clementina Folgate. But the Clementine Vulgate inherited those words from the Gutenberg Bible.
Here, it is reasonable to think that an unknown editor in mines in the early 40s,
50s preparing for Azu for composition by removing the reference to Asira at the beginning of Chapter three,
making other scattered small changes again not in the manuscript tradition,
and imposing a new 16 chapter structure on the text, which it never had before.
Here, neaten the passage in question by adding inanition and so made an original but very late contribution
to what we call the Folgate Bible more than a thousand years after the death of Jerome.
Thank you.