As early modern Bible readers sometimes read with pen in hand, with greasy fingers, or with scissors and glue within reach, their interactions with the book could leave traces that can be detected in the surviving copies of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles. These traces, adjustments, eliminations, and additions, left purposely or by accident, preserve, in Acheson’s words, the results of ‘complex material, intellectual, emotional, and psychological interactions with the book.’1 However, before diving into the traces that the surviving Bible copies bear, it is important to remember that ‘actively’ reading a book would not necessarily leave any (clearly identifiable) traces at all. In addition, not every trace of use is necessarily related to active reading; a dried flower between the pages points to a very different, rather material way of using the book. In consequence, an ‘untraced’ page is not necessarily unread, and a ‘traced’ page might not be read at all.2
1 A Categorisation of Traces of Reading, Use, and Ownership
Categoristions are always simplified and inherently insufficient depictions of reality. Nevertheless, by creating distinct categories of traces of reading, use, and ownership, we may be able to recognise patterns in the varied and extensive entirety of material evidence in surviving copies of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles. In this study, five categories have served as the organisational framework for the registration of the miscellaneous textual, visual, and material traces that readers and users left. These traces have been registered in a database built in Access. The categorisation of traces is developed along the lines of previous studies, in particular those by Sherman, Van Duijn, and Folkerts.3 The distinction between the various types of traces has been further specified on the basis of the material evidence in the Bible copies under scrutiny. The following traces of reading, use, and ownership have been distinguished:
Ownership marks:
ownership inscription
ex libris
library stamp
genealogical note
Marking:
underlining
marks
rubrication
colouring
Annotations:
theological annotation
historical annotation
liturgical annotation
repetition/summary
correction of printed text
geographical annotation
numbering
cross-reference
word explanation
other
Unintended traces
tarnishing/damage
object traces (e.g. stains)
other
Other types of traces:
traces of restauration
added material
penmanship exercise (probatio pennae)
I.) The four types of ownership marks all share the same function within the book: they register to whom the book belonged and, in some cases, when. The category ‘ownership inscription’ is used for (written) marks of ownership such as names or signatures. Bookplates that are pasted or stamped into the book are grouped under the category of the ex libris. Contrary to individual readers, libraries or otherwise larger book collections often use stamps to state ownership. The fourth category concerns genealogical notes: single entries or lists of dates and events that together form an overview of the most important events in a family’s history, such as births, marriages, and deaths. All four types occur in more or less elaborate forms. Although many ownership marks just provide the name of the book owner, some also include a place name, date, the profession of the owner, or acquisition information (e.g. the price of the book).
II.) The practice of marking or ‘highlighting’ a certain section is categorised in four different types. Firstly, users could underline parts of the text, from single words to multiple full sentences. Markings such as manicules (pointing hands), brackets, crosses, or the writing of ‘nota bene’ in the margin have been grouped together as ‘marks’. Then, thirdly, various surviving Bible copies have (partially) been rubricated. In these Bibles, individuals – either readers or professional rubricators – have underlined chapter headings and printed summaries in red, often in combination with the rubrication of initials and printed glosses. The fourth category concerns colouring. Although one could argue whether the colouring of images can be considered marking, its effect is similar: adding colour to an image or part of an image, whether done professionally or by an individual reader, highlights that aspect of the page and directs a reader’s view to it.4
III.) Ten distinguishable types of annotations have been inventoried in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles. Annotations are understood here as hand-written, verbal responses to the book or the text, predominantly left on blank spaces in the book, such as on the flyleaves or in the margins of the pages. Theological annotations, to begin with, include responses to theological themes, reflections on confessional debates, or exegetical explanations of a certain biblical section. Annotations that focus on historical contexts of the biblical narrative have been categorised as historical annotations. The next category is the liturgical annotation, i.e. the addition of notes concerning the liturgical relevance of certain biblical sections or the inclusion of elements from the liturgical reading schedule along the Bible text. The repetition or summary, then, is one of the most common types of annotations. This type encompasses readers’ repetitions, rephrasing, or summaries of the printed text, usually noted down in the margin next to the relevant section. The category ‘correction’ is applied to register readers’ corrections of printed text, for instance by crossing out the printed variant and adding their preferred word or phrase in the margin of the page. Geographical annotations, then, concern spatial surroundings and the geographical context of a biblical section. The category of numbering is used to register the addition of verse or chapter numbering by readers. The next category to be distinguished is the cross-reference: the addition of (usually abbreviated) references to other sections of the Bible.5 The category of word explanation is used for these instances in which a reader includes the definition of a word or phrase in the margin. Then, lastly, the general category ‘other’ is used as an umbrella category to cover annotations that do not fit any of the above mentioned types, for example annotations such as calculations or grocery lists.
IV.) Unintended traces are the results of book use and reading that have not been left purposefully. These concern traces such as tarnishing or damage to the page, including undefined smudges or ripped page edges, as well as traces that have been left as a result of the placement of an object within the book. Examples are dried plant material, flies, bugs, and spiders accidently caught between the pages, or stains from objects that were once kept in the book, such as book marks or glasses. Unintended traces that do not fall within one of these categories are registered as ‘other’.6
V.) Three other categories of reading traces remain. Firstly, there is the category of added material. This encompasses the traces or presence of ‘non- original’ – i.e. not foreseen by the printer-publisher – material, textual, or visual elements in the book. These elements have been placed between the book’s pages, included in the binding, or glued onto the page. A recurring example is the inclusion of late sixteenth-century biblical maps and charts. A following category is the penmanship exercise, used here to register marks and annotations that seem to be the result of a reader testing their pen or practising their handwriting. The last category concerns traces of restauration, such as edges that have been repaired with (Japanese) paper. Although these are not readers’ traces as such, their presence does provide information about the ‘life of the book’, particularly within institutional contexts.
2 The Omnipresence of Traces
The interactions between Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles and their readers resulted in a plethora of traces, scattered over the 189 copies studied here. This does not mean, however, that every surviving copy contains evident traces of early modern reading and/or annotation. At least fourteen copies do not contain any detectable, datable early modern traces: no ownership notes, no markings, no annotations, no clearly identifiable unintended traces, and no additions of material. This does not mean that they contain none of these aspects in general, as some of these feature, for instance, library stamps or pencil inscriptions made by modern librarians. At the other end of the spectrum are nine heavily annotated copies, i.e. copies that contain hundreds of annotations, underscorings, or markings. Within those two extremes lay all other copies. Close to being ‘untraced’ is, for instance, a 1542a Liesvelt Bible (Leiden, ULL, 504 A 3). This copy contains only one evident early modern trace: a small annotation consisting of the word ‘crown’ (kruin) is made in the margin next to Leviticus 19:27: ‘Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.’ This single word, a repetition of the printed text, is the only trace left by this late sixteenth-century or early seventeenth-century hand, and indeed, the only detectable early modern trace of reading and use in the entire copy.
As discussed in section 2.1, blank space could function as ‘an invitation … [and] a site of curiosity.’7 The blank spaces in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles indeed served regularly as spaces for response, consideration, and writing. Ownership marks are found predominantly, but not exclusively, on title pages and flyleaves, and annotations are generally made in the margins across the book, although more extensive notes have been written on flyleaves as well. White spaces between paragraphs and underneath the endings of Bible books are also occasionally used for annotations and references. The placement of handwritten notes on flyleaves has led to the loss of a potentially large number of annotations; the position of flyleaves on the outsides of the book, usually not as part of the main quires of the book, made them easily replaceable, either by early modern users or by nineteenth-century librarians. Furthermore, marginal annotations have been partially lost because the edges of a considerable number of copies were cropped.
Certain Bible books are annotated and marked more often than others. Regularly annotated Bible books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the four Gospels, and St. Paul’s letters – particularly those to the Romans and Corinthians. Out of the Gospels, the Gospel of Mark is annotated the least. This likely relates to the fact that this Gospel was not commonly read in Mass.8
With regard to the written annotations in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles, the most common subtype is the repetition or summary. Readers have repeated keywords or phrases from the printed text in the margin as a way to mark a specific textual section or structuralise their reading practices. Other types of annotations that occur relatively often are cross-references, liturgical annotations, and corrections of the printed text. Theological, historical, or geographical annotations – the kind of annotations that closely relate to intellectual, studious interpretation and use of the Bible text as stimulated by paratextual elements such as chronological glosses – are found predominantly in highly annotated copies. When copies bear fewer traces, these annotations are generally absent.
This study looks primarily at in-folio complete Bibles and New Testament editions. However, in the analysis of readers’ traces, a few examples are taken from surviving copies of other Bible editions by Liesvelt, namely his Epistles and Gospels, Epistles of St. Paul and the Apostles, and his separately printed Book of Wisdom. Only several copies of these editions survive, often incomplete, but these few instances provide further insight into the ‘life’ of smaller Bible editions. In general, these editions, as well as Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s New Testaments, contain less elaborate markings and annotations than the complete Bibles. Marginal annotations are rare. Verbal traces in most of these copies are limited to ownership marks, occasional cross-references, liturgical references, a few small prayers, and, in some cases, additions and corrections of the liturgical reading schedule. There are no highly annotated copies among these smaller editions, and theological, historical, or geographical annotations are practically absent.
However, not all types of traces of reading, use, and personalisation are underrepresented in the smaller editions: the addition of colour to woodcuts and rubrications of, for instance, chapter headings and capital letters, is relatively common. These occur in one third (8 out of 24) of all New Testaments, Epistles and Gospels, and other smaller Bible editions considered in this study. An example is a copy of the Epistles of St. Paul and the Apostles, printed by Jacob van Liesvelt in 1532 (The Hague, KB, KW 230 G 30). It is lavishly decorated with rubrication, penwork, coloured woodcuts and initials, and gold leaf across the first initial of each Bible book. As Folkerts and Oostindiër have argued, this book was likely illuminated in the 1520s, possibly in the convent of the Tertiaries of Galilea in The Hague.9 The addition of colour served decorative as well as structuralising functions. Colour increased the aesthetic value of the book, whilst also supporting readers’ navigation by accentuating the structure of the text. Although rubrication and colouring are not restricted to Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s smaller editions, they do occur more often in these editions than in the complete Bibles. This confirms a difference already recognised in the analysis of paratext: that complete Bibles may have been used in a context of study, whereas the smaller editions seem tailored to liturgical and devotional use.
The paratextual analysis has, furthermore, shown that Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch sometimes made different choices regarding the content and presentation of their paratextual programme. These differences are barely reflected in readers’ traces. Regardless of the confessional colour of the textual cluster, the most common traces are ownership marks (including library stamps and genealogical annotations), underlining, markings (e.g. manicules or notate bene), and annotations that provide repetitions or summaries of the printed text. However, a subcategory in which Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles are relatively overrepresented is the Latin annotation. Although in both textual clusters the vast majority of annotations, including ownership marks, are in Dutch, about fifty percent of all copies that contain Latin annotations belong to the Vulgate-based Bible cluster, even though this cluster only makes up for but one fifth of all copies under scrutiny in this study.10
In order to illustrate the variety of traces of reading and use within and between surviving Bible copies, I will turn now from this general overview to a closer description of three individual copies. Although these copies do not serve as exemplary representations of the entire corpus, they display the great diversity of traces and the contexts in which these occur. The first copy to be described here is a heavily annotated 1535 Liesvelt Bible (Oxford, BLO, Bib.Dutch.C3). This is one of the copies with the highest number of reading traces. In addition to multiple ownership marks, the book contains numerous underlinings, scribbles by a child, manicules, brackets, and annotations by two different early modern hands. The Old Testament in particular is heavily annotated, featuring markings and handwritten notes in both red and black ink on practically every page.
The front and back flyleaves of the book contain the inscriptions of various historical owners. In the early seventeenth century, the book most likely belonged to a family member of Giertje Huygensdochter and Annetje Cornelisdochter, two women whose deaths, in 1601 and 1616 respectively, have been noted down. The flyleaves also contain the names of four individual owners from the Wedding family that can all be dated to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A certain B. Wedding owned the book in 1794–1797, as his inscriptions attest, after which the book moved through the hands of Phillipps Wedding, Johannes Bernardus Wedding, and Trijn Wedding. A child called Barent W. (likely Wedding) also left his name in the book, written in large, childish letters. The stamp of the late eighteenth-century Van Tetroode book sellers in Amsterdam, placed on a flyleaf in the front of the book, suggests that B. Wedding might have bought the book from this bookshop. Later, in May 1826, a certain Joannes Janssen bought the book for 2.10 guilders.
The annotations throughout the book are made by two distinguishable early modern hands, both of which cannot be connected directly to any of the aforementioned book owners. The first hand, who writes in both black and red ink, can be dated to the second half of the sixteenth century. The second hand is from a later date, likely the second half of the seventeenth century. Both reader-annotators left underscorings, brackets, notate bene, cross-references, and more extensive annotations. In general, most annotations by the first hand consist of repetitions or small summaries of the printed text. These handwritten glosses would have helped the reader to remember and easily return to the main points the texts present, as well as functioning as entries for the reader-annotator to readily grasp the main structure of the text. This is the case, for instance, in Deuteronomy 14, which describes which creatures should and should not be eaten. The reader-annotator of hand 1 has written ‘clean animals’ (reyne dieren) and ‘unclean animals’ (onreyne dieren) in the margins of the text, pointing out where which animals are listed. In addition, the annotations are sometimes purposed to clarify part of the printed text. In the margin of 2 Samuel 11:4, the note ‘Batseba’ explicates to whom the ‘her’ in ‘and he lay with her’ (doe sliep hi bi haer) refers. However, the most striking reading trace left by hand 1 is located at the end of the Song of Songs. Here, an extensive annotation and a full-page drawing have been made. The text and image concern a meditation on the ‘bride of Christ’, copied from the second edition of T’Wonder-boeck by the anabaptist David Joris (fig. 30).11
Engraving depicting the ‘bride of Christ’ in David Joris’ T’Wonder-boeck (1583–1584). Leiden University Library, 557 A 8
The annotator of the second hand was also interested in external Reformation-oriented sources. In the book of Isaiah, they repeatedly referred to the differences between Liesvelt’s Bible chapter division and that of the deodati Bybel, likely a reference to the French Bible printed in Geneva in 1644 and translated by the Geneva-born Bible translator Giovanni Diodati. Furthermore, the annotator reveals an interest in the Hebrew origins of the Bible text. They have made reference to the Hebrew word Adon (Lord) at the beginning of Psalm 110 and left a Hebrew annotation on the flyleaf in the back of the book. The annotation is a short Hebrew blessing:
This copy corresponds with the type of books that has received the most attention in previous scholarship on reading traces: it is a copy with extensive handwritten marginalia, a number of ownership marks, and multiple annotations that serve as entries to issues concerning intertextuality and broader reading cultures. Although copies like these can, indeed, provide valuable information on the interactions between reader-annotators and their books, the vast majority of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles feature predominantly plain, white margins, and only a few traces of reading and use. Nevertheless, as I will argue in the current and following chapters, these copies should be considered of equal value in grasping the multitude of interactions between readers and their Bibles.
An example of such a copy is a 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (London, BL, 3061.i.12). Although this copy does not contain any marginal annotations on the biblical text, it bears some highly interesting traces that provide insight into practices and contexts of reading, use, and ownership. Firstly, it contains several marks of ownership that allow for a partial reconstruction of the book’s provenance history. In the back of the book, just below the colophon, a genealogical annotation describes the birth and baptism of a certain Thijsken (Mathijs) Mengels in the Limburg town of Echt, in 1629. Although the name of the annotating book owner is not revealed, this book apparently functioned within the context of the Mengels family in Echt in the first half of the seventeenth century. Pasted on one of the flyleaves in the front of the book, then, an annotated piece of paper reveals that the book was in the possession of Joannes Jacobus Stiels, former priest of Neer, also in Limburg, after 1806.13 Stiels’ annotations reflect on the rarity of this edition, which, he states, is not mentioned in Isaac Le Long’s well-known Boek-zaal der Nederduitsche Bybels. About seventy-five years later, in 1882, the copy can be located in London, in the ownership of the bibliographer Henry Stevens of Vermont (1819–1886). He was an American-born, London-based bibliographer and rare book dealer who was particularly involved in the buying and selling of English Bibles.14 Besides serving as the main supplier for book collectors such as John Carter Brown and James Lenox, Stevens was also involved in the book acquisition of the British Museum. This book, as well, was included in the library of the British Museum in 1883. This collection eventually became part of the British Library in 1973. The current shelf mark of the copy is written in pencil on one of the flyleaves in the front.
Apart from these ownership marks and the note by Joannes Jacobus Stiels, the book contains no annotations or handwritten marginalia. However, the copy does bear visual and material traces of use. Throughout the book, woodcuts and initials have been coloured by hand in red and green shades. Chapter headings, capitals, and references to God have been rubricated and some printed marginalia are marked with decorative, red brackets. In addition, the user of the red and green pens also left a cross-symbol and clover-like flower drawings in Exodus 26 and in several other places in the book. Clovers and flowers like these, sometimes referred to as ‘florilegia’, were a relatively common way of marking or decorating part of a text in the early modern period, used by, among others, Francis Bacon.15 The most surprising trace of use in this copy, however, is the presence of ten small, downy bird feathers between the pages of Leviticus 19–21. These testify to practices of use that had little to do with the reading of the biblical text as such, but rather with the use of the book as a place of safekeeping and for the conservation of material objects.16
As mentioned before, smaller Bible editions, including New Testaments, are in general less extensively ‘traced’. However, as the Liesvelt New Testament of 1540 (Stuttgart, WLB, Bb niederländ 154001) demonstrates, even a minimal number of reader and user traces in such copies can reveal elements of the interactions between the copy and its readers. This copy contains, to begin with, an ownership mark in a late sixteenth-century hand on the title page. Unfortunately, this does not result in the identification of this historic owner, because they wrote: ‘This book belongs to C’ (desen bouck behoort toe C), with an arrow pointing through the ‘C’ (fig. 7). Although this ownership mark would have made sense to the owner, it remains elusive to us. The only other mark of ownership in this copy is the black library stamp of the Württembergischen Landesbibliothek. Other pen-made traces of use and reading are verse- dividing brackets in Matthew 2 and 3, and a small, six-line prayer at the end of the book, placed onto the blank space underneath Liesvelt’s printing device. The prayer has been written by the same hand and in the same ink as the ownership mark on the title page. In addition, the copy contains unintended traces of use: many pages are discoloured and stained, in particular across the margins and in the liturgical reading schedule in the back of the book, testifying to heavy use. Despite this low number of traces, the combination of these elements implies that the book was probably used for devotional and paraliturgical reading practices, in which the reading of the biblical pericope of the corresponding day could have been combined with, or concluded by, reading the small prayer at the end of the book.
3 A Sociography of Book Owners
Before continuing on the issue of how book users interacted with their Bibles, a question that needs to be addressed is who these users were. The reconstruction of sociographical characteristics of this historic reading public provides, in a way, the very backdrop against which the analysis of the following chapters unfolds. Books were social things, determined in both their production and consumption by the social contexts in which they moved, the people by whom they were read, and the communities in which they were shared.17 Aspects such as a book owner’s level of literacy, confessional and religious background, social community, geographical location (e.g. the proximity to towns or universities), and period in time, were defining factors in reading experiences. In order to grasp the underlying incentives and motivations for the interactions between readers and their books, it is crucial to devote some attention to these characteristics of the reading public.
Marks of book ownership can allow for the identification of the private or institutional owners of a copy to a certain place and moment in time. Furthermore, when the historic owners across all surviving Bible copies are brought together, these illustrate the diverse character of the broader Bible- reading public in the early modern period. Practically all surviving Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch copies contain material evidence related to the provenance of the object, if only the stamps of the library which currently houses the book. Many copies also bear elements that allow for the reconstruction of the owners to whom the book belonged before it entered its current holding place. These can be divided into two main categories: institutional owners and private owners.18 Before attending to both of these categories, however, it should be noted that ownership does not necessarily equal readership. Books could be owned without being read or read without being owned. Furthermore, many owners would not leave their names and it is possible that not all ownership marks were made by actual owners of the book: when a book was lent out or otherwise temporarily obtained, a reader could leave their name. Nevertheless, although ownership and readership are not synonyms, they are undoubtedly connected. Institutional as well as private possessors were important agents in dictating and constructing the accessibility of a book: they would define who had access to the book and, just as crucial, who did not.
3.1 Institutional Ownership
The vast majority of the Bibles under consideration in this study are currently kept in large institutional libraries around the world, such as university libraries and national libraries. With the acquisition of the book, many institutions marked their ownership by stamping the name of the library on the title page or flyleaves of the book. The presence of similar stamps from earlier institutional owners allows for the reconstruction of the provenance history of the book. In general, these ownership marks show that a considerable number of Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch Bibles arrived in university libraries after the dismantling of numerous Dutch monasteries and seminaries in the late twentieth century. These include Bibles that were previously kept in the libraries of, for instance, the seminary in Driebergen-Rijsenburg (closed in 1967, collection is currently kept in the University Library Utrecht), the seminary in Haaren (closed in 1967, currently kept in the University Library Tilburg), and the Franciscan monastery in Weert (closed in 1996, currently kept in the University Library Utrecht) (fig. 12). Other Bibles are housed in university libraries but officially remain in the ownership of other institutions. This is the case with, for instance, the collection of the Mennonite congregation in Amsterdam (Verenigde Doopsgezinde Gemeente Amsterdam), which is kept in the special collections of the University of Amsterdam.
Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles also contain ownership marks that point to premodern, institutional ownership. This is especially the case with Peetersen van Middelburch’s 1541 complete Bible. At least six surviving 1541 Peetersen Bibles belonged to libraries of early modern monasteries.19 An example is a Bible copy (Manchester, JRM, R 60334) which, according to the ownership mark on the title page, belonged to the Franciscan convent in Eeklo: Conventus Eecloniam Fr. Min. Recollectorum, 1677. This monastery of the Friars Minor Recollects was established only a few years prior, in 1664. The convent was dismantled in 1797, but friars returned to Eeklo in 1866. The last Franciscan members of the convent left in 1986.20 Furthermore, at least one surviving copy of Peetersen’s 1541 complete Bible (currently kept in a private collection) may have functioned as part of a chained library, as the metal ring on the book binding suggests.21
However, not only Bibles that present Vulgate-based translations were kept within monastery collections. For instance, a 1542b Liesvelt Bible (Ede, private ownership) – an edition particularly known for its various outspokenly Reformation-oriented paratextual elements – once belonged to the Sint-Salvator monastery in Antwerp. The title page carries an ownership mark in a sixteenth-century or early seventeenth-century hand: Monasterij S. Salvatoris Antverpia. The Cistercian St. Salvator monastery, also called the Pieter Pot monastery, was established in 1447. In 1581, the chapel and cloister were taken over by the Calvinists, but they were re-established by the Cistercians in 1591. The monastery was permanently dismantled in 1796.22
Furthermore, the Bibles under scrutiny in this study were also housed in Protestant institutions. This is evidently the case with the Bibles owned by institutes such as the Remonstrant seminary Leiden (1544b Liesvelt New Testament; Leiden, ULL, Sem. Rem. 848) and the above-mentioned Mennonite congregation in Amsterdam (e.g. 1526 Liesvelt Bible; Amsterdam, UvA, OG 65-30). In a 1541 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (Antwerp, HC, F215118), the annotation ‘For the congregation’ (Voor de gemeijnte) on the book’s flyleaf points towards communal use in a Protestant context. Due to the lack of any other ownership marks, it remains unknown to which congregation this book belonged.
Lastly, some copies had already entered the institution where they are currently housed by the early modern period. This is the case with a 1541 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (St. Gallen, KBG, Vadslg EA 50), which is kept in the Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana in the Swiss town of St. Gallen. It was donated to this library in 1615, before which it was kept within the extensive private book collection of Jakob Studer (1574–1622).23 Similarly, the 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible that is currently kept in the Herzog August Bibliothek (Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Bibel-S. 40 101) arrived at that library in 1764, through donation by Bible collector Countess Elisabeth Sophie Marie (1683–1767).
3.2 Private Ownership
On the basis of ownership marks, ex libri, stamps, and genealogical annotations, 172 private owners of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles have been detected. Whereas some copies do not contain any traces that help identify early book owners, others allow for the identification of various owners throughout the centuries. Owners can be dated either because their ownership marks or ex libri contain a date, or on basis of their handwriting. Taking into account the insecurities that come with the dating of handwriting, among the private owners are roughly thirty book owners from the sixteenth century, forty-two from the seventeenth century, forty from the eighteenth, thirty-eight from the nineteenth, and eighteen from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The wide temporal range of these identified owners demonstrates not only that marking ownership is a timeless practice, but also that the Bibles printed by Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch in the first half of the sixteenth century remained to be used, read, and privately owned far beyond that moment of production. As in the following chapters, I will focus primarily on owners and traces that can be dated to the premodern period, i.e. the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.
Among the premodern Bible owners are fourteen women and eighty-one men. In eighteen cases, the gender of the owner can not be determined. These instances occur when, for instance, genealogical annotations do not specify whether the mother of father is the person who writes down the births and deaths of their children, or when an ownership mark does not provide a full name but only initials or a surname. Moreover, it is important to notice that the significant minority of female ownership marks did not mean that women could not have access to these Bibles. The presence of genealogical annotations in a considerable number of surviving copies testifies to the fact that the early modern Bible was regularly used within the context of a household and would have been collectively owned and used.24 Religious books, and Bibles in particular, were the type of books most likely to be owned by households in the early modern Low Countries.25 Women – as well as children, who also very rarely appear in ownership marks – would have had access to these books and their texts.26
The premodern owners of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles were predominantly located across the Northern and Southern Low Countries. In thirty-eight cases, it could be determined with more or less certainty where a historical owner lived. In some cases, the ownership mark itself provides information on the location, for instance: ‘This Bible belongs to Petrus Lera in the Katlijnestraat in the Maeght van Mechelen, 1730.’27 This specificity allows for the determination of not only the city but even the very building in which Petrus Lera lived – the ‘Maagd van Mechelen’ is a building located on what is currently Sint-Katelijnestraat 27–29, Mechelen.28 In most cases, however, ownership marks are not as specific and book owners are located on the basis of archival sources. This is the case, for example, with the sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century Bible ownership of Dirck Fredricksz and Aechte Willemsd. On the basis of their names and genealogical annotations, archival sources could be retrieved that prove that they lived in Amsterdam and baptised their children in the Nieuwe Kerk.29
The vast majority of Bible owners were located in the area between Amsterdam to the north, Brussels to the south, and Emmerik to the east, the only exceptions being three book collectors: Elisabeth Sophia Marie von Schleswig-Holstein-Norburg in Wittmoldt, Jacob Studer in St. Gallen, and Josias Lorck in Copenhagen. No fewer than eleven early modern Bible owners were located in Amsterdam. Amongst these, three Bibles were acquired in the sixteenth century, six in the seventeenth century, and two in the eighteenth century. With regard to seventeenth-century ownership, other major cities in the Northern Low Countries are also accounted for: Haarlem (three owners), Leiden (one owner), and Schiedam (one owner). In addition, Bibles were owned in places in the southern part of the Low Countries, such as Antwerp, Herentals, and Leuven. Furthermore, among the places of ownership are smaller villages as well, including places such as Dworp, Heelweg, Haastrecht, and Heer.
As the presence of owners in the Northern and the Southern Low Countries already suggests, Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles were read in both ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ contexts. It is crucial to continue to acknowledge the diffuse character of these concepts, especially in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Confessional borders were not strictly established, and the sympathies and theological notions of both individuals and religious communities remained fluid. Furthermore, most ownership marks do not evidently display the confessional stance or preferences of the book owner. In many cases, the main way to determine an owner’s religious position is thus through the information provided by their annotations, either in their responses to the printed text or by looking at genealogical annotations. Archival sources on religious sacraments, such as baptisms and marriages, and in which churches these took place, can also provide insight.30 An example is the case of Henricus van Wanraij. In his 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (Nijmegen, ULN, P.Inc.216) – an edition with a Lutheran translation – he wrote down the births, baptisms, confirmations, and deaths of his children.31 He included the date, place, and performing pastor of various Catholic sacraments, for instance: ‘1718, on 14 February … has been born our little daughter named Jacoba Maria … baptised in Culemborg by Father Borfeus,’32 and ‘1726, on 13 June, our daughter – Elisabeth – has been confirmed in Münster, by the Most Reverend Oisterhof.’33 The baptisms of Van Wanraij’s children can indeed be found in the baptism records of the Catholic St. Barbara parish in Culemborg.34 The Oisterhof referred to by Van Wanraij is probably Ferdinand Oisterhof, auxiliary bishop in Münster.35
On the basis of the ownership marks, genealogical annotations, and archival sources, it could be determined that at least fourteen premodern Bible owners were involved in Reformation-minded or Protestant congregations, and twenty-one owners were Catholic. The high number of Catholic owners is at least in part related to the fact that religious owners are easily recognisable, as they refer to themselves as suster or frater. Furthermore, Bibles that were kept by people who lived within religious communities would have a higher chance of ending up in an institutional library, which increased their chances of survival. Nevertheless, these numbers confirm that Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles were read across confessional divides.
The ownership marks in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles also demonstrate that these Bibles circulated among various levels of society. On the basis of the ownership marks and archival sources, the social status or profession of twenty premodern owners could, to a certain extent, be determined. These display great social variety, including religious men and women, two countesses, two tailors, a magistrate, a prosecutor (burmeester), a pants-maker (boksenmaker), a button-maker (knoopemaker), and a merchant.36 Among them are people who actively collected books and Bibles – such as the Copenhagen-based Lutheran collector Josias Lorck (1723–1785) and princess-countess Elisabeth Sophie Marie von Schleswig-Holstein-Norburg (1683–1767) – as well as people of lower social status for whom their Bible might have been one of the few books in their possession. I will focus now on the profiles of three private owners to illustrate this diversity: Countess Walburch van Manderschijt, merchant Jaspar Vinckel, and prior Arnoldus Truijens.
Walburch van Manderschijt’s handwritten name can be found on the title page of a 1526 Liesvelt Bible (Amsterdam, VU, XC.05039-).37 She was born in 1468 to Konrad (or Kuno) van Manderschijt, lord of Schleiden, Neuenstein, and Kasselburg, and Walburga van Horne, lady of Altena. In 1485, Countess Walburch van Manderschijt married Count Wilhelm I. von Neuenahr (ca. 1447–1497).38 They had three children: Wilhelm (II), Anna, and Hermann von Neuenahr. After the death of her first husband, Van Manderschijt married Frederik van Egmont, lord of IJsselstein and count of Buren and Leerdam, in 1502.39 As an influential noble woman, Walburch van Manderschijt actively managed her estates, finances, and the future of her children, both together with her subsequent husbands and individually.40 Although little is known about Van Manderschijt’s book collection, personal beliefs, or involvement in religious debates, her third child, Hermann von Neuenahr, born in 1492, came to be a relatively well-known humanist and advocate for an Erasmian type of religious reform. Installed as canon of Cologne cathedral when he was only three years old and enrolled in the University of Cologne at the age of twelve, his parents’ influence and aristocratic privileges evidently paved his way.41 The fact that Van Manderschijt must have acquired her Liesvelt Bible close to its publication date in 1526, because she passed away around 1530/1531, illustrates that she, in her aristocratic, humanist circle, was likely aware of the contemporary developments in vernacular Bible publication.42
In addition to the circles of nobility, the ownership marks in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles demonstrate that they also had a wide circulation among people involved in manufacture and trade. One of them is Jaspar Vinckel, who owned a 1542a Liesvelt Bible (Stuttgart, WLB, Bb.niederländ.154201). The genealogical annotations in the Bible, made by Jaspar himself and his son Jan Vinckel, disclose that Jaspar Vinckel was born in 1581, married his wife Trijn (or Catharina) Jansdochter in 1610, and died at the age of 57 in 1638. He and his wife, who passed away in 1652, were both buried in the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam.43 Jaspar Vinckel’s name is regularly found in Amsterdam’s notarial archives, in particular between ca. 1615 and 1630. In these sources, he is generally referred to as ‘merchant within this city’ (coopman binnen deser stede) and he was involved with the trade of several products, such as fish and rapeseed.44 Vinckel also established trading contracts with merchants in Bergen in Norway.45 Although the extent of Vinckel’s personal library is unknown, studies based on inventories of personal goods in the first half of the seventeenth century reveal that people of the higher middle class generally owned a couple of books, mainly religious books and Bibles.46 Extensive libraries or defined study spaces in private homes were uncommon.47 Vinckel’s extensive genealogical annotations display that this Liesvelt Bible, potentially one of the few books he owned, played a central role in the merchant’s family life.
In addition to a wide range of lay people, Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles were owned by religious men and women.48 One of them is prior Arnoldus Truijens, who wrote Fr. Arn. Truijens Prior. 1645 on the title page of his 1541 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (Leuven, MSB, P22.055.1/ Fo BIJB 1541). Frater Arnoldus Truyens took his religious vows in Mechelen in 1624, and was prior of the Augustinian hermits in Herentals and Dendermonde. He died in Diest in 1662.49 Truyens also wrote Bibliotheca Augustinianus Herendalij at the top of the title page. The Augustinian convent in Herentals was established in 1613, when twelve Augustinian hermits were brought to Herentals from the convent in Brussels. They were primarily responsible for the Latin School of Herentals.50 As Truijens’ two annotations demonstrate, the distinction between institutional and private ownership was permeable within religious contexts.51
Although this study is primarily concerned with premodern Bible owners, it is worth pointing out that the relatively large number of modern owners testifies to the continuing interest and use of these Bibles. Many of these modern owners were public figures, scholars, or librarians, who purchased these Bibles for purposes of book collection or study. They include figures such as Gustave van Havre (1817–1892), mayor of Wijnegem (near Antwerp), councillor, senator, and bibliophile, whose 1542a Liesvelt Bible (R 7.10) is currently part of the collection of Museum Plantin-Moretus.52 Another example is the Dutch-American historian, writer, and illustrator Hendrik Willem van Loon (1882–1944), who purchased his 1542a Liesvelt Bible (New York, BuNY, PML 17768) during a short stay in Amsterdam in October 1922. Just about three months prior, Van Loon had announced in his column in The Baltimore Sun that he was working on a new book, The Story of the Bible, hoping to regain the glory of his successful The Story of Mankind of 1921. Van Loon’s purchase of the Liesvelt Bible could well have been connected to his research for this work, which was eventually published in 1923. Only five years later, Van Loon donated his Liesvelt Bible – now brimming with his annotations – to the Library of the Union Theological Seminary, currently the Burke Library, in New York City.53
Van Havre and Van Loon are two examples of the various nineteenth-, twentieth-, and twenty-first-century owners of Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch Bibles to whom owning the Bible was connected primarily to scholarly, bibliophile, and historical interests.54 Simultaneously, however, sixteenth-century Bibles remained to be kept and used within families. The value that family Bibles had as heirlooms and material connections to the past ensured their continuing relevance into modern days.55 A 1534 Liesvelt Bible (Utrecht, MCC, p.i.120–73), for instance, contains genealogical annotations by the Amersfoort button-maker Jan Kamper on the births and deaths of his children between 1783 and 1792.56 One of his children continued this practice into the nineteenth century, noting that their mother, Johanna Geskes, Jan Kamper’s wife, died in 1811. Another example of the sustaining value of a family Bible can be found in a 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (The Hague, private ownership). The annotations on the flyleaf describe how the book was handed down through generations from the late sixteenth-century owners Cornelis van Beveren (1524–1586; mayor of Dordrecht) and Maria van de Valck, via the Pompe van Needervoort family in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to the Stoop family. The last notes on the flyleaf of the book date from 1982, and the book is still kept and cherished within the Stoop family.57
4 Conclusion
Traces of reading, use, and ownership are present in the vast majority of surviving Bible copies. Ranging from ownership marks to colourings and from underscorings to the presence of downy feathers, the interactions between these Bibles and their readers have been consolidated in the multitude of pieces of material evidence in surviving Bibles. Only a small percentage of the surviving copies do not contain any traces of early modern reader-book interactions at all. Enabled by the presence of blank spaces and the proximity of books and pens, early modern Bible readers left ownership marks, markings of textual, paratextual, or visual sections of the book, and annotations on the flyleaves and in the margins. They also slipped objects, additional texts, or images between the pages or bound them in with the book, while also leaving unintended traces.
The material features of a copy as well as culturally constructed reading expectations with regard to certain editions, play a role in the number and types of traces left by readers. The fact that New Testaments are generally less annotated but more often coloured might simply relate to the availability of white space – which is considerably less than in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s complete Bibles – but could also be the result of diverging reading practices between complete Bibles and partial editions.
The ownership marks in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles display a wide variety of institutional and private readers, across temporal, gender-related, geographical, confessional, professional, and social-economic divides. Among this diversity of individuals and contexts, readers and book owners would have had various relationships towards the book. The Bibles under consideration in this study functioned as family Bibles, collection items, and – in correspondence with the approaches most evidently stimulated and enabled through the paratexts in these books – as liturgical reading aids and objects of study. Hence, as they moved through time and space, these Bibles could shift not only between owners and readers, but also between expectations, intentions, and practices. Against this horizon of diversity and mobility, the following two chapters will dive even deeper into the shapes, impacts, and aims of the interactions between Bibles and their readers in the early modern Low Countries.
Acheson, ‘Introduction’, p. 2.
See also: Dobranski, ‘Reading Strategies’, pp. 109–110; Smyth, ‘Book Marks’, p. 66.
Sherman distinguishes the following categories of traces: ownership notes; penmanship exercises; cross-references; liturgical instructions; numberings (e.g. of pages or chapters); corrections; polemical notes (‘noting the bible’s support for or against a given view’); and dating of various kinds. See: Sherman, Used Books, p. 83. Sherman’s categorisation of readers’ marks only comprises written and verbal marks, and does not take into account non-verbal markings of textual passages or any other traces that are left ‘without the pen’. Van Duijn, in his study of the surviving copies of the Delft Bible (1477), distinguishes ownership marks from traces of use. He further divides traces of use into those that are connected to the text and those that are not. Traces that belong in the first category are underlining, symbols in the margin, copied words and sentences, subject and person denotation, summaries, translations, references, corrections and adaptations, comments, numbering of chapters, verses and lessons, illumination and illustration, titles and foliation, liturgical instruction, added texts, construction annotations, and added manuscript leaves. The second category consists of drawings and random illustrations, penmanship exercises, dating and documentation. See: Van Duijn, De Delftse Bijbel, p. 140. Folkerts discerns five types of notes in medieval and early modern Epistles and Gospels: ownership marks, corrections to the text, summarising comments such as ‘nota bene’ and manicules, notes that help navigation (including additions and corrections of the printed tables and rubrics), and historical notes (including genealogical annotations). See: Folkerts, ‘Middle Dutch Epistles and Gospels’, pp. 60–61.
The category of colouring demonstrates the elusiveness of the distinctions between each of the categories. As much as marking, colouring might also be seen as a way of adding material features to the book, and in some cases, it is even unclear whether the addition of colour was intended at all.
These handwritten cross-references are an addition to, and expansion of, the printed cross- references in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles, as discussed in section 3.1.
For a discussion on the relevance of studying unintended traces and the material specificities of used books, see: Smyth, ‘Book Marks’. The view upon unintentional traces developed in this thesis has been inspired by Ann-Marie Hansen’s lecture ‘Documenting evidence of book-use: intentional, unintentional and absent readers’ marks’, at the Expert Colloquium ‘In Readers’ Hands: Early Modern Books from a User’s Perspective’, Leuven, 11–13 March 2020.
Maguire 2018. See also: Berger, ‘Endleaves’, p. 282.
In the liturgical reading schedule included in Liesvelt’s Bibles, the book of Mark is referred to only fifteen times, whereas sections from the books of Matthew, Luke, and John are proposed for reading eighty-five, seventy-two, and sixty-five times. The gospel of Mark might hence be less known to many of the early modern Bible readers.
Folkerts and Oostindiër, ‘New Bibles and Old Reading Habits’, pp. 188–189. On this copy, see also: Anna de Bruyn and Renske Hoff, ‘Decoratie in druk’, Madoc, 34:4 (2021), pp. 268–269.
Among the 21 copies that do contain Latin notes are eight 1541 Peetersen van Middelburch Bibles and two Peetersen van Middelburch New Testaments. Most of the Latin annotations in Peetersen van Middelburch’s 1541 complete Bibles are ownership marks, both by institutional and personal owners.
USTC No. 1527751. On this annotation and drawing, see also section 5.2.
My gratitude goes out to Dr. Tjaard Barnard for the transcription and translation of this annotation.
Joannes Jacobus Stiels retired in 1806. In his ownership mark he refers to himself as ancient curé de Neer, so he must have acquired the book after 1806. On Stiels, see: Paul Mols, ‘Neerse pastoors en priesters (1400–1888)’, Oos Naer, 7:25 (2005).
On Henry Stevens, see: Wyman W. Parker, Henry Stevens of Vermont, American Rare Book Dealer in London, 1845–1886 (Amsterdam: N. Israel, 1963).
Sherman, Used Books, pp. 169–170. On the definition of these symbols as ‘florilegia’, see: Jaap Geraerts, AOR2 Transcriber’s Manual: fourth version (2019), p. 36.
See chapter 6.2.
The perspective of books as inherently social things that connect to communities in various ways is explored in: Rosamund Oates and Jessica Purdy (eds.), Communities of Print: Books and their Readers in Early Modern Europe (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021).
Book owners who live within religious institutions such as monasteries or beguines but who can be individually identified on the basis of their ownership marks, are considered here as private book owners.
In the early modern period, the movement of books between individuals and institutions was common. An annotation in a 1541 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (Nijmegen, ULN, OD 100 b 10) confirms this: the Bible was donated to a library in Venlo, Limburg, by a certain Joanna de Putterke in 1713. On book donations in the premodern Low Countries, see also: Uphoff, ‘Dit boec heft gegeven’.
A twentieth-century library catalogue of the Franciscan monastery of Eeklo survives in the Archief van de Vlaamse Minderbroeders Sint-Truiden, Eeklo, nr. 91.
Private collection Antwerp. It is possible that more Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch copies were part of chained libraries. We know that vernacular Bibles from this period were kept in these libraries, such as the 1528 Vorsterman Bible and the De Laet Bible of 1560, which were part of the Librije, the chained library in the Walburgis Church in Zutphen. See: Anne Dirk Renting and Joke Renting-Kuijpers, Catalogus van de Librije in de St. Walburgiskerk te Zutphen (Groningen: Uitgeverij Philip Elchers, 2008), nr. 118 and nr. 119.
On Studer’s book collection and his donations to the St. Gallen Kantonsbibliothek, see: Rudolf Gamper, Sum Jacobi Studeri Sangallensis: Die Sammlung des Bibliophilen Kaufmanns Jacob Studer (1574–1622) in der Vadiana (St. Gallen: Sabon-Verlag St. Gallen, 2001).
See also: Dibbits, Vertrouwd bezit, pp. 244–245. For an analysis of the genealogical annotations in Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles, see chapter 6.1.
See: Dibbits, Vertrouwd bezit, p. 217; Kamermans, Materiële cultuur, p. 124; Blaak, Geletterde Levens, p. 28.
An exception is the before-mentioned 1535 Liesvelt Bible (Oxford, BLO, Bib.Dutch.C3), in which a boy called Barent left his name in large, childish handwriting across the back flyleaf. He also wrote several letters and the word ‘mother’ (moeder) across the flyleaf in the front of the book. His age is unknown. Another example is a 1538 Hansken van Liesvelt Bible (Cambridge, ULC, 3.53.4), in which Leonardus Snelle, a fifteen year old student, left his name.
Desen bijbel hoort toe aen Petrus Lera inde katlijnestraat inde maeght van mechelen 1730.
See: Inventaris Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed, Stadswoning Maagd van Mechelen: https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/erfgoedobjecten/59236.
On the marriage between Dirck Frericksz and Aechte Willemsd. in 1593, see: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, DTB 406, archive number 5001, f. 456. On the baptism of their first child, Jan, in 1594, see: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, DTB 38, archive number 5001, f. 382. On the death and burial of Aechte Willemsd. in 1638, see: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, DTB 1045, archive number 5001, f. 109v and f. 110.
However, as marriages in the Dutch republic were only considered lawfully valid when solemnised ‘either in the presence of a Reformed minister or a municipal officer’, we can assume that among the names found in the marriage registers of Reformed churches there could have been individuals who identified as Catholic (Jaap Geraerts, ‘Caught between Canon and Secular Law: Catholic Marriage Practices in the Dutch Golden Age’, Arhiv für Reformationsgeschichte (Archive for Reformation History), 111:1 (2020), pp. 246–288, p. 246).
On the genealogical annotations of Henricus van Wanraij, see also section 6.1.
1718 den 14 febr. … is geboren ons dochtertje gedoopt Jacoba Maria … gedoopt tot kuilenborgh bij Pater Borfeus.
1726. den 13 Junij, is onse dochter te munster geformt – Elisabet – door den Hoogweerden heer Oisterhof.
See: St. Barbara paroche, Inv. nr. 239 (Baptismate seu Registrum Nominum Corum Qui Baptizati Sunt in Statione Culenborgensie Ab Anno 1712).
See: Wilhelm Dorow, Denkmäler alter Sprache und Kunst (Berlin: Paulische Buchhandlung, 1827), p. 222.
For all known professions and social statuses of Liesvelt and Peetersen van Middelburch Bibles, see Appendix.
The so-called Manderscheid Hours (Collection of Renate König) belonged to a different line of the Manderscheid family. On this manuscript and its owners, see: Hanno Wijsman, Luxury Bound: Illustrated Manuscript Production and Noble and Princely Book Ownership in the Burgundian Netherlands (1400–1550) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 349–350.
See also: Gunter Aders, Urkunden und Akten der Neuenahrer Heirschaften und Besitzungen Alpen, Bedburg, Harkenbroich, Helpenstein, Linnep, Wevelinghoven und Wülfrath sowie der Erbvogtei Köln (Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag GMBH Bonn, 1977), p. 217.
Aders, Urkunden und Akten, p. 234.
For the summaries of several of her transactions, see: Aders, Urkunden und Akten, p. 231; p. 233; p. 234; p. 324.
See: Charles G. Nauert, ‘Graf Hermann von Neuenahr and the Limits of Humanism in Cologne’, Historical Reflections, 15:1 (1988), pp. 65–79.
Walburch van Manderschijt’s date of death is unknown. However, the absence of her name in any charters after 1530 and the transfer of her ‘s-Hertogenbosch house – the Huis van Ysselstein which her husband Frederik van Egmond bequeathed to her – in 1530 to her stepson Floris van Egmond, suggest that she passed away not long after that year. See also: A. F. O. van Sasse van Ysselt, De voorname huizen en gebouwen van ’s-Hertogenbosch, alsmede hunne eigenaars of bewoners in vroegere eeuwen: Aanteekeningen uit de Bossche schepenprotocollen, loopende van 1500–1810 (’s-Hertogenbosch: Provinciaal Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen in Noordbrabant, 1911), p. 127.
On the burial of Catharina Jansdochter, see: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, DTB 1046, archive number 5001, f. 125v and f. 126. According to the genealogical annotations by Jan Vickel, his brother Jasper Vinckel (born in 1614) was buried in the same grave in the Oude Kerk in 1659. See also: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, DTB 1047, archive number 5001, f. 29v and f. 30.
See: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5075, registration number 513, document number 186629; Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5057, registration number 516, document number 239113.
For a contract involving Jaspar Vinckel and Bergen-based merchant Jan vanden Velt in 1627, see: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5075, registration number 516, document number 207892. One of Vinckel’s most important contacts in Bergen was Jan Gerritsz Welling, who was the godson of Vinckel’s wife Trijn Jansdochter. See: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5075, registration number 515, document number 207803. In 1627, Jan Gerritsz Welling made his godmother responsible for his affairs in Bergen and other places during his absence, as he was traveling to the East-Indies. See: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5075, registration number 516, document number 197007. Similarly, in 1627, Jaspar Vinckel himself authorizes his brother Matthijs Vinckel to take care of his affairs in his absence, implying that Jaspar Vinckel also travelled himself, although the source does not specify where to. See: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Notariële archieven, archive number 5075, registration number 516, document number 178641.
A study of personal inventories in Weesp and Weesperkapel, for instance, showed that until 1670, the maximum number of books to be owned by a wealthy, city-based individual was 13 books. See: Koolbergen, ‘De materiële cultuur’, p. 19.
See: J. van der Veen, ‘Eenvoudig en stil: Studeerkamers in 17de-eeuwse woningen, voornamelijk te Amsterdam, Deventer en Leiden’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 51 (2000), pp. 137–171, p. 145. On domestic study spaces, see also: Julie de Groot, At Home in Renaissance Bruges: Connecting Objects, People and Domestic Spaces in a Sixteenth-Century City (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2022), pp. 79–98.
The corpus does not contain any ownership marks by semi-religious people, such as beguines.
See: Daniël Verkerken and Werner Grootaers, Repertorium Ordinis Fratrum Sancti Augustini, Provincia Coloniae-Proincia Belgica, 1252–1995 (Leuven: Augustijns Historisch Instituut, 1996), p. 462.
See: Leo Braeken, De Dekenij Herentals (1603–1669): Bijdrage tot de studie van het godsdienstig leven in het bisdom Antwerpen (Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 1982), p. 162, p. 195. On the history of the Herentals Augustinian College, see also: Jan Cools, Geschiedenis van het college te Herentals (Herentals: Oud-Leerlingenbond Sint-Jozefscollege Herentals, 1984).
On personal book ownership within religious communities, and the hybridity of personal and communal ownership, see also: Flavia Bruni, ‘Friars and Friends: Books as Private or Shared Belongings in Early Modern Religious Communities’, in Rosamund Oates and Jessica Purdy (eds.), Communities of Print: Books and their Readers in Early Modern Europe (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021), pp. 99–115; Julia King, ‘Inscriptions and Ways of Owning Books among the Sisters of Syon Abbey’, The Review of English Studies, (2021), pp. 1–25, pp. 3–4.
Gustave van Havre’s large collection of manuscript, incunabula, and printed books, many of which are connected to the history of Antwerp, was auctioned by the Amsterdam auction company Frederik Muller in 1905. Curators of the Antwerp city library, renamed Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience, and Museum Plantin-Moretus collaborated with other financers to bring a large number of the books under auction back to Antwerp. On the library of Van Havre and the acquisition of his books by Antwerp libraries, see: Pierre Delsaerdt, ‘Bibliophily and Public-Private Partnership: The Library of Gustave van Havre (1817–92) and its Afterlife in Antwerp Libraries’, in Robin Myers et al. (eds.), Books on the Move: Tracking Copies through Collections and the Book Trade (New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2006), pp. 133–151.
On Hendrik Willem van Loon’s life and work in the 1920s, see: Cornelis A. van Minnen, Van Loon: Popular Historian, Journalist, and FDR Confidant (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 72–135.
Similar modern Bible owners include landowner Edward Wheatley-Balme (1819–1896), who gifted a large number of books to Cambridge Selwyn College in 1896, including his 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible (Cambridge, SC, R.23), Bible scholar Christian D. Ginsburg (1831–1914), whose 1526 Liesvelt Bible is currently kept in the Bible Society collection in Cambridge (Cambridge, ULC, 223 B 26a), and physician and philanthropist Herbert Watney (1843–1932), who bought his 1538 Hansken van Liesvelt Bible (Brussels, KBR, LP 174 C) in 1892.
On the relevance of Liesvelt’s and Peetersen van Middelburch’s Bibles as heirlooms and safekeepers for family history, see section 6.1.
Jan Kamper’s profession is mentioned when his son Johannes (born in 1791) registers for the military in 1813. See: Militieregister, inventarisnummer 675, nr. 223, Archief Eemland Amersfoort.
This 1535 Peetersen van Middelburch Bible has received media coverage in 2017 as the schoorsteenbijbel: the ‘chimney Bible’. Jan Willem Boezeman of the Augustijnenhof Documentatie- en Kenniscentrum in Dordrecht initiated a search for the current location of the Bible that was, as the handwritten genealogies of the Stoop family describe, once owned by Cornelis van Beveren. According to the genealogies and Matthijs Balen’s Beschryving der Stad Dordrecht (1676), Van Beveren allegedly kept the Bible ‘in a small black chest, which was put in the chimney’ (een zwart Kasje …, dat in de Schoorsteen wierde gezet). The story was covered by various local and national news sources, including RTV Dordrecht, Algemeen Dagblad, and Reformatorisch Dagblad. The book was also part of the exhibition ‘Werk, bid en bewonder’ at the Dordrechts Museum (November 2018 until May 2019).