457J George Wharton (1617-1681) & ed. John Gadbury, , 1627-1704

The works of that late most excellent philosopher and astronomer, Sir, Bar. Collected into one entire volume. By John Gadbury, student in physick and astrology.

The festivals and fasts of the Jews and Christians — A discourse of the observation of Easter — Apostelesma, or, The nativity of the world — Of the world’s revolution — Of the epoch — A short discourse of years, months and days — Of the planetary aspects, &c. — The nature of eclipses, &c. — Of the crises in diseases — Of the mutations, &c., of empires, kingdoms, &c. — The names, genus and species of comets — How astrology may be restored, from Morinus — The cabal of the twelve houses astrological, from Morinus — An astrological judgement upon His Majesties present march: begun from Oxford, May 7, 1645 — Bellum hybernicale, or, Ireland’s war astrologically demonstrated … The ignorance … errors … of John Booker (in his … A bloody Irish almanack, &c.) discovered — Merlini Anglici errata, or, The errors … of Mr. Lilly’s new ephemeris for 1647 — Multiplicatio effectus syderum secreta — Of the causes of earthquakes — How the weather is governed — Poems — Gesta Britannorum, or, A succinct chronology … 1600-1667 — [Chiromantioe], or, The art of divining by the lines … in the hand of man / by Jo. Rothman ; Englished by G. Wharton .

London : printed by H[enry]. H[ills]. for John Leigh, at Stationers Hall, and Awnsham Churchill, at the Black Swan, near Amen-Corner, 1683. $2,500

Octavo: 18 x 9 cm.(32),670,(2)pp. Lacking the frontispiece portrait. Title printed in red & black. Illustrated with a full-page woodcut of a hand, as well as numerous woodcut text diagrams and tables. Cont. mottled calf, hand lettered spine label, hinges a bit rubbed. Armorial bookplate of William Wollascott Esq. (circa 1700).
Wharton attended, with Ashmole, the first meeting in 1647 of the Society of Astrologers at Gresham College. It included both William Lilly and John Booker, Parliamentarians who had been on the other side of the astrological pamphlet exchanges in the Civil War that had ended in 1646.
He was imprisoned in 1649, and might have been executed but his former opponent William Lilly spoke up for him with Bulstrode Whitelocke. He was released by the intervention of Ashmole, who made him steward on his Berkshire estates. He showed great deference to Ptolemy and Aristotle; and although respectful toward Copernicus, he apparently considered the earth to be immovable in space. Although not explicit on the subject of the earth’s motion, he probably subscribed to the Tychonic world scheme. Wharton saw the cosmos as possessing both physical and metaphysical dimensions that operated through the macrocosm and microcosm. This balancing of qualities runs through all his ideas: just as a planet had two qualities, natural (physical) and astrological, so man’s personality had natural and astrological aspects that operated within a hierarchically conceived universe in which the moral and physical orders ran parallel.

W1538; Gibson, R.W. Francis Bacon, suppl.,; 642A; Houzeau & Lancaster. Astronomie (1964 éd.),; 3425; ESTC (RLIN),; R015152; Arber’s Term cat. I 512.


263J Gassendi, Pierre (1592-1655); Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642); Kepler, Johannes (1571-1630)

Petri Gassendi Institutio Astronomica: Juxta Hypotheseis tam Veterum quàm Recentiorum. Cui accesserunt Galilei Galilei Nuncius Sidereus; et Johannis Kepleri Dioptrice. Tertia editio prioribus Correctior.

London: Jacob Flesher for William Morden, 1653. $14,000

Octavo: 18.3 x 11.8 cm. 3 parts in one volume: [16], 199, [1]; 173, [1] p., 4 leaves of plates. Collation: A-N8, O4; A-L8 (including the final blank leaf)

SECOND EDITION THUS, Fourth edition overall of Gassendi

A nice copy in contemporary, blind-ruled English calfskin, rebacked. The first title page is printed in red and black. Galileo’s “Sidereus Nuncius” and Kepler’s “Dioptrice” are introduced by separate title pages. The text is illustrated with astronomical woodcuts including images of the moon, showing its uneven, mountainous surface as discerned by Galileo through the telescope and four full-paged woodcut illustrations of stars (the Pleiades, Orion’s belt, the Praesepe and Orion Nebulas.)

Gassendi’s “Institutio Astronomica,” has been called the first modern astronomy textbook. It is divided into three sections: the first details the so-called theory of the spheres, the second describes astronomical theory, and the third discusses the conflicting ideas of Brahe and Copernicus.

The present edition is important for the inclusion of two seminal works of telescopic astronomy: Galileo’s “Sidereus Nuncius” (first ed. Venice, 1610), in which announces his discovery of Jupiter’s moons, and Kepler’s “Dioptrice” (first ed. Augsburg, 1611), Kepler’s brilliant explanation of how the telescope works.Galileo’s Discoveries with the Telescope:”Galileo’s ‘Starry Messenger’ contains some of the most important discoveries in scientific literature. Learning in the summer of 1609 that a device for making distant objects seem close and magnified had been brought to Venice from Holland, Galileo soon constructed a spy-glass of his own which he demonstrated to the notables of the Venetian Republic, thus earning a large increase in his salary as professor of mathematics at Padua. Within a few months he had a good telescope, magnifying to 30 diameters, and was in full flood of astronomical observation.

”Through his telescope Galileo saw the moon as a spherical, solid, mountainous body very like the earth- quite different from the crystalline sphere of conventional philosophy. He saw numberless stars hidden from the naked eye in the constellations and the Milky Way.

Above all, he discovered four new ‘planets’, the satellites of Jupiter that he called (in honor of his patrons at Florence) the Medicean stars. Thus Galileo initiated modern observational astronomy and announced himself as a Copernican. (Printing and the Mind of Man)

Kepler’s Explanation of the Telescope:”In order that the enormous possibilities harbored in the telescope could develop, it was necessary to clear up the theoretical laws by which it worked. And this achievement was reserved solely for Kepler. With the energy peculiar to him, inside of a few weeks, in the months of August and September of the same year, 1610, he composed a book tracing basically once and for all the laws governing the passage of light through lenses and systems of lenses. It is called ‘Dioptrice’, a word that Kepler himself coined and introduced into optics. […]”In problem 86 in which he shows ‘how with the help of two convex lenses visible objects can be made larger and distinct but inverted’ he develops the principle on which the astronomical telescope is based, the discovery of which is thus tied up with his name for all time. Further on follows the research into the double concave lens and the Galilean telescope in which a converging lens is used as objective and a diverging lens as eyepiece. By this suitable combination Kepler discovers the principle of today’s telescopic lens. Even this scanty account sows the epoch-making significance of the work. It is not an overstatement to call Kepler the father of modern optics because of it. (Max Caspar, “Kepler”, pp. 198-199) Kepler’s work is also the first to announce Galileo’s discovery that Venus has phases like the moon.

Wing G293; Cinti 155; Sotheran, I p. 75 (1476); cf. PMM 113 and Dibner, Heralds of Science, #7 (the 1610 edition)


I will begin with a context for the 1518 edition.

At the turn of the century from 1480 to 1531 more than half a dozen different commentaries on Sacrobosco’s Sphera were printed yet among them all this one is arguably the most influential and important one, compiled by Francesco Capuano, (At some point he became known as Johannes Baptista Capuanus si Pontinus, de Manfredonia) Capuano was an author and professor of astronomy at Padua, Republic of Venice, then later became a bishop. This commentary was first printed in 1495 and was reprinted six times, up through 1531
“In 1499, while Copernicus studies in Bologna, the commentary on Sacrobosco’s Sphere by the Padua master Francesco Capuano da Manfredonia first appears in print. It will be revised and reprinted several times thereafter. Like Copernicus, Capuano has a high view of astronomy and mingles astronomical and physical considerations (flies moving on wheels, men on ships, impetus, comets, raptus). Also, Capuano offers a flawed argument against a two-fold (diurnal and zodiacal) motion of the Earth.

Multiple thematic resonances between Capuano’s commentary and De revolutionibus, I, 5-11, suggest the hypothesis that Copernicus is answering Capuano, whose work was owned by Joachim Rheticus, if not Copernicus himself.”1 The authors who Capuano choses gives us a good picture of the state of teaching Astronomy in the late 15th century.”

Michael Scott; 1175? -1234?
Petrus de Alliaco. (Pierre d’Ailly);1350-1420
Robertus Linconiensis. (Grosseteste); 1175-1253
Joannes Regiomontanus, 1436-1476.
Cecco d’Ascoli. 1269-1327, ; In spheram enarratio.
Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples; d.1536. ; In astronomicum introductorium Ioannis de Sacrobosco commentarius.
Theodosius de Tripoli.; 160-100 BC; De spheris cum textu.
Johannes Cremonensis. 1114 – 1187; Theorica planetarum.

(Francesco Capuano Di Manfredonia fl 15th century)

Sphera mundi nouit[er] recognita : cu[m] co[m]me[n]tarijs [et] authorib[us] in hoc volumine co[n]te[n]tis vz Capuano, Giovanni Battista Cichi Eschulani cum textu. Ioannis Baptiste Capuani. Jacobi Fabri Stapulensis. Theodosii de spheris cum textu. Michaelis Scoti questiones. Petri de Aliaco cardinalis q[uaesti]ones. Roberti Linconiensis Compendium. Theodosij iterum de spheris cum textu. Tractatus de sphera solida. Theorice planetarum conclusiones cum expositione. Campani Tractatus de sphera. Eiusdem tractatus de computo maiori. Joannis de monte regio in cremone[n]sem disputatio. Theorice textus cu[m] Joa[n]nis Baptiste Capuani exp[ositi]one. Ptolomeus De speculis. Theorica planetarum Joannis Cremonensis, plurimum faciens ad disputationem ioannis de monte regio, qua[m] in aliis hactenus i[m]pressis non reperies.

Venetijs: Luce antonij de giu[n]ta …,1518. $7,000

Folio. Inches. A6, B-z8, Aa-Ff8, Gg6. This copy is bound in full contemporary vellum. Inner joints have been repaired there is worm tracks at the fold, the free endpaper has an ownership mark of the old hand. There is water staining throughout, but hardly browned.

“As I illustrate below in preliminary fashion, Capuano’s Expositioof the Sphere is considerably more significant, both on its own terms and in relation to Copernicus, than the modest earlier scholarship on him has realized.6 It reveals a late-fifteenth-century university master grappling with the motions of the Earth and their physical consequences, freely mingling natural philosophical arguments with the astronomical material he was teaching. While commenting on Sacrobosco’s elementary text of the mathematics curriculum, Capuano also brings together salient arguments from the Physics and De caelo commentaries of the previous century, including the possibility of mixed circular motions and of combined rectilinear and
circular motions. When Capuano examines hypothetically the arguments for the motions of the Earth, he of course discusses its rotation, a familiar hypothesis in fourteenth-century natural philosophy. Surprisingly, he also attempts to refute a hypothetical two-fold motion of the Earth. Although Capuano defends the Earth’s immobility, his commentary significantly enriches our understanding of aca demic discussions of astronomy at the time of Copernicus.

The number, quality, and specificity of these resonances suggest the hypothesis that Capuano’s commentary on the Sphere may have served as a sparring partner for Copernicus, who is notoriously silent about his debts to con temporaries. These intriguing echoes are probably not coincidental, for this text is certainly connected to Copernicus’s circle, and prob ably to Copernicus himself.

An imperfect version of Capuano’s commentary on Sacrobosco first appeared in a 1499 Venetian astronomical compendium, which also reprinted his Peuerbach commentary. His title in that edition suggests that he was still teaching at Padua as a layman. By the
time Capuano had revised his commentary on the Sphere in 1505, he had become an Augustinian canon. In later editions, he mentions a lunar eclipse of 15 August “in the current year of 1505,” which “we saw with all the associates and fathers” (36va).’3 This is evidently a reference to members of his order, to which he had
introduced the mathematical sciences, teaching for at least twelve years, presumably in the Veneto.’4 The revised version of the commentary on the Sphere (with a new preface) did not appear until the astronomical compendium of 1508. At least two editions of
both commentaries appeared in 1518 and two more in 1531. Capua no’s commentary on Sacrobosco was perhaps the longest of the genre until Christopher Clavius’s a century later.15

A Few Thematic and Dialectical Resonances between Capuano andCopernicus

Most of these issues show intriguing parallelisms to the front matter and the cosmological sections of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus, Book I. Most generally, the common outlook between Capuano and Copernicus is obvious. Like Regiomontanus, these two contemporaries see astronomy as a discipline at the apex of the sciences and one with physical consequences. They do not hesitate to use and to resolve, for their own purposes, arguments in natural philosophy. In addition, they both understand astronomy as causal. I now turn to some dialectical parallels between Capuano and Copernicus.

At one level, my suggestion that Copernicus appears to be answering Capuano is trivial. Since Copernicus argues against the set of all defenders of a central, stationary Earth, he is implicitly arguing against every member of the set, hence against Capuano.

As I hope to show, however, the issues that Capuano brings up in this one treatise are sufficiently unusual, specific, and numerous to cast doubt on the hypothesis that the similarity is coincidental. In De revolutionibus, I, after summarizing the main arguments for the centrality of the Earth and against its daily rotation (chap 44) Copernicus opens the manuscript of Book I with a reference to the “studies that deal with the godlike circular motions of the world” and lists among the topics in it

“the causes of the other phenomena of the heaven” (This passage was omitted in the 1543 edition); The Manuscript of Copernicus’ On the Revolutions: Facsimile, Completeter 7), Copernicus in chapter 8 specifically takes on the arguments against the motion of the Earth. Instead of dealing piecemeal with the natural or unnatural character of such a rotation, he steps back to make a meta-point: if the Earth rotates, its motion is natural. Naturalness of motion will characterize whichever body is moving, whether the primum mobile or the Earth. Recall that one of Capuano’s arguments for keeping the Earth stationary was that, if it moved, “there is no specifying that by which the Earth can move.” (33vb).Here, Copernicus’s appeal to its natural motion sounds like a direct answer to Capuano. In short, there is no independent criterion of natural motion, only a choice of options: either the heavens stand still and the Earth rotates, or the heavens rotate and the Earth stands still. In either case, the motion of the moving body and the immobility of the stationary one are natural; the question at hand is the determination of which body is in motion. In the process, Copernicus alludes to his own apocalyptic scenario if the heavens move by raptus.45 Capuano had already rehearsed the arguments for the greater nobility of rest for the heavens and the greater ease of motion for the smaller body (the Earth), only to refute them. Copernicus adopted them.

Still in Chapter 8, Copernicus discusses the motion of comets (6r), and air. This passage caught the attention of Jamil Ragep, who was puzzled by its apparent uniqueness in the Latin tradition.46 Significantly, Capuano had also discussed comets in the context of theraptus of the celestial spheres, not surprisingly perhaps, since the motion (or lack thereof) of the elements belongs to the problem of the motion (or lack thereof) of the Earth (30va). Copernicus uses raptus or its cognates three times in De revolutionibus I, 8

As we have seen, Capuano had argued that a sphere could move with mixed circular motion and elemental bodies could move with combined circular and straight motions. The availability of such arguments helps to explain Copernicus’s own appeal to mixed straight and circular motion (6r-v) and his rapid march through the traditional natural philosophical problem of a rotating Earth in De revolutionibus I, 8. Although such arguments are scattered throughout fourteenth-century natural philosophy, we do not know precisely how they reached Copernicus. In Capuano’s revised commentary on the Sphere, they were not only readily available, but also put to work in a combined astronomical and physical context. Copernicus put similar arguments to work for the elements, arguing that the apparent rectilinear rise and fall of the latter exhibit a compound of circular and rectilinear motion.47

But it is the matter of requiring more than one motion of the Earth that is most striking. In De revolutionibus I, 9, Copernicus’s argument resonates with the framework of Capuano’s discussion, which Copernicus has turned on its head. Having argued in De revolutionibus I, 8 that the mobility of the Earth is more probable than its immobility, in the first sentence of Chapter 9, Copernicus asks, “whether several motions are appropriate for it” (7r).48 The immediate leap to the plural strikingly echoes Capuano’s argument rooted in De caelo, II, 14. After sketching his theory of gravity,49 Copernicus explores the consequences of making the Sun and Earth trade places and motions: “if the [yearly circuit] is transformed from solar into terrestrial, immobility being conceded to the Sun, the risings and settings of the zodiacal signs and the fixed stars, by which they become morning and evening stars, will appear in the same way.” On the force of this fundamental observational equivalence, Copernicus goes on to assert a stronger one:

“Also the stations, retrogressions, and progressions of the wandering stars will be seen to be not their own motion, but the Earth’s, which they transform into their appearances. Finally, the Sun itself will be thought to own the center of the universe….”50 These assertions are a direct denial of Capuano’s observational claim, which was probably rooted. in the objections of De caelo II, 14 and of Aquinas’s commentary on it, that the stars would exhibit “changes and turnings.”

If Copernicus had read the work, the incompatible premises in Capuano’s argument, generated by the juxtaposition of the simple motion of the fixed stars with the added assumption of “diurnal and zodiacal” motions, must have stood out when Copernicus tested. the consistency of his insight.

Strikingly, the passage in Capuano that immediately follows this discussion turns to the order of the planets, and discusses extensively the place of Mercury and Venus in relation to the Sun: “In this question, it will be a matter first of the order of all the spheres; second, and more specifically, of the Sun, Venus, and Mercury.”5′

Precisely this problem, on Bernard Goldstein’s convincing interpretation, motivated Copernicus’s move to heliocentrism by causing him to rethink the order of the planets-the subject of De revolutionibus I, ch. 1 0.52

Not least, Copernicus evidently agreed with Capuano that giving the Earth only diurnal and zodiacal motions could not save the phenomena. Accordingly, he spent the better part of De revolutionibus I, 1 1 offering two derivations of the third motion he ascribed to the Earth. Copernicus’s motion of “declination” keeps the Earth’s axis pointed in the same direction on an annual basis and also accounts for the precession of the equinoxes. Equally significant, immediately thereafter, the manuscript includes material omitted in the printed text, to the effect that Philolaus and Aristarchus probably saw the motions of the five planets as more consistent with the mobility than the immobility of the earth “although they were not moved by the reason that Aristotle alleges and criticizes.”53 This
is a direct allusion to De caelo II, 14, the very passage that informs the arguments of Aquinas and Capuano.

The significance of Capuano’s treatise lies less in the specific views he presents, many of which were scattered throughout late-medieval natural philosophy, than in his collection and linkage of them in a detailed commentary on the Sphere, the basic elementary text of the mathematical curriculum. In recasting Aristotle’s argument against multiple motions of the Earth, Capuano called the two hypothetical motions “diurnal” and “zodiacal.” In so doing, he effectively raised the possibility of the Earth’s being a planet-not sim ply a body rotating at the center of the universe, but a body with the traditional motions of the Sun. In Capuano’s commentary on the Sphere, written by a Paduan master whose path he may have crossed in Padua, Copernicus could conveniently find a range of recent and detailed arguments against the motion of the Earth. By1543, he had formulated arguments that look like answers to them.

But was Copernicus answering Capuano? First, Copernicus very likely knew about Capuano through the controversy with Alessandro Achillini. His studies in Bologna (1496-1500) overlapped with Achillini’s tenure and publication of De orbibus (1498).54 A new piece of evidence increases the likelihood of his familiarity with Achillini’s work. De orbibus contains several mysterious citations from Averroes’s Epitome of the Almnagest, previously thought to be available only in Arabic and Hebrew.55 Equally intriguing, Copernicus cites this work, calling it Averroes in Ptolemaica paraphrasi, when discussing a possible transit of Mercury (De revolutionibus, 8v), the topic of one of Achillini’s quotations.56 Second, if Copernicus did not know about Capuano through Achillini in Bologna, he is likely to have heard about his commentaries (the commentary on Peuerbach competed with that of Brudzewo, who was probably Copernicus’steacher in Cracow). Ihird,

¶ Copernicus and Capuano easily could have met: Copernicus’s years in Padua (1501-03) are bracketed by the years in which Capuano was publishing in the Veneto and presumably teaching his fellow canons there. Not least, Capuano’s Expositio of the Sphere was known in Copernicus’s circle. The Stockholm,Royal Library, copy of the 1518 Venice Giunta astronomical com pendium containing Capuano’s two works is inscribed to “loachimo Rhoetico.”57

L.A. Birkenmajer believed that Copernicus gave the volume to Rheticus (see his Stromata Copernicana (Cracow, 1924), 320-21); Andr? Goddu is skeptical (“Coperni cus’s Annotations: Revisions of Czartoryski’s ‘Copernicana,'” Scriptorium, 58 (2004),
202-226, 207-08). The volume (106A, Fol. RAR) contains annotations in several hands, at least one of which (Goddu’s Plate 39), in my view, strongly resembles Copernicus’s (166r).

Houzeau / Lancaster I, 1642. EDIT 16 CNCE 29259. STC 597. Essling 1975. – Not in Adams.

1) [Shank, Michael H. “Setting up Copernicus? Astronomy and Natural Philosophy in Giambattista Capuano Da Manfredonia’s ‘Expositio’ on the ‘Sphere.’” Early Science and Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1/3, 2009, pp. 290–315. Evidence and Interpretation: Studies on Early Science and Medicine in Honor of John E. Murdoch (2009)JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20617787.%5D

2) Boner, Patrick J. (2010), Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology, Archimedes Series, 27, Springer, p. 14, ISBN 94-007-0036-9

3) L Thorndike, The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators (Chicago, 1949).


300J JOHANNES de SACRO BOSCO. (c. 1195 – c. 1256) (also called John or Johannes Halifax, Holyfax, Holywalde, Sacroboscus, Sacrobuschus, de Sacro Bosco, or de Sacro Busto) And Georgius de Monteferrato

Figura sphere cu[m] glosis Georgii de Mo[n]teferrato artiu[m] [et] medici[n]e doctoris : gradiam [et] gloriam dabit dominus.

Venice [Jacobus Pentius, de Leuco] for Georgius de Monteferrato 1500, die 28 ianuarii. $11,000

(“The use of type 68G and of woodcut capitals in this book connect it with the latter part of 1500 and it is therefore taken to be dated ‘more veneto’ (BMC) Quarto, 8 ½ X 5 ½ inches . 26 lvs, A-E4 F6 . There is a large woodcut on title page ‘sphera mundi’, see to the left and three other large woodcut diagrams in text. Woodcut capitals, also spaces with guide-letters. Tear repaired in corner of f. 2, with some text loss.

This copy is bound in full laced cased later vellum, blue edges,and recent marbled endpapers. This illustrated incunable printed by Jacobus Pentius, de Leuce who started printing in 1495, his press was chiefly active after the turn of the century.

¶ In 1220 Sacro Bosco wrote Tractatus de Sphaera in four chapters. The first chapter deals with the shape and place of the Earth within a spherical universe. The second chapter deals with various circles on the sky. The third chapter describes rising and setting of heavenly bodies from different geographical locations while the fourth chapter gives a brief introduction to Ptolemy’s theory of the planets and of eclipses.

This book, which predates Grosseteste’s astronomy book, is well written and was widely used throughout Europe from the middle of the 13th Century.
Sacrobosco’s De sphaera mundi was the most successful of several competing thirteenth-century textbooks on this topic. It was used in universities for hundreds of years and the manuscript copied many times before the invention of the printing press; hundreds of manuscript copies have survived. The first printed edition appeared in 1472 in Ferrara, and at least 84 editions were printed in the next two hundred years. The work was frequently supplemented with commentaries on the original text. The number of copies and commentaries reflects its importance as a university text.[4] de Sphaera, which was widely read and influential in Europe during the later medieval centuries as an introduction to astronomy. Though principally about the heavens it also contains a clear description of the Earth as a sphere, in the first chapter. “The Sphere” was required reading by students in all Western European universities for the next four centuries.

Goff J421; Klebs, A.C. Incunabula scientifica et medica,; entry 874.30; BMC V 566; HCR 14126; Essling 264; Sander 6668; Pell Ms 6718 (6683); Hillard 1153; Péligry 480; IGI 5353; Hubay(Augsburg) 1247; Pr 5705; GW M14661

United States of America. The Walters Art Museum Library
Library of Congress,New York Public Library,
Huntington Library, Smithsonian Institution, Univ. of Chicago, Williams College,

  1. Owen Gingerich, Sacrobosco as a textbook. Journal for the History of Astronomy 19 (4) (1988), 269-273.
  2. L Thorndike, The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators (Chicago, 1949).
  3. J F Daly, Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990).
  4. Olaf Pedersen, “In Quest of Sacrobosco”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 16 (1985): 175-221. Pedersen identifies 35 printings in Venice, another 35 in Paris, and more in 14 other cities throughout Europe.