Quest

Worthwhile trek on foot through Amsterdam blizzard to obtain two articles on provenance research by Goran Proot and Steven van Impe, both of which turn out to be very useful for futher development of my provenance research.

Steven van Impe, 'Pronto: een ontologie voor het onderzoek van herkomstmerken'. In: Jaarboek voor Nederlandse boekgeschiedenis. 2008. Nijmegen/Leiden: Uitgeverij Vantilt/NBV. 

Goran Proot, 'Gebruikssporen in programmaboekjes voor het collegetoneel van de jesuïten in de Provincia Flandro-Belgica (1575-1773). In: Jaarboek voor Nederlandse boekgeschiedenis. 2008. Nijmegen/Leiden: Uitgeverij Vantilt/NBV.  

Lion sitting on top of the gable of a seventeenth century warehouse on the Brouwersgracht, Amsterdam, built in the same period as the Lyon research corpus. The kinglike lion wears a golden crown, an element that features in many 16/17/18th century coats of arms, as on the binding of D'Este's Consolaçam Christaã above. This lion and a  companion lamb were pulled out of a disposal container during restoration activities in the ignorant 1970's by two resourceful ladies Dea and Han, and replaced where they had belonged for many centuries.

S.P.R. in L. continued: revaluation

A very inspiring day with presentations concerning the development of databases of ownership marks and other traces of use, by representatives of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, the Uppsala University Library and the Consortium of European Research Libraries. A most important undertaking which unfortunately is still very much a home country affair. There are however plans for international collaboration, which would hugely benefit provenance research. Some interesting case studies and a lecture by David Pearson, which had drawn me to the symposium in the first place. Prime provenance researcher, with an open attitude to innovation and to the range of the possiblities of research of traces of use; I felt reassured about my doubts about interpretation of (greek) annotations and went home eager to revalue my findings up until now.

The symposium was a joint initiative of the Leiden University Library and the Scaliger Insitute, also in Leiden. It seems the lectures will be made available on the site of the latter.

Symposium Provenance Research in Leiden

An uploading day! 

So many questions

Time goes by. Sometimes screening a pile of books a day. Some days just staring at the pictures on my computer. Wondering about the importance of detail, as when studying comparative literature, where every sentence could unveil a clue.
The Lisbon books do not disappoint. They appeal to me because I can read them. I can read the preliminary leaves in which the role of the inquisition and religion is illustrated beyond any doubt. I can feel the age in which they were written and published. If I were only looking for traces of use I would be disappointed: hardly any traces of use in the traditional sense. Does that matter? Researchers hope to find traces of use that will modify perception. Maybe it is also comforting to leaf through a book that clearly has been read, but has no annotations to prove it. Not a pristine copy, but thumbed pages.
And yet...
To remove the unasuming protective box and to find this on a binding is a thrill.

Diego de Mendoça, Guerra de Granada. 

En Lisboa: Por Giraldo de la Viña. Año 1627. 

U.v.A. call number OTM: O 63-6465

Future

Coming out was quite a step, but starting all over has many advantages. All forms of traces of use will remain my point of interest. As annotations could not exist without the text they refer to and in view of the fact that my decision to leave the Lyonese publications was instigated by my frustration at not being able to fully grasp the Latin texts, I have decided to switch to books in a language I do understand. Since my passive Portuguese is more or less fluent, I have chosen Lisbon editions as a starting point and postpone further decisions on expansion or limitation of the corpus until the size and content of this new corpus becomes clear. Interestingly an initial survey reveals almost all Lisbon titles in the collection of the University of Amsterdam to be in Portuguese, most of the Lyon books being in Latin.

In addition to the obvious traces of use I will look for any publishing information for the contemporary reader in the preliminary leaves and colophon, i.e. on content, price of the book, reason for publishing, and also make a cursory inventory of illustrations on the title pages, decorated initials (P.D. will surely appreciate that), head- and tail-pieces.

These past months have not been in vain as there is a bulk of material lying dormant in my computer for future reference.

Present

I have filed the one thousand plus photographs for future reference and changed the focus of my research.

While making a description of the traces of use in an interesting Lyonese book last week, I suddenly realised my inadequacy to continue with the corpus I had selected. In my enthusiasm I had not realised what effect not being able to read the books would have on my research. The meager Latin picked up at Highschool long ago and the Latin course I followed a couple of years ago at the University are helpful, but ultimately not enough to feel at ease studying Latin books and annotations, let alone annotations in Greek (which they often are, Lyon being an important city of Humanist thought).

This was last Friday. I spent the weekend cleaning up my computer, filing the Lyonese material and restarted Monday with a clean slate.

Past

More than seven months of scrutinizing 16th century Lyonnese books for traces of use have resulted in more than a thousand photographs

of ownership marks inside the books

of annotation marks

of annotations

of other interesting traces of use

and of their prices. 

Been away too long and longing for the smell of old books, almost back in Amsterdam from a meaningful journey.

P.D. seems to think I'm sitting here doing nothing.
How visible is a researcher at work?
I have been spending many hours behind my computer sorting through the pictures I made of the first fifty books of the corpus.
How visible is a researcher's work?
Thank you Julia for letting me realize I am not aware of my visibility.

One month since my last post.

Biding my time with useful thoughts on the snags of history: on the subjectivity of perception and of the interpretation of perception. David Perkins starts me off with his reference to Nietzsche's writings on 'historisches Bewusstsein':  

'What distinguishes the present age from all past ones, he says, is that we know so much more about them than they did about each other. This knowledge is unhealthy. "Alien and disconnected" images from many times and place, a "carnival of gods, customs, and arts" fill our minds as a spectacle, but none are felt to be ours. As they collide in our minds, they are all relativized, and so also are whatever convictions and values characterize the present moment in history." (Perkins 1993. p.175).

If, as Nietsche claims, knowledge of the past colours the present, then the affected present will in its turn contaminate our notion of the past. Even if this is a supposition and not a fact, this seems an unstable basis for research, and I do remember reading a book about marginalia a couple of months ago, making a mental note not to let my own findings lead to unbased postulations.

To be continued.

Sent in draft version number four with some 'minor' changes and an additional paragraph on an important  'why' question.

Why this corpus? Why research into ownership marks and marginalia in books printed in Lyon in the 16th century?
16th century Lyon was affluent, industrious, cosmopolitan and, after Paris, the most important cultural city in Renaissance France, which is reflected in the book production of 16th century printers of Lyon such as Sebastien Gryphe, Jean de Tournes, Charles Pesnot, Guillaume Laemarius, Guillaume Gazeau and Jacques Myt (Baudrier 1895, Cartier 1937, Gültlingen 2002, Mouren 2008).
The printers mentioned above were part of the enlightened humanist movement. Reading and writing were closely linked to education which did not end with schooling but was a lifelong experience of annotating and copying, ‘The humanist reader read with pen in hand’ (Grafton 2003, p.206). It can be assumed that a sizeable part of the 16th century Lyon collection in Special Collections has been owned and read by readers seeking education. Research into the traces of use left by these readers in the corpus aims to give insight into humanist reading customs.

The product of my silence of the past days: a better proposal?

Traces of Use. Ownership marks and marginalia in circa 500 books printed in Lyon 1487-1600, at Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam.

Introduction and theoretical framework
The focus of this research will be on ownership marks and marginalia in the University of Amsterdam collection of books printed in Lyon 1487-1600. The research will take place within the context of 16th century Lyon, the emphasis will be on the significance of the Lyonnese Humanist influence on publishing, printing and reading. A definition will be given of ownership marks and marginalia and an outline of their function in manuscripts and books. The value of ownership and marginalia research within the field of Book History will be explored, as will the methodological problems that are confronted during research.

Statement of the problem

Do the ownership marks and marginalia found in the corpus reflect the 16th century Humanist approach to history, education and philosophy?

Purpose of the study 
The purpose of the study is to make an inventory and analysis of ownership marks, marginalia and other traces of use found in the corpus in order to interpret their meaning and to define their significance regarding research into the provenance and the contemporary reading of individual copies of a title.

Hypotheses

Due to traces of use, every copy of a title is unique. The traces of use found in the corpus will disclose information about the owners of the books and about their reading habits. The marginalia reflect the contemporary reader's contribution to humanist thought. The information gathered through studying traces of use can be applied toward a history of an individual copy of a title. 

Questions

How does the research corpus relate to the overall production of 16th century printing in Lyon?            

Questions concerning the interpretation of the ownership marks and marginalia (provenance and reception):
Are there ownership marks on the binding or inside the book. Can the contemporary owners be identified? What relationship is there between the owner and the genre of the book? What conclusions can be drawn from the quantity and genre of books with marginalia in relation to those without? Are the marginalia contemporary or later? What systems are used for annotating? What is the relevance of the marginalia to the text they accompany? In what way do the marginalia in the corpus reflect 16th century Humanist thought? What other manuscript texts besides annotations are to be found in the books?

And any further questions which will arise as the research develops. Looking for the unexpected.

The design -  methods and procedures - instrumentation, data collection and data analysis

The research corpus will consist of circa 500 books printed in Lyon, France 1487-1600 at Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam.
The descriptions of the books and the inventory of the marginalia and ownership marks found in the corpus, will be collected and analysed in content management software Devonthink.
 Spreadsheet categories will be a.o.: U.v.A. call number; author; title; publisher; year when published; genre; ownership; manuscript date of ownership; types of marginalia; language used in marginalia; legibility; when acquired by the U.v.A.; binding; date of binding.
The temporary format is a blog in which trains of thought and actual results concerning the research are recorded from first activity on 9th March 2010, till conclusion, date unknown. 

The purpose of the blog: notes to self, storage of material and reflection. A system to facilitate the picking up of thoughts sidelined at an earlier stage and a forum for exchange of information with peers. 

Sampling

The case studies will consist of in depth investigation of the 16th century traces of use in a number of titles from the corpus. An attempt will be made to follow the titles' paths from the publisher to inclusion in the library of Amsterdam Special Collections with the objective of (re)creating the individual titles' reading-histories.

Limitation

Is a corpus of circa 500 books large enough to permit the drawing of conclusions? 

Delimitation
Illegible annotations will be noted as 'illegible'. Their presence will be noted but not analysed.

Significance of the study

The significance of the study lies in what meaningful traces of use will be found in the corpus and what conclusions may be drawn upon these findings. Many titles have minimal descriptions in the U.v.A. library database, a more complete description could benefit further research.

References
http://tracesofuse.blogspot.com/
Pajares, F., Elements of a Proposal. Atlanta: Emory University, 2007. Online.

Amsterdam, 15th June 2010

The books and their markings will have to wait. It seems that theory goes before research, which is not so much surprising as regretful, having had a glimpse of all the wonderful material lying there waiting for me in the dungeons of the U.v.A.
Initial catchwords for the U.v.A. search machine: 16th century Lyon, Humanism(e), Renaissance. I prefer a systematic approach and will leave the marginalia for now. And so, here I am, confronted by a pile of French and English secundary literature with interesting titles such as Intellectual Life in Renaissance Lyon and L'humanisme lyonnais au XVIe siècle. Promising titles which will hopefully provide me with meaningful background for my research.
My eye is caught by an article on Maurice Scève (c.1500-c.1564). Does the U.v.A. collection also include work by him I wonder? Alas! Only twentieth reprints! Internet research produces an Italian antiquarian bookdealer who has a copy of the magnificant entrance of Henry II and Catharina de Medici in Lyon for sale: Scève's La Magnifica et Triumphale Entrata printed in Lyon 1549 by Guillaume Rovillé. Maybe the University could be persuaded that their Lyon collection would not be complete without a contemporary edition of this famous Lyonnese poet's work. The selling price is € 10.500... My first reaction: these Italian bookdealers, their prices are too much! But, further research reveals that only later, nineteenth and twentieth century critical editions of Scève are momentarily offered for sale. Might contemporary copies of Scève's work be that scarce?
One minute I am immersed in an article, the next, curiosity driven research. Did I not mention that earlier?

Meanwhile organizing the material found up until now is taking up a lot of time (well spent!). Am working offline on the first thirty primary titles, listing them by U.v.A. call number and joining the title descriptions with pictures and details on marginalia and ownership. Each book in a folder of its own.
Systematically working through the list structures my mind for further steps. For instance, which information management software should I use? Devonthink?

While PD scrutinizes my draft proposal, I bought myself a domain at gandi.net this morning: tracesofuse.eu, to be http:// as soon as I find myself a host.

Second draft: Proposal for research into ownership marks and marginalia in 500 books printed in Lyon 1487-1600 at Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam.

Introduction and theoretical framework
Why books printed in Lyon? Why marginalia?
Definition of ownership marks and marginalia, their historical function in manuscripts and books. The significance of ownership and marginalia research within the field of Book History.
What methodological problems are confronted when studying ownership marks and marginalia? The focus will be on Renaissance ownership marks and marginalia in the historical context of printers and printing in Lyon 1487-1600.

Statement of the problem
What can/do ownership marks and marginalia tell us about the reader/user history of 500 books printed in Lyon 1487-1600.

Purpose of the study 
The purpose of the study is to make an inventory and analysis of ownership marks, marginalia and other traces of use found in the corpus in order to interpret their meaning and to define their significance regarding research into the provenance and (contemporary) reading of individual copies of a title.

Review of literature 
What literary theory is applicable to marginalia? What adaptions are relevant?

Hypotheses
Due to traces of use, every copy of a title is unique. Traces of use disclose information about the readers/owners of the books and their reading habits. The information gathered through studying traces of use can be applied toward a history of an individual copy of a title.

Questions
Quantity of books with marginalia in relation to those without? What possible conclusions?
Interpretation of the ownership marks and marginalia:
Questions: can the (contemporary) owners be identified and/or placed? Are the marginalia contemporary or later? What systems are used for annotating? What is the relevance of the marginalia to the text they accompany? What other manuscript texts besides annotations are found in the books?
Provenance and reception: what conclusions can be drawn from the corpus at Amsterdam Special Collections related to 16th century printing in Lyon? To what countries did the books go to be bound and read? Country specific indications and/or deviations? In what way do the marginalia in the corpus reflect 16th century humanist enlightenment?
And further questions which will arise as the research developes. Looking for the unexpected.

The design -  methods and procedures - instrumentation, data collection and data analysis
The research corpus: circa 500 books printed in Lyon, France 1487-1600 at Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam. Inventory of marginalia and ownership marks in the corpus: survey and pictures.
Spreadsheet categories a.o.: U.v.A. call number; author; title; publisher; year when published; genre; ownership; manuscript date of ownership on front endpaper or elsewhere; various types of marginalia; language used in marginalia; legibility; when acquired by the U.v.A.; binding; date of binding.

The temporary format: a blog in which trains of thought and actual results concerning the research are recorded from first activity on 9th March 2010, till conclusion, date unknown.
The purpose of the blog: notes to self, storage of material and reflection. System to facilitate the picking up of thoughts sidelined at an earlier stage. Sharing facts  and questions with peers.
http://tracesofuse.blogspot.com/ [recursive Droste effect]

Sampling
Case studies: confirmation and exception.

Limitation
Is a corpus of 500 books large enough to permit the drawing of conclusions?

Delimitation
Illegible annotations will be noted as 'illegible'. Their content will not be analysed.

Significance of the study
The significance of the study lies in what meaningfull traces of use will be found in the corpus and what conclusions may be drawn upon these findings. Many titles have minimal descriptions in the U.v.A. library database, a more complete description could benefit further research.  

References
Van Holthe tot Echten, P.H., Ten Packages of Sheets of Paper Printed in Lyon. Where did they go? Essay for a master course in 'Book History'. U.v.A. 2010. Online.

Pajares, F., Elements of a Proposal. Atlanta: Emory University, 2007. Online.

Have thrown the first outline into the waste-paper basket and made a new start using F. Pajares' The Elements of a Proposal for reference. 

Very useful !!!!

In the meantime also organizing the Lyon titles by call number and thinking about the spreadsheet to be. Shouldn't wait to long to start filling in the specifics.

The research proposal. A first outline.

TRACES OF USE

Proposal for a research project concerning a collection of books owned by Special Collections of the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

The corpus:
Circa 500 books printed in Lyon, France 1475-1600.

The focus:
Ownership marks and marginalia on the bindings and in the books. 

The proposal:
Inventory and analysis of ownership marks, marginalia and other traces of use found in the corpus mentioned above. Looking for generalisations and deviations.

Context:
Historical context, printers and printing in Lyon 1475-1600.

Theoretical issues:
Marginalia research, its place within the field of Book History. Focus on Renaissance ownership marks and marginalia. What existing literary theory is applicable to marginalia? What adaptions are neccessary?Definition of ownership marks. Identification possiblities and problems.
Definition of marginalia. What methodological problems are confronted when studying marginalia? What is required to uncover the meaning of marginalia? To what extent is interpretation of marginalia possible?

The research:
Inventory of marginalia and ownership marks in the corpus: survey and pictures.
Spread sheet categories: U.v.A. call number; author; title; publisher; year when published; genre; ownership; types of marginalia; language used in marginalia; manuscript date of ownership on front endpaper or elsewhere; when acquired by the U.v.A.; binding; date binding.
Quantity of books with marginalia in relation to the marginalia-less? Conclusions?
Interpretation of the ownership marks and marginalia. Questions to be asked: can the (contemporary) owners be identified and/or placed? Are the marginalia contemporary or later? What is the relevance of the marginalia to the book they are in? What systems are used for annotating. Other manuscript texts in the book besides annotations?
Provenance and reception: what conclusions can be drawn from the corpus at Special Collections related to 16th century printing in Lyon? To what countries did the books go to be bound and read? Country specific indications and/or deviations? In what way do the marginalia in the corpus reflect 16th century humanist enlightenment? And further questions which will arise as the research developes. Looking for the unexpected.

The case studies:
Confirmation and exception.

The temporary format:
A blog in which trains of thought and actual results concerning the research are recorded from the first activity on 9th March 2010, till conclusion, date unknown.
The purpose of the blog: notes to self, storage of thoughts and material. System to facilitate the picking up of thoughts sidelined at an earlier stage. Sharing thoughts and questions with peers.
http://tracesofuse.blogspot.com/

Left Amsterdam for the Bourgogne via Sophie Calle in the De Pont Museum in Tilburg. A callous goodbye email, the last sentence being: Prenez soin de vous. Reflections, dissections, annotations by 107 women. Email-marginalia.
The last 300 kilometers through hilly country sunlight. Will start reading William Sherman's Used Books tomorrow. Sherman's work was kindly recommended to me some time ago and I was happily surprised to find a second hand copy in an  antiquarian bookstore nearby. The description on internet said: 'with pencil markings'. I found myself not liking the idea of someone else's markings. Strange, here I am, studying 16th/17th century marginalia while annotations by what is almost sure to be a peer might put me off? I decided to give the pencil marked book a chance. Tomorrow the proof of the pudding.

Ten days and twenty books since I started getting into the real stuff. Spent most of my time in the library,  drowning in letters. Twenty books is nothing compared to the thousands and thousands studied by marginalia-scholars, but, even so, I am pleased with the findings and looking forward to continuing in a next library stretch. For now there is a lot of material to be processed and will have plenty of time to do so since another visit to Bourgogne is forthcoming. But before 'internetless in Bourgogne' still time for a couple of days of internet activity. I must plan them well.

And they did not disappoint me

 

 With what seem to be contemporary manuscript entries throughout. 

Taranta, Practica. Lugduni: Johanem Trechsel, 1490. Title page and verso of title page. 
U.v.A. call number OTM: Inc 388.

Two incunabula waiting for me at Special Collections. It feels like my birthday!

A blog is a building. Writing and adding and changing. The ideal medium for a perfectionist.

Marginalia-criminal?

Liber I of Casavboni, Animadversionvm. Lvgdvni 1600, full of blue pencil margin markings. What a horrible sight. Seemingly meaningless dashes and crosses. Well of course not really meaningless as someone took the trouble to place them and the fact that they are only placed in Liber I must mean something. When were the markings placed? They do not seem comtemporary.
It seems too much honor to even make pictures of them, but of course I did for completeness.

The circle on the page above particularly hideous in its supposed uselessness. Maybe a child took it's chance?

I felt a little like this:

Casavboni, Animadversionvm. Lvgdvni: Antonium de Harsy, 1600. p. 1
U.v.A. call number OTM: 63-847

so to cheer myself up also took some pictures of a few of the numerous intricately decorated initials, head and tailpieces.

The marginalia hunt has started

Started out with the most recent and surely the most corpulent title of the corpus: Corpvs Ivris Civilis,  Lvgduni 1600 (symptomatic or sympathetic echo's of corpus?), a particularly voluminous set of four volumes on law with printed glosses by Accursius. Systematically leaved through thousands+ pages of text. With the exception of two 20th century library stamps, no ownership marks or marginalia to be found. Pristine pages! Wonder if anyone has ever set eyes on this text and thinking about content versus form. Printed in red and black, decorative initials, head and tailpieces throughout, inserts, different lettertypes for glosses, foot and sidenotes etc., clearly based on the layout of the manuscripts of the middle ages.

The structure is inviting, icons and colours; the content is defeating, considering the absence of marginalia, maybe also for contemporary readers.
Developing a fast way of going through the pages, but don't want to miss even one meaningful trace of use. Checking the first volume went painstakingly slow, by the fourth volume speed picked up.
Two more marginalia-less books leave me somewhat dissapointed, but as all three titles were printed in 1600 and therefore are part of the end of my timeline, their lack of marginalia does not discourage me. The library stamps found in the books could be a reason for their virginity. Libraries do not like to have 'sullied' books in their collections.
Time to start asking for some earlier titles.

Am having a hard time getting a grip on the U.v.A. search machine which produces confusing results to my queries. 'Lyon' as place of imprint results in only one hit, whereas 'Lugduni' produces non at all. Putting 'Lyon' and 'Lugduni' (excluding 'Batavorum') in the space 'any words' and specifying '1470-1600',  results in 323 records. Leaving out the exclusion of 'Batavorum' does NOT include an overwhelming amount of Leiden imprints, but does seem to produce MORE Lyon titles!? Putting 'Lyon' or 'Lugduni' in other keywords options produces yet different results. Which only goes to show that one cannot fully depend on a computer, or maybe I need to extend my knowledge of search machine psychology. Keeping both options in mind, I will be using various search words until I am satisfied to have smoked out all 16th century Lyon imprints in possession of the U.v.A.

Finally found out how to reduce the size of Ten Packages from 188MB to 2,5MB and have posted a link to the Pdf in the Bibliography of Secondary Works.

Some welcome advice from P.D.: start alternating secondary reading with the real stuff! Requested a  first book at Special Collections, but with one eye full of stitches no reading for the next couple of days. 

Searching online for an audio book to keep me busy. And thank god for blind typing!

Online for a short spin and continuing thoughts on internet

But then again, as far as communication goes, there is nothing that compares to internet. Having finally found a possibility to log into my email today, I was happily surprised to find an email passed on to me by my U.v.A. mentor Paul Dijstelberge, from Ms Coldiron (Florida University), concerning a common interest in 16th century Lyon printing. I look forward to hearing more details and will answer her mail subito indeed, late as I am due to NO INTERNET! In his accompanying mail P.D. goes into the internet thing: ' The ph-D and John's work have the internet in common with its direct possibilities of interacting. I have always been a fan of the image of scholarship as a Mount Purgatory where one spends a long time thinking in loneliness, gathering knowledge and endlessly rehashing it. I still think that solitary reading and thinking is of the greatest importance - but the intelligence of the comments on ilovetypography have brought a profound change in my ideas on the genesis of (my) scholarship. Meeting people on the net like this is not the same as having weekly discussions with collegues or students. The distance is important, also the casual kindness of strangers who may turn out to be your best friends.' With these thoughts he nicely balances important aspects of modern scholarship. I would like to add that (for me) writing produces clearer thoughts than would be possible in a conversation. This also in favour of internet as opposed to the discussions with collegues and students mentioned by P.D.

It seems there is a problem with posting reactions on this blog. Will try to sort out why when back in the world of internet, probably mid next week.

26-03-2010
More thinking than reading and also more than a week without internet. Has this been a handicap? I have not been able to check the spelling of my blog-entries, but bringing a dictionary would also have done the trick, and now and then it would have been handy to look something up on the web, but nothing that could not wait. This internet-less period has made me realize what a lot of time I usually spend surfing from one site to another and now I ask myself what is time not spent on the internet? What did I miss? How important is internet for research, for thinking, for following a train of thought? Or does it actually hinder the line of thinking? For now I lean towards the latter. Going from one site to another thoughts are broken off, sometimes never to be continued. During the past years, researching for an antiquarian bookdealer, internet was my most important source. In the Fall of 2009, preparing the essay on bookbindings, my mind opened up to to the enormous world of printed reference works. Even outdated publicatons can provide information not found elsewhere. The authority of the author is essential.

22-03-2010

Framework

Part I
History of Lyonese printing 1470-1600. In relation to the rest of Europe/Low Lands.
Theory on (16th century) ownership marks, marginalia and reception. The critics.
Some temporary research questions:
    ⁃    How does the collection in the U.v.A. library relate to the 16th century Lyonese book production? Sorted by genre: texts from antiquity, contemporary texts, religious texts etc.
    ⁃    Is the effect of the death of Henri II reflected in Lyonese printing/the U.v.A. corpus? Is there a change in the texts printed after 1559? Genre? Quantity?
    ⁃    Ownership marks - what part of the corpus - which genres - what kind of marks - contemporary/later - identification? What conclusions can be drawn?
    ⁃    Marginalia -  what part of the corpus - which genres - what kind of marginalia - contemporary/later - signed/dated? What conclusions can be drawn?
    ⁃    ...
Case study(ies) - ownership marks/marginalia - provenance/reception.

Part II
Descriptions of the U.v.A. titles: author - title - printer - date - binding - U.v.A. call number - inventory/pictures of ownership marks and/or marginalia - when, from whom, at what cost acquired by the U.v.A.
Indexes(?) alphabetical: author - title -  printer - ownership marks - marginalia.
Appendixes(?):
    ⁃    Figure: author - title - printer - date - ownership marks - marginalia.
    ⁃    Figure: timeline.

21-03-2010

Reception!
The first day of Spring?! Brrrr it feels like -10 outside (and hardly less inside for that matter, but that's a different story). Cloudy and sunny, but also a cold, cold wind, probably flying in from the Arctic.
And also: the EUREKA moment! It has/must have been staring me in the eyes for some time now, but even so, all of a sudden: RECEPTION. Of course! Actually pretty dim not to have thought in this line earlier, as the essay on bookbindings, in which ten packages of sheets of paper printed in Lyon in the 16th century are matched to their binder or (probably first) owner, makes use of SOME of the marginalia and ownership marks on the bindings or inside the books. Why not use that as a starting point for a fully fledged research project? And move the focus from provenance into some aspect of reception.
Take the books printed in Lyon between 1487 and 1600 in possession of U.v.A. Special Collections. If 1559 is a special date due to the death of Henri II and the ensuing religious quarrels that subsequently stood in the way of further humanist developement, it seems that culture would not simply have faded away. The humanist influence on education would have continued. Depending upon the amount of books in the corpus of the U.v.A., 1600 still seems a fitting end-date.

20-03-2010

Saturday afternoon shopping in the local bookstore in Clamecy. Not an English book in sight, but found exactly what I need to brush up my not very substantial knowledge of French history in A. Jouanna's La France de la Renaissance. An interpretative study with a very useful Chronologie starting in 1470 through 1559, the year Henri II was accidently mortally wounded by a lancet during courtly games with the Scottish Gabriel de Montgomery. With his death a period of enlightenment came to an end. A period which had only lasted for several decennia, during which an unparallelled level of artistic, literary and philosophical output was realized. All the more reason for marginalia in books printed during those years to be of interest. Jouanna's enthousiasm pleases me. Flipping through the pages I recognize names of Lyonese printers and writers, such as Etienne Dolet and Claude d'Espence, which I encountered when writing the essay on bookbindings, but which up until now did not mean much more to me than a name on a title page. I suspect Jouanna will give me a framework for their activities.

19-03-2010

What is marginalia in a printed text? Disturbance of a carefully arranged lay-out? Chaotic? Does this influence meta-thoughts and -writing? Maybe a certain degree of chaos goes with the subject? I must watch out for that, structure is important.

Back to Jackson's Marginalia. The first chapters on history and motives for marginalia bring up some interesting questions. I.e. the function of marginalia in a study by Saenger & Heinlen that reveals that notes in early printed books may actually be manuscript readers' aids supplied by the printer. (Saenger & Heinlen in: S.Hindman (Ed.) Printing the Written Word. The Social History of Books, circa 1450-1520. Ithaca: 1991. p.225-58.) I must look that up.

In Chapter Seven: 'Poetics', Jackson lists the following properties (she calls them requirements) of marginalia. Are they also relevant for annotations in 16th century books? For instance what to do about/with illegibility?

    ⁃    legibility - shorthand - (elaborate) notes
    ⁃    relevance
    ⁃    measure of truth/honesty of the readers notes
    ⁃    (certified) expertise of the content, authority of the annotator
    ⁃    signed and/or dated

Although Jackson's case studies concentrate on the English book production from 1700-2000, which is a somewhat later period than the one I am interested in, the 'Marginalia Lady' does help my thinking process with usable definitions of forms of marginalia from which I can start working and of course the endnotes and bibliography for further reading. The case studies maybe for reference when and if doing a case study of my own.

'What' questions

Yesterday a friend reminded me that it's the 'what' questions that can clarify matters because 'what' is a question to which a specific answer is required. 'Why' questions evoke a broad response which hinders getting into the heart of the matter.

I'm off to a remote village in the Bourgogne. No internet. Just books and 'what' questions. 

Why ownership marks and marginalia?

This of course is the key question which, when eventually answered, should lead to defining the research proposal.

For now some examples of ownership marks and marginalia found on and in books printed in Lyon when doing some research for an essay earlier this year.

Ownership mark on both covers of binding: 
the coat of arms of Willem van Oranje.

La cyropedie de Xenophon, A Lion: par Ian de Tovrnes, 1555. 
U.v.A. call number OTM: Band 1 A 18.

Gilt ownership stamp on back cover of binding.

Problemata divi Thomae Aquinatis. [Colophon]: Impresse Lugduni impensis honorati viri Jacobi.q Francisci de Giunta [..] in edibus Jacobi myt Calchographi [1520].
U.v.A. call number OTM: OK 62 9772.

 Ownership stamp of 16th century Dutch collector Jacob Buyck.
Homiliarvm F. Henrici Helmesii. Lugdvni: apvd Carolvm Pesnot, 1575. 3 vols. U.v.A. call number UBM: 317 G 1/2/3.
 

 Famous 16th century bibliophile's name on front paste-down: Marcus Fugger.

Traicte contre l'erreur vieil et renovvelle des predestinez. Par M. Claude d'Espence. A Lyon: par Iean de Tovrnes, 1548. Bound with two other titles printed in Paris. 

U.v.A. call number OTM: Band 1 H 18.

 Ex libris with monogram on front paste down.

Divini Platonis opervm a Marsilio Ficino tralatorvm, tomvs qvartvs. Lugdvni: apvd Ioan. Tornaesivm, 1550. 
U.v.A. call number OTM: Band 2 D 13.

Title page with the names of two owners in contemporary (?) handwriting.

C. Ivlii Caesaris Commentarii. 
Lugdvni: Apud Steph. Doletum, 1543. 
U.v.A. call number OTM: Band 3 A 1.

 

The same title underlined and annotated throughout.

 

Commentary in contemporary handwriting dated 1585 on verso of A 1.

Polydori Vergilii Vrbinatis de rervm inventoribvs libri octo.
Lvgdvni: apvd Ioan. Tornaesivm, et Gvl. Gaseivm, 1558.
U.v.A. call number OTM: K 61-1313.

 What seems at first sight to be a eulogy to Venus signed by Ioannes Ricius (active ca. 1570-80) on recto and verso of n 4 and on recto of the last free endpaper of the third book. 

Clarissimi viri D. Andreae Alciati Emblematvm libri duo, Lvgdvni: Apud Ioan. Tornaesium, & Gulielmum Gazeium, 1554. bound with: Andreae Alciati Emblemata svccincta commentariola, Sebast. Stockhamero Germano autore. Lvgdvni: Apud Ioannem Tornaesium, & Gul. Gazeium, 1556.

bound with: Iacobi San Nazarii Opera omnia. Apvd Seb. Gryphivm Lvgdvni: 1549.
U.v.A. call number OTM: OK 62 8977.

Some temporary answers

The answer to 'why books' seems evident. With the invention of printing books have become the essence of our cultural existence. Since cave men's iconic drawings on the walls of their dwellings, pictures and letters have been the core of human communication culminating in the first printing of  books mid 15th century. I would not go so far as to say that printed matter is the essence of being human but language definitely sets us apart from all other earthly organisms and has been essential not only for our cultural and intellectual developement but also for our material growth. Language converted into printed matter has passed on knowledge acquired through the centuries. It can be argued that illiterate tribes in remote places are of course also human and that their dependency on the oral tradition does not make them less developed. It can be argued that anno 2010 the book as format is not essential for passing on culture and knowledge. However this was the case in past centuries which makes books an emminently useful source for research on cultural and intellectual transferrance. 

Why focus research on books printed in Lyon?
16th century Lyon was affluent, industrious, cosmopolitan and, after Paris, the most important cultural city in Renaissance France. Lyon was also one of the most influential intellectual centers of Europe which is reflected in the book production of the Lyonnese printers who were surrounded by the humanist crème de la crème, both authors and customers. Their output was prolific. J.Baudrier compiled a reference work of 12 volumes on the literary world of printing, bookselling, bookbinding and type-founders in Lyon alone. Alfred Cartier filled two reference volumes with titles solely printed by Jean de Tournes. A preliminary survey of the titles in the collection of the U.v.A. shows a scala of subjects which would have been of interest to the contemporary Humanist reader. The marginalia found in the books will be the basis of the research. The research question has yet to be formulated.

'Why 1487-1600?' The earliest title printed in Lyon in possession of the library is an undated copy of Albertus Magnus' Compendium theologicae veritatis printed ca.1487. Should an earlier uncatalogued title be found, then that will automatically be the new starting point. 1600 seems a natural limit to set. A quick scan reveals a corpus of 300-500 titles. A next limitation will probably be to include only books with marginalia. Depending on the outcome the 1600 limit could be pushed forward.

The 'why' questions.

Why books?
Why printed in Lyon?
Why specifically 1487-1600?
Why ownership marks and marginalia?

Curiosity driven research. I find myself longing to start disecting the Lyon books.

The corpus

Library of the University of Amsterdam.
Books printed in Lyon.
1487-1600
With ownership marks and/or annotations.

Publications on ownership marks/marginalia

The greater part of publications on marginalia seem to focus on the English heritage: Great Britain and U.S.A., with publications on French reading and collecting as runner-up.

H.J. Jackson's Marginalia (2001), 'aims to describe and illustrate the behavior of annotators in the English-speaking world during the past three centuries' (p.6) but also on physical features and theoretical issues on annotations which could be applicable to the Lyon books.

and of course many more, to be listed separately on the page 'Bibliography of Secondary Works'.

'Traces of use'

is de voorlopige titel van een onderzoek naar sporen van gebruik in een verzameling boeken gedrukt in Lyon tussen 1473 en 1600. Het betreft een deelverzameling van Bijzondere Collecties van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Om hoeveel boeken het gaat is nog niet duidelijk. De online catalogus van de bibliotheek geeft 20 tot 600 vermeldingen op de zoektermen 'Lyon', 'Lyons' en 'Lugduni' en verder is er een ouderwetse kaartenbak waarin misschien nog wel titels staan die nog niet in de U.v.A. online catalogus zijn opgenomen.

Waarom dit onderzoek?
Een boek zonder sporen van gebruik is als een koffietafelboek. Mooi om naar te kijken, maar zonder ziel. Behalve een mening is dit ook de aanzet om nauwkeurig te kijken naar de diverse vormen van sporen van gebruik, en daarbij te proberen te bepalen waarom deze van toegevoegde waarde zouden zijn.

Werkwijze
De resultaten van het onderzoek zullen in het Engels worden geschreven, dus ook verder deze blog. Zo raak ik van 'sporen van gebruik' af dat in het Nederlands iets beschadigder klinkt dan het Engelse 'traces of use', a concept used by antiquarian bookdealers to warn the potential buyer that the book is not in mint condition.

Definition of 'traces of use'
Ownership and reading marks. Stamped on bindings and manuscript in books. Coats of arms, portraits or other illustrations; book-labels; ownership stamps; shelf marks; inventory numbers; inscriptions in book; annotations, also called marginalia.
Marginalia: from the Latin marginale = in the margin, coined in English by Coleridge when publishing some marginalia of his own. (Jackson 2001, p.13)
Adversaria (obsolete): a collection of notes and commentaries.

To do
Research of existing publications on marginalia.
Make an inventory of the actual extent of the collection of books printed in Lyon 1473-1600 in possession of the U.v.A. library.
Make choices and set limits on the corpus.
Definition of research proposal.