Aldus Manutius: Printing Terror?

Aldus Manutius

Printer
Philip Greenberg for The New York Times

Aldus Manutius, the 16th-century Venetian printer of "libelli portatiles, or portable little books," must have been quite the terror, for in "A Tribute to the Printer Aldus Manutius, and the Roots of the Paperback" (NYT, February 26, 2015), Jennifer Schuessler tells us that he posted the following warning on the front door to his printing shop:

"Whoever you are, Aldus asks you again and again what it is you want from him . . . . State your business briefly, and then immediately go away."

Perhaps he can be forgiven such an attitude, given his series of firsts:

Aldus was the first to print Aristotle, Thucydides, Herodotus and Sophocles, among others in the Greek canon. He was possibly the first printer to compare manuscripts to arrive at the most reliable text. He was the first to use italic type. He was the first to use the semicolon in its modern sense.

Even more impressive . . .

. . . were the unwitting firsts, like what may be the earliest known version of "This page left intentionally blank," preserved in a 1513 edition of . . . Greek orators . . . along with instructions to the binder to remove the extra leaf.

"He printed the instructions in Latin and Greek . . . . But of course bookbinders couldn't read Latin or Greek."

Despite his being a holy terror, Mantius suffered competition with counterfeiters:

Things got so bad that in 1503 he printed a broadside warning consumers of the telltale marks of fake Aldines, including specific textual errors, low-quality paper with "a heavy odor" and typography that exuded, as he put it, a sort of "Gallicitas," or "Frenchiness." (Many counterfeits came from Lyon.)

"The counterfeiters just said, 'Thank you very much,' corrected their errors, and kept printing fakes."

At least they were polite . . .

Funniest Verse in the Bible?

Some king or other . . . somewhere

By Nicolas 'Somebody' Cordier

Basilica somewhere of Santa Maria Maggiore

(Image from someplace in Wikipedia)

In looking over Hebrews 2:6 this morning to prepare for today's Bible study, I was once again struck by how humorous the verse sounds, at least to some of us sometimes:

διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις λέγων τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν

But somewhere someone testified, saying, "What is a man, that you remember him or a son of man, that you care for him?"

Somewhere? Someone? Well, someone else might expect more specificity here than a careless "πού τις," especially since this psalm of 'remembrance' so obscurely cited (Psalm 8:4) is attributed to King David (cf. Psalm 7:17/8:1) and gets used in Hebrews as a messianic prooftext.

Despite how amusing this might sound to our ears, given that one would likely assume inspired text to cite inspired text in a less careless fashion, the scholar Harold Attridge, in his commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), notes the "indefiniteness with which the citation is introduced is paralleled in Philo" and suggests that this "probably reflects a common homiletic practice, whereby the expositor does not dwell on what is commonly known or presupposed" (pages 70b-71a). One of the Philo passages Attridge cites is De ebrietate 61:

εἶπε γάρ πού τις . . .

In English, this translates as:

For someone somewhere said . . .

That's certainly a close parallel, and it sounds equally peculiar to our ears since Philo was citing Genesis 20:12, in particular quoting Abraham, not the sort of fellow one would likely forget. Attridge suggests that this manner of citing scripture is "a common homiletic practice," but I haven't noticed its prevalence by anyone anywhere. Whatever its justification, it should give pause to anybody whose views on scripture tend toward bibliolatry.

Or if I might be allowed a greater degree of subversion, perhaps this manner of quoting without specifically identifying is merely a vain attempt to circumvent what someone has said somewhere:

He who quotes others lacks the ability to think for himself.

On that note, I close today's words of wit . . .

"a good Booke"

The Anatomy of Bibliomania

Holbrook Jackson

(Image from eBay)

Perhaps some of my readers will remember a previous post on a quote from Milton's Areopagitica:

[A] good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a master spirit, imbalm'd and treasur'd up on purpose to a life beyond life.

In that post, I wondered how embalming the life-blood would keep it for "a life beyond life," but earlier in the same passage, Milton writes:

For Books are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soule was whose progeny they are.

However the embalming metaphor might work, Milton clearly believes in the power of books, and those who want to read the entire passage and discover its greater power can go to paragraph 3 of Areopagitica, available in Thomas H. Luxon's Milton Reading Room.

Or one can turn to other books for possible allusions to Milton's passage. I've recently come upon two in Holbrook Jackson's Anatomy of Bibliomania. In a section on the "Diversity of Cures" provided by books, Jackson refers to Richard De Bury's observation that even obsolete books can "heal the pectoral arteries with the gift of eloquence," to which Jackson adds:

Nor need we wonder at him, for a book is no dead thing.

Obviously an allusion to Milton's remark . . . though Jackson cites Browning's Ring and the Book (i, 89-90):

. . . The thing's restorative
I' the touch and sight.

These various points occur on pages 300-301 of Jackson's own book of books, but an earlier page also contains a possible allusion to Milton. On page 291, in a section titled "Preservatives and Prophylactics," Jackson cites Thomas Frognall Dibdin's Bibliophobia (page 78) for his quote from a translation of Payne Fisher's mixed passage:

Men timely die, and Princes day by day
Moulder to dust: but Books will live for aye,
And re-embalm us in the coldest day!

I take it the "us" whom books "re-embalm" are the authors, and that the meaning here is similar to Milton's . . . which may suggest that the translator was being influenced by Milton in rendering into English that mixed Latin passage from Fisher's Elogia Sepulchralia:

Miramur perisse Homines? Monumenta fatiscunt (Anson), and Nescia Musarum sed monumenta mori (Ovid)

The English translation appears rather free, so I doubt that Milton was being directly influenced by the original Latin in Ovid.

I don't know if these blog entries of mine are at work embalming my own life-blood for "a life beyond life," but for the nonce readers can at least see from the image above that Jackson's own two-volume 1930 work has done its job of preserving his life-blood and is still available in relatively good condition:

Faint shelfwear with little or no chipping to jacket edges, spine of jacket toned, unclipped. Previous owner's bookplate on free endpaper. Water stain to bottom edge of the jacket of Volume 2, has bled red from jacket.

Though it appears that some of that red life-blood has bled a bit . . .

J.P. Moreland: Evangelicals' Over-Commitment to the Bible

J.P. Moreland:

Recovering the Christian Mind

(Image from Kingdom Triangle Website)

In my post of two days ago, on "J.P. Moreland: 'Fighting "Bibliolatry" at the Evangelical Theological Society'", I reported on Ted Olsen's summary of Moreland's paper criticizing Evangelicals for limiting themselves to the Bible for knowledge of spiritual things.

About Olsen's report, I concluded that it was:

Interesting, at least for me. Too bad that Moreland's paper isn't (yet?) online.

An anonymous reader from La Miranda, California, left the following message:

J.P. Moreland's paper is actually now online along with some of his comments at [Kingdom Triangle Discussion Forum].

I'm curious to hear more people's reactions to it and discuss.

That led me to the nine-page paper itself, "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It" (pdf), which individuals interested can now read on their own but about which I'll say a few (inadequate) things.

Moreland begins by emphasizing his own belief in biblical inerrancy, which he does not define in this article but which he has defined elsewhere ("The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy," Trinity Journal NS 7, Spring 1986, 75-86), then proceeds to his critique of a type of 'bibliolatry' that he calls "Evangelical Over-commitment to the Bible":

The sense that I have in mind is the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice. (page 1)

Moreland's basic point is that the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura does not entail a rejection of extrabiblical sources of knowledge. By "sola" is not meant "only" in the sense that no other source is allowed but in the sense of "ultimate" in the sense that other sources cannot contradict scriptural authority though they can add to the Christian's knowledge of spiritual things about which the Bible does not speak comprehensively.

Moreland speculates that the Protestant reluctance to draw upon the "general revelation" available to "right reason" might stem either from "an aversion to anything that smacks of Catholicism ... [or from] a commitment to a certain view of human depravity" (page 2).

In short -- if I may interpret here -- Moreland is allowing that Evangelicals might be too averse to Catholic views on the prominent role for reason in understanding spiritual things or too radical in their hypercalvinist emphasis upon human depravity's impairment of reason (or, obviously, both). This has also been my impression in my time spent among Evangelicals, but Moreland goes on to argue that the Bible itself appeals to natural moral law and that the Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) tradition has also always appealed to natural moral law despite its commitment to a strong view of human depravity.

Moreland therefore turns to historical and sociological explanations for Evangelical 'bibliolatry' that have to do with the fragmentation of knowledge consonant with the emphasis upon research in universities rather than teaching, the shift at universities from teaching wisdom to training students in critical thinking, the rise of scientism as an unreflective philosophical commitment, and the general increase in secularism as a means of dealing in the world, among other things.

In response to these developments, Moreland thinks, Evangelicals have retreated from reason into a sort of fideism (unreasoning and even irrational belief) -- if I may again interpret and briefly state his point.

In concluding, Moreland calls for more Evangelicals to give more attention to "extra-biblical knowledge" and to develop "biblical, theological, and philosophical justifications for such knowledge along with guidance for its use" (page 8).

I realize that I haven't done Moreland's paper justice, but as I told the anonymous commentor, "the essay-grading that I'm currently doing" might get in the way of any in-depth blogging for several days.

Therefore, go and read for thyself.

J.P. Moreland: "Fighting 'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society"

J.P. Moreland

Fighting 'Bibliolatry'

(Image from Wikipedia)

Ted Olsen, an editor at Christianity Today, is attending a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) being held in San Diego, and he reports on a talk by the philosopher J. P. Moreland:

"Postcard from San Diego: Fighting 'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society: Talbot's J.P. Moreland warns that evangelicals are 'over-committed to the Bible.'" (Christianity Today, November 14, 2007)

The ETS is the organization that Francis Beckwith used to head before he returned to Catholicism, after which, he had to step down from his position as its president. The issue was related to the ETS's membership requirements:

ETS membership has only two doctrinal requirements: you must affirm the Trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture.

The latter requirement posed the problem, apparently. Be that as it may, I find interesting that the ETS requires members to affirm the Trinity, which implies that for them, it's something additional to scripture. Of course, Trinitarianism is orthodox Christian theology, but how does the ETS ground it on the narrow foundation of Scriptural inerrancy? I'm asking in ignorance and perhaps conflating two different issues, i.e., inerrancy of the Bible and sources of theology. Possibly, the ETS insists on biblical inerrancy but allows for other sources of theological truth.

Yet, one of Moreland's points seems to be that the ETS, or perhaps Evangelicals more broadly, exclude any authority outside of scripture:

The problem, he said, is "the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice."

Which returns us to the problem that I noted. The Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible. Now, I don't doubt that the ETS has a response, for there are a lot of learned and intelligent people in it, including William Lane Craig, but the concept of the Trinity draws on the Greek philosophical tradition and would not make sense (assuming that it does make sense) outside of that tradition.

This sort of thing is what Pope Benedict XVI was referring to in his Regensberg talk as the two streams that join in the Christian tradition, namely, Jewish spirituality and Greek rationality. Readers will recall that I analyzed the Pope's address as being more critical of Protestant 'dehellenization' than of Islam. Well, Moreland could have been channeling the Pope on this in one of the points that he made:

"The sparse landscape of evangelical political thought stands in stark contrast to the overflowing garden both of evangelical biblical scholarship and Catholic reflection on reason, general revelation, and cultural and political engagement," he said. "We evangelicals could learn a lesson or two from our Catholic friends."

That wasn't as provocative a statement coming a few months after the ETS president became one of those "Catholic friends." Catholicism is on the agenda here, and Catholics are both implicitly and explicitly discussed in the meeting's many discussions of justification. But Catholicism doesn’t seem to be the "new open theism" at ETS.

By "open theism," Olson is referring to an ETS controversy of a few years back over God's omniscience, in which some evangelical theologians limited God's knowledge based on biblical passages that seem to show God looking for information or changing His mind. Apparently, the "Catholic issue" is not a hot button one:

No, more provocative was Moreland's argument about why evangelicals became over-committed to the Bible. Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism, he said, evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren't allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture, and they're not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture. As a result, he said, they're engaged in "private language games and increasingly detailed minutia" and "we're not seeing work on broad cultural themes."

Interesting, at least for me. Too bad that Moreland's paper isn't (yet?) online.