The First Case of Piracy in the History of Printing

The First Case of Piracy in the History of Printing:
The Bolognese Counterfeit of Pietro Tomai’s Phoenix

Pietro Tomai, Phoenix seu De artificiosa memoria. Add: Verses by Antoninus Aegidius Canisius, Johannes Antonius Plebanus, Marcus Picardus, Hieronymus Butigella and C. Lycinius, [Bologna, Bazalerius de Bazaleriis, about 1492].

See the complete description here.

The Phoenix seu De artificiosa memoria by the jurist Petrus de Ravenna (ca. 1448-1508/09) – also known as Pietro Tomai (Tommai, Tomasi) – first published in Venice on 10 January 1491/92 is unquestionably one of the principal works on the art of memory produced during the Renaissance. Paolo Rossi includes it among the mnemotechnic ‘classics’: its influence was enormous, with all treatises on artificial memory published in the sixteenth and seventeenth century revealing their debt to this short work.

The Phoenix was reprinted several times during the sixteenth century, and was widely read throughout Europe. An English translation appeared in London around 1545, and the long and detailed title chosen by its translator, the printer and poet Robert Copland – The art of memory, that otherwyse is called the Phenix A boke very behouefull and profytable to all professours of scyences. Grammaryens, rethoryciens dialectyke, legystes, phylosophres, theologiens – emphasized the indispensable role of mnemonic techniques in teaching and learning, as well as the practical benefits to be gained in various professions from using this guide on artificial memory.

The work greatly influenced, among others, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who had read it in his youth and discovered in its pages – as he states in the Explicatio triginta sigillorum – the favilla or spark for elaborating his own theory of memory, symbolized by his celebrated diagrams and volvelles.

Giordano Bruno, De compendiosa architectura, & complementi artis Lullij, Paris, Gilles Gorbin, 1582.

See the complete description here.

Pietro Tomai was an esteemed lawyer. He lectured on civil and canonical law at the Universities of Bologna, Ferrara, Pavia, and Padua. In 1498 he moved to Germany where he taught at Greifswald, Wittenberg, and Cologne. His fame however rests not on his academic career or juridical competence, but rather on his prodigious memory, an ability he would demonstrate at public meetings, often in the presence of dukes and princes, or other potentially powerful patrons. Contemporary sources attest to his wondrous capacity of instantly memorizing voluminous books and then repeating them word for word, without any mistakes.

In 1574, one of his late descendants, the physician Tomaso Tomai (d. 1593), published the Historia di Ravenna, which includes a brief eulogy of his celebrated ancestor. Although the entry related to Pietro Tomai is included in the section entitled “De gl’huomini eccellenti nelle leggi“ (“On the most excellent Lawyers”), his juridical works are mentioned here only briefly and generically. Instead, the focus is completely on his legendary memory, and his highly appreciated “operetta chiamata la Fenice, ove insegna artificiosamente il modo che si deve osservare a far buona memoria”, i.e. “the booklet entitled the Phoenix, in which he presents the method for artificially strengthening the memory” (T. Tomai, Historia di Ravenna, Ravenna 1580 (2nd edition), p. 178). Tomaso Tomai also quotes the Phoenix in his popular book of secrets, the Idea del giardino del mondo, first published in 1582, inviting those who wish to improve their memory to read  “la Fenice di Pietro Thomai” (T. Tomai, Idea del giardino del mondo, Bologna 1582, p. 68).

In 1491, Pietro Tomai, then a professor at the University of Padua, decided to put in print his twelve practical rules for artificially improving one’s memory. Doing so would allow him to further disseminate what he thought to be an infallible method, one which – despite its considerable debt to Ciceronian theory – he also considered his own ‘invention’, on par with other contemporary technological novelties or commodities introduced in Venice.

The Phoenix appeared on 10 January 1492 (10 January 1491, according to the old Venetian calendar), and is entirely infused with a self-promoting spirit, starting from the title printed on the recto of the first leaf:

Foenix Dñi Petri Rauẽnatis Memoriae Magistri

Tomai’s proud self-awareness is evident not only in his qualification as a ‘Memoriae Magister’, but also in the unusual title chosen for the work: Foenix, the mythological Egyptian bird that cyclically regenerates, dying and then rising again from its own ashes, a fantastic wonder whose uniqueness was stressed in medieval bestiaries.

The author explains the meaning of the title on fol. A2r, using words that recall the image of the phoenix as presented in the thirteenth-century Trésor by Brunetto Latini, “Et cum una sit Foenix et unus iste libellus, libello si placet Foenicis nomen imponatur”, i.e. “Since there is but one Phoenix and but one booklet, if the name of Foenix pleases it may be put for the booklet”.

The desire to establish and protect the ‘uniqueness’ of his Phoenix may explain Tomai’s urgency in obtaining a privilege from Venetian authorities, despite the fact that this was not yet standard in printing. The granting of privileges has its origins in the lagunar city in 1469, when the German typographer Johannes of Speyer was granted a five-year patent for printing in Venice and its dominions. The 1469 privilege was, however, a general disposition granting the typographer’s monopoly over an ‘invention’, an administrative measure similar to those issued in favour of other skilled artisans. Another privilege related to printing followed in September 1486, given to the official historiographer Marco Antonio Sabellico (1436-1506) for the publication of his Decades rerum Venetarum. It was an exceptional arrangement, aimed at protecting the public interest of a work dealing with Venetian history and financially supported by the Republic, rather than the rights of Sabellico against illegal replication.

The first ‘real’ authorial privilege was that granted on 3 January 1492 to Pietro Tomai for his Phoenix, in order to protect both his ‘invention’ and his book.

The original act, issued by the Venetian Collegio (the Cabinet of Government), is preserved at the State Archives in Venice, and declares that no one could print his book “excepto dumtaxat illo impressore, quem praefatus doctor preeleget”, i.e. except the printer selected by the author himself, imposing punishments for transgressors. The printer was Cremona-born Bernardinus de Choris (Bernardino Cori), who was active in Venice from 1488 to 1497, occasionally in partnership with Simone da Lovere. This is the very first book-privilege in the history of printing, and a keystone in the history of intellectual property.

This is not the only example of primacy for this Venetian edition: in fact, the privilege granted to the Phoenix is the first to be entirely printed in the publication itself, immediately before the colophon. Publishing the full text of a privilege would however be an exceptional episode in the history of Venetian printing, especially if supplemented, as it is here, with the names of the illustrious Venetian patricians who had allowed it, among them Leonardo Loredan, who would be elected Doge in 1501.

It was surely an advertising expedient meant to promote the commercial success of the book while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of the author, “since by mentioning them the publisher seemed to seek to personalize the relationship between the petitioner and the powerful individuals who had consented to his request” (A. Nuovo, The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance, Leiden-Boston  2013, p. 224).

The ‘uniqueness’ of this Venetian edition ceased, however, only a few months later. In fact, despite the privilege obtained by Tomai for protecting his book, a nearly contemporary counterfeit appeared in Bologna: the first documented case of piracy, or infringement of a privilege, in the history of printing.

The printing of this counterfeit edition has been attributed to Bazalerius de Bazaleriis, a native of Bologna who, together with his brother Caligola, ran one of the earliest presses established in the thriving university city. “Like most piracies of this kind, it presumably followed the archetype at no long interval. Type 114R. was employed continuously from 1489 onwards by both brothers De Bazaleriis, but its use in bulk seems at the time to have been confined to Bazalerius, to whom the present tract is accordingly assigned” (BMC VII, 1151).

The nearly contemporary counterfeited edition closely copies the Venetian Phoenix in text and layout, respecting the line breaks as much as possible. The preliminary writings and poems celebrating Pietro’s exceptional memory are reproduced line by line, and the text opens, as in the original edition, with a five-line blank space with guide-letter.

Rather surprisingly, the last leaves of the volumes contain the entire text of the privilege issued by the Venetian Collegio, supplemented with the names of the members who voted for it (fols. d3v-d4r).

The long privilege is followed on the verso of fol. d4 by the colophon, which bears – as if nothing had happened – the original imprint and the name of the impressor Bernardinus de Choris.

The only distinguishing feature in this page concerns Choris’ large printer’s device, which is lacking in the pirated edition.

There are, however, a few slight variations in orthography, abbreviations, and signature marks, along with some errors. For example, the genitive form of author’s name ‘Petri Ravennatis’ is wrongly printed in the Bolognese counterfeit as ‘Petri Ravennati’ (fol. a2r).

More significant is the error detectable on fol. b4r, where the correct phrase ‘excitare enim memoriam naturalem’ is wrongly rendered as ‘exercitare enim memoriam naturalem’.

The Bolognese counterfeit is even rarer than the Venetian Phoenix, with only twenty-two copies recorded among institutional libraries worldwide. It is of course impossible to follow its diffusion through the centuries, and its effective presence in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sale catalogues. Owing to its colophon bearing the name of the Venetian printer Bernardinus de Choris, the pirated Phoenix is not discernible from the genuine edition. Brunet does not mention the existence of a Bolognese edition in his Manuel du libraire et de l’amateur du livre, which first appeared in 1810, and the Repertorium bibliographicum by Ludwig Hain (1838) lists only the Venetian Phoenix as well.

The copy of the Bolognese edition kept at Oxford’s Bodleian Library (Auct. 2Q 5.81) was once owned by Richard Heber (1773-1833). His extensive library was sold at auction by Sotheby between 1834 and 1837, and the title of the Phoenix is entered in the second part of the sale catalogue (see Bibliotheca Heberiana. Catalogue of the Library of the Late Richard Heber… Part The Second, London 1834, lot 5116). The entry reads:

5116.  Ravennatis (Petri) Artificiosa Memoria, Cremonae, 1491.

Here, the compiler of the Sotheby catalogue introduces a further, if unintentional disguise by wrongly indicating the printing place as Cremona, i.e. the hometown of the printer Bernardinus de Choris:

In 1898, Robert Proctor listed the edition in the section of ‘unknown’ Italian incunables without mention of the real place of printing or the printer’s name, stating that “this is a word for word reprint of the genuine edition by B. de Choris, including the colophon, but the type differs from any venetian type”, and suggesting a similarity with a Roman font used in Ferrara, a type similar “but not the same” (An Index to the Early Printed Books in the British Museum, no. 7420).

The counterfeit was definitively attributed to the Bolognese printer Bazalerius de Bazaleriis only in 1935, in the seventh volume of the Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century now in the British Museum (BMC VII 1151). Its assignment rests on the font used by the printer, the type 114R, with further evidence given by the watermark of a crown, frequent in incunables produced in Bologna.

In his paper “False Information in the Colophons of Incunabula”, Curt Bühler classifies these colophons according to three different groups labelled as ‘Accidental’, ‘Deliberate’, and ‘Dubious’. His survey also mentions the Bolognese Phoenix:

“Bazalerius de Bazaleriis in Bologna printed an edition with a colophon which states that it was produced by Bernardinus de Choris in Venice, 10 January, 1491 (Old Style). This edition is regarded by the British Museum’s catalogue as a piracy of a surviving edition which actually was produced by De Choris on that date – but it may be just as probable that Bazalerius was mechanically following his archetype verbatim”

(“False Information in the Colophons of Incunabula”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 114, 1970, p. 400).

This statement suggests the label of ‘Accidental’ be applied to the Bolognese Phoenix, and that the colophon should therefore be considered an example of ‘accidental misinformation’, a suggestion we do not find entirely convincing. We lean toward the label ‘Deliberate’, and in this case “we come upon more sinister problems: the Whys and the Wherefores?” (ibid.).

The publication of this pirated edition is a testament to the author’s fame. Tomai had taught canonical law at the University of Bologna, where he showed his exceptional capacity to memorize books, a capacity that was highly requested in the school and universities of that age. Bazalerius de Bazaleriis had already published a treatise on artificial memory in October 1489, the Roseum memoriale by Petrus de Rosenhaym (d. ca. 1440), which first appeared in Cologne around 1483. On 24 January 1491, another Bolognese printer, Francesco (Platone) de’ Benedetti, issued De omnibus ingeniiis augendae memoriae by Giovanni Michele Alberto Carrara (1438-1490). The publication of Tomai’s manual would therefore surely be a commercial success, meeting a large demand for such manuals. The privilege granted from the Venetian authorities had established that no one could print the Phoenix except the printer selected by the author himself, i.e. Bernardinus de Choris. The only solution for printing and selling the book outside Venice was therefore to maintain the (apparent) uniqueness of the Phoenix, reproducing the genuine colophon bearing the name of the printer selected by the memory master Pietro Tomai. A perfect disguise.

The Bolognese Bazalerius de Bazaleriis did indeed do a good job: the first instance of piracy in the history of printing has eluded bibliographers for centuries.

How to cite this information

Margherita Palumbo, “The First Case of Piracy in the History of Printing: The Bolognese Counterfeit of Pietro Tomai’s Phoenix” PRPH Books, 13 May 2020, https://www.prphbooks.com/blog/phoenix-counterfeit. Accessed [date].

This post is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.