Showing papers in "Quaerendo in 2013"
TL;DR: In this paper, the identity of the printer of the works of Spinoza has been identified by comparing printing materials of known printers to unknown samples, which can be attributed to a certain printer.
Abstract: This paper concerns the identification of the hitherto unknown printers of the works of Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-77). For centuries the identity of these printers has remained a mystery. The publisher Jan Rieuwertsz, or the printer Christoffel Cunradus, were often mistakenly mentioned as printer of the works of the seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher. These assumptions are incorrect. Despite several studies published in the last decades, the true identity of the printer was still unknown.In this paper we will describe how we were able to identify Spinoza’s anonymous printers by means of analytical bibliography. The identity of printers can be established by their usage of unique printing types, initials and ornaments. By comparing printing materials of known printers to unidentified samples, anonymous works can be ascribed to a certain printer. In seventeenth-century books a decorated initial is often used to start the text. This initial belongs to a certain printer and by comparing different prints of similar initials in detail, small differences may be found. These differences can be caused by damages of the initial concerned, such as small cracks. If these differences are consistent over different prints, one can ascribe certain works to the same printer.By such research the Amsterdam-based printers Daniel Bakkamude and Herman Aeltsz can be identified as the printers of the two earliest published works of Spinoza. His most famous works, Tractatus Theologico-politicus and Opera Posthuma (including the Ethica), were printed by another Amsterdam-based printer: Israel de Paull (1632-80).
3 citations
TL;DR: McKitterick as discussed by the authors identified the text of both leaves as part of an Epistle Lectionary, or possibly a full mass lectionary and demonstrates how the script, decoration, and mise-en-page enable these leaves to be recognized as the work of the scribes and artists working for Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, king of the Franks (840-77) and Emperor (875-77).
Abstract: Band 1 E 22 is a copy of Calvin’s In viginti prima Ezechielis Prophetae capita Praelectiones (1565) and belonged to the French lawyer and resident of Geneva, Germain Colladon. The manuscript leaves used for this binding are early medieval and unusual in being very carefully positioned on the binding. Nicholas Pickwoad’s account of the binding reconstructs and explains how the binder used the medieval manuscript leaves to display them on an otherwise very conventional French-style binding and highlights its significance in the history of bookbinding. Rosamond McKitterick identifies the text of both leaves as part of an Epistle Lectionary, or possibly a full Mass Lectionary, and demonstrates how the script, decoration, and mise-en-page enable these leaves to be recognized as the work of the scribes and artists working for Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, king of the Franks (840-77) and Emperor (875-77). It can be dated c.860.
3 citations
TL;DR: The authors showed that the Paris imprint is fictitious and that these two ‘editions’ are in fact two issues of the same edition, printed by George de Backer in Brussels.
Abstract: A.-J. Guibert’s Bibliographie des oeuvres de Jean Racine publiees au XVIIe siecle et oeuvres posthumes (Paris 1968) lists a collected ‘Oeuvres de Racine. Nouvelle edition’ in two volumes 12° with imprint ‘A Brusselles, chez George de Backer’, 1700, of which Guibert was unable to trace any copies. The preceding entry in the bibliography is for another ‘Nouvelle edition’ with imprint ‘A Paris, chez Jean Pralart’, 1699-1700, also in two volumes 12°, and Guibert describes the copy at Versailles. A few copies of De Backer’s edition exist in libraries in the UK. This article demonstrates that the Paris imprint is fictitious and that these two ‘editions’ are in fact two issues of the same edition, printed by George de Backer in Brussels. Both issues exist in different states, and the article attempts to define their relationships. The sole rights to print Racine’s works in the Habsburg jurisdiction were awarded to De Backer in 1694 for nine years. The article suggests reasons for the long delay in starting the work and considers the problems faced by the relatively young and inexperienced De Backer and the measures he took which may have led to the different states.
1 citations
TL;DR: The Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae as mentioned in this paper is a collection of accounts on Italian history and antiquities that was published in Leiden at the beginning of the eighteenth century by the Dutch publisher Pieter van der Aa.
Abstract: The Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae is a collection of accounts on Italian history and antiquities that was published in Leiden at the beginning of the eighteenth century by the Dutch publisher Pieter van der Aa. This publication offers a splendid opportunity to shed light on the ‘behind the scenes’ dynamics of what turned out to be a rather cumbersome undertaking. Drawing on epistolary material, this paper investigates the obstacles that Van der Aa encountered in gathering the material and concentrates in particular on the involvement of the Italian scholars that the Dutch publisher contacted to obtain advice and sources. Inexplicably at first glance, they hold contradictory opinions about Van der Aa’s initiative, from praise to open opposition. The sources presented here demonstrate that this situation was caused by the existence of similar ongoing Italian projects in competition with the Dutch collection on Italian history and antiquities. Particularly telling is the attitude of the famous Italian historian Lodovico Antonio Muratori, who felt a growing antagonism towards Van der Aa’s project, since he matured his plans to publish the Rerum Italicarum scriptores that partially overlapped with the Thesaurus.
1 citations
TL;DR: Van Drielenburch as discussed by the authors argued that it was precisely his reputation of a mad man that was exploited by the author, as well as by his publisher Marten Jansz Brandt, to create an author-construct.
Abstract: Seventeenth-century Dutch pamphleteers rarely stated their name on the title-page of their tracts. One exception to the rule was the pamphleteer Vincent van Drielenburch. From 1615 through 1617 he wrote at least thirty-five pamphlets against the remonstrants, exposing himself to the reader by explicitly stating his name, or by placing an anagram, a riddle, or an identifiable depiction on the title-page or elsewhere. In doing so, he purposely created an image of himself that enhanced the popularity of his pamphlets. The remonstrant ministers did not have an effective response to this innovative rhetorical use of the author’s name, and constantly described Van Drielenburch as someone who had lost his senses. In this article I argue that it was precisely his reputation of a mad man that was exploited by the author, as well as by his publisher Marten Jansz Brandt, to create an author-construct.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the winning authors' number of translations published abroad in order to highlight the extent to which the Prix Formentor was instrumental in the creation of international breakthroughs.
Abstract: In the 1960s a group of thirteen independent publishers of quality literature, brought together by the Spanish publisher Carlos Barral, founded two new literary prizes: the ‘Prix Formentor’ and the ‘Prix des Editeurs’. This article focuses on the background of the ‘Prix Formentor’, which was designed to award first novels of young, promising authors. The function of this prize aimed to serve as an instrument for the large-scale launch of its winners on the international literary market. Specifically, this article investigates the winning authors’ number of translations published abroad in order to highlight the extent to which the Prix Formentor was instrumental in the creation of international breakthroughs. As such, the establishment of these prizes mark the beginning of an era in which publishing companies begin to play a more active role in the ‘symbolic’ production of literature (a la Bourdieu). Following the work of Casanova, Shapiro and others, this investigation also provides nuanced observations of the power relations involved in the international exchange of literary texts.