N.
Heures a lusaige de Romme tout au long sans riens requerir : avec les figures de la vie de lhomme: et la destruction de hierusa=lem.
Tout pour le Mieulx.
Paris : Par Gillet Hardouyn imprimeur, 1509 $Sold
Large Quarto 9 x 5 3/4 inches (a very Large copy) [92] Vellum leaves A-L8, M4 complete.
Printed in red and black. 21 full -page Illustrations, and 28 small woodcuts along the text, from the Master of the Apocalypse Rose, and 
Pichore design. All the borders are painted . ILLUMINATED IN GOLD AND very vivid COLOURS BY A CONTEMPORARY HAND, liquid-gold initials and line-filler the illustrations are mostly of Gospel scenes; numerous small illustrations of saints and miscellaneous subjects; each text page within varying historiated border. One- and two-line initials in gold on blue or red ground throughout. The imagery in this book combines metalcut designs by Jean Pichore with the rich illumination of a painter.
Large R (for Rome) on first four leaves of each quire, in a line with the signature.
This copy is bound in 18thcentury tan calf recently rebacked.
HARDOUYN (Gilles or Gillet), son of Guillaume, born in 1455, libr. – juror and printer, 1491-1521; resigns his duties as a free juror on 9 Sept. 1519. He was first a bookseller and 
then also a typographer, he was, together with Germain Hardouyn, one does not know if his son or brother, among the first to introduce in the decoration of the Livres d’heures the style of the Italian Renaissance. He published exclusively books of hours. Before the fall of Pont-Notre-Dame (25 Oct. 1499), he lives in the 8th house of the bridge. Then He can be found: – “At the end of the bridge at the Change, at the sign of the Rose, below the beautiful Ymaige; – On the bridge at the Change near the beautiful Ymaige Notre Dame at the sign of the Rose “; At this location he is listed as was only bookseller. And almost 
every Hours that bears this address have the name of another printer than him. In 1509, he became a printer and established himself: – “At the end of the bridge Notre Dame before saints Denis de la Chartre at the sign of the Rose dor; – In confinio pontis Nostræ Dominæ, ante ecclesiam sancti Dionisii of carcere, ad intersignum Rosæ deauratæ; Several books of hours bearing this address and his name as imprint. With an almanac beginning earlier, are not earlier than 1509. He keeps this address until the end .
Documents: Arch. Nat., ZIH 24, 364; L. DOREZ, Notes … n ° 11; P. LACOMBE, Books of Hours, Passim. We admit here with Leon Dorez, that the libr.-juror who resigns his office in 1519 and who is called Gilbert is the same as Gillet; however it is qualified factor , which seems to apply with difficulty to a printer having produced as much as him. – The ancestors of the Hardouyn had always lived and “exposed their days” on the bridge Notre Dame.
Sig. A1r (Hercules and the centaur Nessus* ), a1v almanac for 1508-20, a2r-7r calendar, a7v-B1v Gospel sequence [Martyrdom of St. John, two portrait cuts], B2r-6r Passion according to St. John [Crucifixion], B6r-7r Obsecro te, B7v-c8r Hours of the Virgin: Matins-Lauds [Adam and Eve, Annunciation, Visitation], C8v-F2r Hours of the Cross and of the Holy Ghost, intermingled with Hours of the Virgin: Prime-Compline [Flagellation, Pentecost, Nativity, Annunciation to the Shepherds, Adoration of the Magi (x 2), Flight into Egypt, Coronation of the Virgin], F2v-3v prayers for saying on weekdays, F4r-8r prayers for saying on Saturday and others, F8v- G5r Seven Penitential Psalms [a Prophet, David],
G5r-8r Litany of Saints, G8v-I6v Office of the Dead [a Prophet, Job on his Dungheap], I7r-8v prayers to the Virgin and to St. John the Evangelist, I8v-K5v suffrages, K5v-7v prayers to the Virgin, Missus est Gabriel, K8r-L3v seven prayers to St Gregory, Seven joys of the Virgin, and other prayers in Latin and French, L4r contents, L4v colophon, M1-6 Office of the Immaculate Conception).M4 Prayer: Jesus soit en ma teste; M4v colophon..
Full page woodcuts:
A1 Hardouin Device, the Centaurus Nessus, Heracles and the abduction of Deianira;
A1v Planetary man, in the form of a Skeleton;
A6 Martyrdom of Johannes the Evangelist, in the cauldron of boiling oil;
A8v Impotence of the soldiers in the capture of Christ in Gethsemane-Ego Sum;
B4v Divine Decree, the Church and the virtues;
B5 Annunciation;
C3v The meeting of Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate;
C8V Flagellation of Christ;
D1 Crucifixion;
D2 Pentecost;
D3 Nativity;
D5v Annunciation to the Shepherds;
D6 Nativity (from Simone Vostre Quart Series);
E1 Adoration of the Magi;
E3v Presentation in the Temple;
E6 Massacre of the Innocents;
F1v Death of the Virgin;
F8v battle and Death of Uriah;
G1 King David and Bathsheba bathing;
G8v The poor Lazarus at the banquet of the rich, “Lazarus and Dives”;
H1 Massacre of the Innocents (Repeated);
L 8v Mary Immaculate;
M4v Hardouin Device.
Small Woodcuts:
A7, San Luca Evangelist in the Scriptorium;
A7v, San Matthew Evangelist in the Scriptorium;
A7v, San Mark Evangelist in the Scriptorium;
C8, Sanhedrin trial of Jesus;
I8 Man of Sorrows on a sarcophagus;
I8v Man of Sorrows on a sarcophagus (repeated);
I8v miracle of Pentecost;
K1v Annunciation;
K4v Archangel Michael as a conqueror of the Satan;
K4v Beheading of John the Baptist;
K5 John the evangelist with the cup of poison;
K5 decapitation of the Apostle Peter;
K5v St. James at pilgrimage with book;
K6 Martyrdom of St. Stephen standing with book and stones;
K6 St. Lawrence on the grill;
K6 St. Christopher carrying the Christ;
K6V Martyrdom of St. Sebastian;
K7v St. Nicholas with the three boys;
K7v St. Claudius as a bishop with book;
K8 St. Anthony as a hermit with his pig;
K8 St. Anne teaches Maria to read;
K8v St. Mary Magdalene standing with the Ampulla;
K8V St. Catherine with wheel, sword and book;
L1 St. Margaret escaping from the Satan, in the shape of a dragon;
L1 St. Barbara standing with tower and palm branch;
L1v Beheading of St. Barbara;
L3 Crucifixion with Mary and John;
L6 Annunciation to Mary. The words on the fourth line of the colophon and the entire 3 lines below that obliterated. Contemporary owner’s motto and arms painted in colors and gold on vellum leaves at beginning and end; early 19th-century booklabel of Bettison’s of Cheltenham & Leamington; 19th-century armorial bookplate of George Folliot.
In these Hardouyn Hours the metal cuts are emulating those of “Vostre”s new style of illustration”(see the next item in this catalogue).
Bohatta 887, 891, ; Brun, pages 18 and 210 (“la meilleure production des presses d”Hardouyn”); Fairfax Murray/French 270; Lacombe 199. Brunet, Manuel , V, Paris 1864, coll. 1628-1644; Ph. Renouard, Imprimeurs Parisiens , etc., Paris 1898; P. Lacombe, Livres d’heures etc., Paris 1907; Bohatta, Bibliographie des livres d’heures .Vienna 1909; R. Brun, Le livre illustré en France au XVI and siècle , Paris 1930, pp. 22-26.
- Newberry Library
2.Huntington Library,
3.Morgan Library & Museum
4.University of British. Columbia
5.University of Cambridge
- 6 Koninklijike Bibliotheek
Nessus is well known for his part in the story of the Shirt of Nessus. He was a ferryman, and one day, he had to carry Deianeira, wife of Heracules, across the river. After they crossed the river, Nessus tried to have sex with her, but Hercules watching from the other riverbank, shot an arrow straight into Nessus’ chest. Before he drew his final breath, Nessus told Deianeira that his blood would ensure that her husband would be faithful to her in eternity. Deianeira believed him and collected some of the centaur’s blood.
(E.B.)
Folio 9 1/2 X 6 3/4 inches 235 leaves. Sig. a2-8,b-v8(a1 blank and lacking) x6; A2-8, B-I8. 45 lines of commentary, which surrounds the text, to a page. Ff. 1, 166, 167, 238, blank, are wanting. 235 of 238 leaves, lacking ONLY three blanks: x6, A1, and I8; This copy is bound in modern calf over wooden boards. It is a nice clean copy.
Franciscan habit at Verneuil, studied theology, received the doctor’s degree in Paris and was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In the famous controversy on the Beatific vision he took sides withe the professors against John XXII. He laboured very successfully both in preaching and writing, for the conversion fo the Jews. He is the author of numerous theological works, some of which are yet unpublished. It was to exegesis that Nicholas of Lyra devoted his best years. In his second prologue to his monumental work “Postilla perpetu in universam S. Scripturam” after stating that the literal sense of Sacred Scriptureis the foundation of all mystical expositions, and that it alone has demonstrative force, as St. Augustine teaches, he deplores the state of Biblical studies in his time. The literal sense, he avers, is much obscured, owing partly to the unskilfulness of some of he correctors, and partly also to our own translation (the Vulgate) which not infrequently departs form the original Hebrew. He holds with St. Jerome that the text must be corrected from the Hebrew codices, except of course the prophecies concerning the Divinity of Christ. Another reason for this obscurity, Nicholas goes on to say, is the attachment of scholars to the method of interpretation handed down by others, who, though they have said many things well, have yet touched sparingly on the literal sense, and have so multiplied the mystical senses as nearly to choke it. Moreover, the text has been distorted by a multiplicity of arbitrary divisions and concordances. Hereupon he declares his intention of insisting, in the present work, upon the literal sense and
Luther owes much to Nicholas of Lyra, but how widely the principles of Nicholas differed essentially from Luther’s views is best seen from Nicholas’s own words:
William Lawson was a writer on gardening and Church of England clergyman, was probably a member of the extensive northern English gentry family of Lawson, but his parents’ names are not known. He was ordained deacon in 1580, and became vicar of Ormesby, near Teesmouth, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1583. He spent the rest of his life there. His first wife, Sibille, with whom he had two children, was buried at Ormesby in 1618; on 28 April 1619 he married Emme Tailer, who survived him. Lawson was a long-lived Yorkshire parson and a real ‘hands on’ gardener: he declares his book to be written from ‘my meer and sole experience, without respect to any former-written Treatise’. His two passions were orchards and bees and he covers all aspects of his subjects, soil management, planting and pruning, the construction of beehives, the control of various ‘nuisances’ (including birds, deer and moles) and the harvesting of fruits and honey.
This is Lawson’s only book, A new orchard and garden, has a dedication to a connection of one branch of the Lawsons, Sir Henry Belasyse. It was the first published work on gardening in the north of England, and its second section, 
St Augustine (354- 430), John Christomos (349-407) St Benedict , Pope Leo I(440-61) ( and others)
thirty five large decorated initials with nice neat pen work. This book has seen a lot of use. Some pages have been trimmed, sections have been scratched out and others corrected. many leaves have cuts and cracks some repaired earlier than later, by stitching .
Homiliary began in the 780s when Charlemagne (742/743–814) appointed Paul the Deacon to compose a Homiliary. Charlemagne,” has been represented as the sponsor or even creator of medieval education, and the Carolingian renaissance has been represented as the renewal of Western culture. This renaissance, however, built on earlier episcopal and monastic developments, and, although Charlemagne did help to ensure the survival of scholarly traditions in a relatively bleak and rude age, there was nothing like the general advance in education that occurred later 
with the cultural awakening of the 11th and 12th centuries. Learning, 
nonetheless, had no more ardent friend than Charlemagne, who came to the Frankish throne in 768 distressed to find extremely poor education systems” [EB] “Charlemagne stands out as the personification of everything that is unselfish and noble, a conqueror who visualized himself as the champion of European unity with the purpose of saving Europe through imperial conquest—an evangelist with a sword. As it turns out, Charlemagne did see himself as the Conqueror of everything pagan and heterodox and the divinely destined builder of Augustine’s City of God—of “one God, one emperor, one pope, one city of God.”[2] It was as if Charlemagne consciously sought to fulfill Plato’s vision of the ideal philosopher king. After all, Europe badly needed a conquering strong man like David of old, who could exercise wisdom and discernment in the sustainment of God’s new Jerusalem on earth.” [Gregory W. Hamilton ;
This particular Homilarium Begins [folio cxli] with 
Cyril’s jurisdiction over Jerusalem was expressly confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which he was present. At that council he voted for acceptance of the term homoousios,(“consubstantial” this term was later also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate it as being “same in essence” with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God) having been finally convinced that there was no better alternative. Cyril’s writings are filled with the loving and forgiving nature of God which was somewhat uncommon during his time period. Cyril fills his writings with great lines of the healing power of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit, like “The Spirit comes gently and makes himself known by his fragrance. He is not felt as a burden for God is light, very light. Rays of light and knowledge stream before him as the Spirit approaches. The Spirit comes with the tenderness of a true friend to save, to heal, to teach, to counsel, to strengthen and to console”. Cyril himself followed God’s message of forgiveness many times throughout his life. This is most clearly seen in his two major exiles where Cyril was disgraced and forced to leave his position and his people behind. He never wrote or showed any ill will towards those who wronged him. Cyril stressed the themes of healing and regeneration in his catechesis. the well-known Catechetical Lectures of 
Alcuin wrote many theological and dogmatic treatises, as well as a few grammatical works and a number of poems. He was made Abbot of 
Thomas Frognall Dibdin’s 
ruled and paneled in gilt, spine tooled in gilt in compartments, five raised bands, black gilt morocco lettering label, gilt board edges and turn-ins; marbled endleaves; all edges gilt.spine worn; rear joint cracking; edgewear to boards; some light soiling to boards. Hinges starting; minor occasional foxing in text; a few leaves mildly creased. A good copy with excellent fore-edge paintings. Housed in red cloth slipcase.
SMALL OCTAVO (5 3/4 x 3 5/8″). a-b⁸ c⁴ A-Z⁸.. Translated from the French by Edmund Chilmead. 
causes”) were the main elements controlling an individual’s health8. However, a reading of descriptions of the lifestyle which is most likely to lead to being infected by love melancholy makes it clear that the disease was characteristic of a specific social class. Wine, white bread, eggs, rich meats (especially white meat and stuffed poultry), nuts and most sweets were thought to be prob- lematic. Aphrodisiac foods such as honey, exotic fruits, cakes and sweet wines were considered to be extremely dangerous.
Notes, Annotations more notes translations …
261J Marcus Tullius Cicero edited by Jacques-Louis Strébée( 1480-1550)
M. Tullii Ciceronis ad M. Brutum oratorJacobi Lodoici Strebaei commentariis ab authore ipso recognitis illustratus.
Parisiis : ex officina Michaëlis. Vascosani, 1540 $4,200
Small Folio 8 X 6 1/2 inches . *6, A-08, P4, Q6 complete ([12], 224, [20]) .
Bound in modern carta rustic ,recently resewin on three leather cords It is bound in the
This copy has Extensive sixteenth-century MS marginal and interlineal annotations, underlinings etc., throughout; in French and Latin . There is inter linear notes on every section of Cicero’s text but very few notes on Strébée’s commentary.
Of the 224 pages, about 150 have notes in a small and sometimes very faint sixteenth century hand.
On the Printed title there is quite a bit of pen-starts and doodles as well as faint ownership signatures . ( There is a copy in the University of Manchester Library UML copy at R229539, whisk is catalogued as having extensive notes as well.)
Before the Printed text the annotator has written an “Argumentum”
Quoted from Tore Janson (see below for citation)
Orator
We have now to deal with another important preface by Cicero, that to Orator. It begins thus:
(Orat. 1.1) Vtrum difficilius aut maius esset negare tibi saepius idem roganti an efficere id quod rogares diu multumque, Brute, dubitaui. Nam et negare ei quem unice diligerem cuique me carissimum esse sentirem, praesertim et iusta petenti et praeclara cupienti, durum admodum mihi uidebatur, et suscipere tantam rem, quantam non modo facultate consequi difficile esset sed etiam cogitatione complecti, uix arbitrabar esse eius qui uereretur reprehensionem doctorum atque prudentium.
23 P. 196: “Ainsi donc, les trois prooemia semblent bien subordonnés à une unité supérieure, grâce à un ensemble de thèmes repris sur différents plans.”
Again we have a personal preface with a dedication. There is also a request from the dedicatee, here of even greater importance than in the prefaces to Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Oratore. The entire preface is about Cicero’s reaction to Brutus’ request for a work on the accom plished orator. Cicero pretends that he has been put in a dilemma by being asked for this. For while he feels himself obliged by his friendship with Brutus to comply with his request, he also finds the task so great that he does not believe himself capable of performing it in a satis factory way.
Here the theme of a request is for the first time exploited in the way that later became so enormously popular. With this theme, the author can emphasize as much as he wants both the difficulty of the task and his dependence on the dedicatee. It is worth while considering Cicero’s reasons for giving this form to the preface of Orator.
(Orat. 1.2) Quid enim est maius quam, cum tanta sit inter oratores bonos dissimilitudo, iudicare quae sit optima species et quasi figura dicendi?
But Cicero is also considering the direct relation between himself and his work. The greater the task is made to seem, the more natural it is that Cicero should hesitate before undertaking it:
24 See for instance Clarke pp. 80ff.
{ibid.) Quod quoniam me saepius rogas, aggrediar non tam perficiendi spe quam experiendi uoluntate.
The author is here being modest about his own capacity, yet it is hardly likely that Cicero entertained such a fear of his subject as he pretends. As Curtius has pointed out {Eur. Lit. p. 93) we have here an evident instance of affected modesty.25 This is the first time we meet with this phenomenon, to which a great deal of attention will be paid in the following.
What, then, do these statements of Cicero really amount to? First he emphasizes as strongly as possible the importance and the difficulty of his subject. Then he expresses a modest doubt as to whether he is capable of complying with the request. This doubt must not be interpreted to mean that the author is not sure of his own importance as a writer. Cicero never questions his greatness in that respect, least of all in Orator. The real import of these sentences, therefore, is approximately this: The great Cicero has set about an unusually difficult task: Behold! According to the rules of rhetoric, the reader’s attention may be excited by laying stress on the importance of the subject. So Cicero’s pretended diffidence aims in reality at pointing out to the reader how well the author has succeeded.
The two themes of the preface hitherto dealt with, elevation of the subject and doubts about the author’s ability to treat it, are intimately connected with each other. But for logical reasons they cannot form a closed unit. For if the subject is so difficult that the author does not believe that he will accomplish it, why should he grapple with it? Even if the modesty is affected and not real, it will seem ridiculous unless the author adds something to make his action seem reasonable. Consequently these two themes have to be modified by a statement to the effect that the author is compelled to write the work. This compulsion, for Cicero as for his innumerable successors, is embodied in the request from the dedicatee. The preface ends as follows:
{Orat. 1.2) Malo enim, cum studio tuo sim obsecutus, desiderari a te pruden- tiam meam quam, si id non fecerim, beneuolentiam.
This solves the dilemma we talked about in connexion with the first words of the preface. The author declares himself willing to be guided by the wish of his friend and not by his own doubts as to the possibility of performing the task.
25 Curtius* and Norden’s term is “affektierte Bescheidenheit”.
So Cicero, like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, makes his friendship a reason for writing. To appreciate this theme one has to consider the importance of friendship in Roman society by this time. Over the past fifty years there has been a great deal of research into the unique social and political structure of late republican Rome. The starting point was the fundamental book by Geizer, Die Nobilität der römischen Republik (1912), especially the second part (pp.43-116), where he treated “die sozialen Voraussetzungen der Nobilitätsherr- schaft”. Later research into friendship is surveyed in a recent book by Lossman, where the friendship between Cicero and Caesar is studied in the light of research into friendship in general. Another survey, from a different point of view, is made by Neuhauser (especially pp. 9-11), who has studied the pertinent concept of patronus. Wistrand (Chapter 2) has made a most interesting exposition of the subject, unfortunately available in Swedish only. I refer to these works and their biblio graphies for detailed information. Here I can only give a short account of the Roman concept of friendship according to modern research.
Roman society, Gelzer says, was interwoven with manifold bilateral connexions between the citizens, “Nah- und Treuverhältnisse”. These connexions were of paramount importance in the life of society. Among other things, their number and their strength decided the success of every politician; for every Roman citizen was bound to one or more of the important men of the state. In the elections he voted for the men he was bound to, and also supported them in other ways as required. So the politician who had tied to him the greatest number of citizens had the greatest chance of being elected to the offices he wanted. The groups of interconnected persons tended to be very large, and their heads were the very great men, like Pompeius, Crassus and Caesar. The political battles of the late Republic were fought between such politicians backed by vast numbers of people connected to them by ties of friend ship and fidelity. Of course the great politicians might also become connected to each other by ties of the same sort, whereupon their large bands of supporters co-operated. Such an agreement, on the highest level, was the first triumvirate.
We see that these
can be established both between an inferior and a superior and between equals. In the first case the parties may be called cliens and patronus, respectively, or they case. In both cases the fundamental mechanism is the same. One of the may be styled amici, which, of course, is the normal word in the second parties receives a service or a gift from the other and thereby becomes
bound to repay this by performing such services as may be demanded from him. The prerequisite for the origination and function of this system is that there was in society a deeply rooted conception of every man’s duty to repay the services he had received, or in other words to show his gratitude through action.
So Cicero appeals to one of the fundamental moral concepts of the Romans, the duty of showing gratia to and doing officia for an amicus. At the same time, however, his relationship to Brutus, his dedicatee, was in fact a friendship also in the more emotional sense. Cicero was very capable of making real friends, and his friendship with Brutus was no doubt the most profound one of his later years.27 The ties between them were such that Brutus might well have had enough influence on Cicero to induce him to write a book, especially as he was writing all the time anyhow. So there was in this case not only the general reasons for talking about a friend’s demand, but also really sincere friendship between author and dedicatee.
Finally the subject matter of the book is such that it was natural that Brutus should be interested in getting Cicero to treat it. For the friends had quite different opinions about what constituted the accomplished speaker. Unlike Cicero, Brutus stood for a severe atticism, and there was a great dispute on this matter between, primarily, Brutus and Calvus on one side and Cicero on the other. Orator was a contribution to this discussion. In spite of these controversies it is mainly the friend Brutus who is addressed in the book, whereas the opponent Brutus is attacked
26 Beneuolentia was the word used by Cicero to denote the affection for an amicus. Cf. Lossman p. 102 n. 1, and p. 106.
27 On this see, apart from the extant letters, the still very readable chapter on Brutus in Boissier, Ciceron et ses amis.
only cautiously and indirectly; for by this time Cicero had the strongest reasons, both political and emotional, for keeping Brutus as a friend.
The preface to Orator enables the author to stress how great and difficult his subject is, how he has hesitated to tackle it, and how amicably disposed and ready to render service he is. Cicero, as we have seen, had special reasons for emphasizing all this. On the other hand, practically every author presenting himself in a personal preface wishes to lay stress upon the same things. Consequently it is not astonishing that the line of thought in this preface has been repeated, with small changes, in so many later works.
Several important elements in the preface to Orator are the same as in the prefaces studied above, to Rhetorica ad Herennium and De Ora tore, namely the request from a dedicatee, the praise of the subject, and the emphasis on friendship with the dedicatee. In Orator, Cicero has on the whole used the same skeleton of content as in De Oratore, though with changes to suit his aims and his situation. On the one hand there is nothing about predecessors, and the value of his own work is not emphasized in the same way as before. On the other, he clearly expresses his unwillingness to treat the subject, and in this connexion mentions the dilemma in which he is put through the request. These modifications result in the preface of Orator being more logically coherent than the introductions of the earlier works. Even if this preface is adapted to the actual situation of the author, it also seems to me to have more of a fixed scheme in it than have its predecessors.
Tore Janson ACTAUNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Studia Latina Stockholmiensia
XIII LATIN PROSE PREFACES Studies in Literary Conventions By TORE JANSON ALMQVIST &WIKSELL STOCKHOLM GÖTEBORG UPPSALA (INAUGURALDISSERTATION by due permission of the Faculty of Arts and Letters of the University of Stockholm to be publicly discussed in lecture room С on Friday, May 22, 1964, at 10 a.m. for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy)
Share this: James Gray Bookseller
Like this: