Nov-Antiqua Sanctissimorum Patrum, & Probatorum Theologorum Doctrina, de Sacrae Scripturae testimoniis, in conclusionibus mere naturalibus, quae sensata experientia... [Bound after:] Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, intorno adue nuove Scienze. Attenenti all Mechanica & i Movimenti Locali...

Strasbourg; Leiden: Elzevier; Elzevier, 1636; 1638.

First edition of a great Galilean rarity, the Nov-Antiqua or ‘Letter to Christina’, with the first edition of his most important work, the Discorsi, together in a magnificent contemporary armorial binding executed for the Archbishop of Reims. The Nov-Antiqua is a “superb manifesto of the freedom of thought” (Koestler, p. 436). “Its purpose was to silence all theological objections to Copernicus. Its result was the precise opposite: it became the principal cause of the prohibition of Copernicus, and of Galileo’s downfall … As a work of polemical literature, the Letter is a masterpiece” (ibid., pp. 434). “The edition was small and the book was rigorously suppressed in Catholic countries” (Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 171). This is the first printing of Galileo’s radical letter to Christina of Lorraine, the mother of his Florentine patron Cosimo II de’ Medici, who had posed a typical court question: how the truths of science and the Bible were to be reconciled when they were in apparent contradiction. Originally written in 1615 and circulated in manuscript, Galileo upholds the primacy of science and argues for its freedom from theological interference. “Galileo argued that neither the Bible nor nature could speak falsely and that the investigation of nature was the province of the scientist, while the reconciliation of scientific facts with the language of the Bible was that of the theologian” (Stillman Drake in DSB). The work concludes with an unequivocal argument for the truth of the Copernican system. The ideas expressed were instrumental in the Inquisition’s prosecution of Galileo and condemnation of Copernicanism. It was finally published, outside Italy, by Matthias Bernegger in 1636, with an accompanying Latin translation. The Discorsi is Galileo’s last and most important work, “the first modern textbook of physics, a foundation stone in the science of mechanics” (Grolier/Horblit); the ‘two new sciences’ were the engineering science of strength of materials and the mathematical science of kinematics. Subject matter includes, among other things, uniform and accelerated motion, parabolic trajectories, the constitution of matter, the nature of mathematics, the role of experiment and reason in science, the weight of air, the nature of sound and the speed of light. The Discorsi “underlies modern physics not only because it contains the elements of the mathematical treatment of motion, but also because most of the problems that came rather quickly to be seen as problems amenable to physical experiment and mathematical analysis were gathered together in this book with suggestive discussions of their possible solution” (DSB). The Discorsi was only fully appreciated after the publication of Newton’s Principia in 1687. “Mathematicians and physicists of the later seventeenth century, Isaac Newton among them, rightly supposed that Galileo had begun a new era in the science of mechanics. It was upon his foundations that Huygens, Newton and others were able to erect the frame of the science of dynamics, and to extend its range (with the concept of universal gravitation) to the heavenly bodies” (PMM). ABPC/RBH lists only two complete copies of Nov-Antiqua in the last 40 years, both in poor condition and in later bindings. The Discorsi is more often seen on the market, but we can trace no copy in a contemporary armorial binding at auction since 1991.

Provenance: Léonore d’Étampes de Valençay (1589-1651) (arms on covers). D’Étampes de Valençay was Bishop of Chartres from June 1620 to November 1641, and Archbishop of Reims from 1641 until his death in 1651. A renowned bibliophile, his great library of some 4000 volumes was sold in 1653; the present volume appears on p. 62 of the published catalogue; W. M. Moseley, English amateur astronomer active in the early 19th century (signature on title, bookplate on front paste-down and note on front free endpaper).

In 1589, on the recommendation of Guidobaldo del Monte, Galileo (1564-1642) was appointed to the chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa. While in Pisa, in addition to carrying out his alleged demonstration at the Leaning Tower, he composed an untitled treatise on motion, now usually referred to as De motu, in which he attempted to destroy the Aristotelian dichotomy of natural versus forced motions. Its opening sections developed a theory of falling bodies derived from the buoyancy principle of Archimedes, an idea previously published by Giovanni Battista Benedetti in his Diversarum speculationum (1585). In the same treatise, Galileo derived the law governing equilibrium of weights on inclined planes and attempted to relate this law to speeds of descent. However, the results did not accord with experience—as Galileo noted and he withheld the treatise from publication.

Galileo’s position at Pisa was poorly paid, and he was out of favour with the faculty of philosophy owing to his opposition to Aristotelianism. At the end of his three-year contract he moved, once again with Guidobaldo’s assistance, to the chair of mathematics at Padua, where there were several kindred spirits, notably including Paolo Sarpi. To supplement his university income Galileo gave private lessons on fortification, military engineering, mechanics, and the use of the quadrant for artillerists. “The knowledge of artillerists, which he presumably partook of to accomplish his lessons, became the basis for his emerging new science of motion, eventually published in the Discorsi in 1638. It was this fundamental knowledge that allowed Galileo and Guidobaldo del Monte to set up the experiment to demonstrate that the trajectory of a projectile follows a parabolic path, Galileo’s first step toward formulating the law of fall” (Valleriani, p. 200). This experiment, which is described in the Discorsi, involved rolling an inked ball obliquely down an inclined plane in order to make visible the path of its trajectory.

“Toward the end of 1602, Galileo wrote to Guidobaldo concerning the motions of pendulums and the descent of bodies along the arcs and chords of circles. His deep interest in phenomena of acceleration appears to date from this time. The correct law of falling bodies, but with a false assumption behind it, is embodied in a letter to Sarpi in 1604 … No clue is given as to the source of Galileo’s knowledge of the law that the ratios of spaces traversed from rest in free fall are as those of the squares of the elapsed times … It is probable either that he observed a rough 1, 3, 5, . . . progression of spaces traversed along inclined planes in equal times and assumed this to be exact, or that he reasoned (as Christian Huygens later did) that only the odd number rule of spaces would preserve the ratios unchanged for arbitrary changes of the unit time. From this fact, the times-squared law follows immediately. Galileo’s derivation of it from the correct definition of uniform acceleration followed only at a considerably later date …

“Early in 1609, Galileo began the composition of a systematic treatise on motion in which his studies of inclined planes and of pendulums were to be integrated under the law of acceleration, known to him at least since 1604. In the composition of this treatise, he became aware that there was something wrong with his attempted derivation of 1604, which had assumed proportionality of speed to space traversed … [This treatise] De motu accelerato, which correctly defines uniform acceleration and much resembles the definitive text reproduced in his final book, seems to date from this intermediate period” (DSB).

While he was at Padua, Galileo was retained by the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine (1565-1637) to tutor her eldest son, Cosimo II de’ Medici. The granddaughter of Catherine de’ Medici, Christina re-cemented her ties to the family in 1589, when she married Ferdinando I de’ Medici of Florence. When Christina’s husband died in 1609, Cosimo succeeded him as Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Christina stayed on at the court. 

Following the great discoveries he made with the newly invented telescope, published early in 1610 in Sidereus nuncius, Galileo became famous and in June 1610 he returned from Padua to his native Tuscany as Chief Mathematician and ‘Mathematician and Philosopher’ to the Grand Duke, Cosimo II. Galileo gave Cosimo the telescope with which he discovered the four moons of Jupiter in 1610, naming them the “Medicean stars” in his honor. After Galileo joined the Medici court, he became better acquainted with the Duchess (who was actually a year younger than Galileo), and on several occasions she asked Galileo how the Copernican idea of a moving earth could be compatible with those passages of Scripture that discuss a fixed earth and a moving sun.

“What precipitated the letter was actually a conversation at a dinner party given by … Christina of Lorraine. She had voiced concern about the new Copernican system in view of the prevailing interpretations of the Scriptures, especially those texts that spoke of the earth as stationary. Father Benedetto Castelli, a Benedictine monk and a friend of Galileo, tried to allay her doubts and to counter the objections of Cosimo Boscaglia, a Pisan professor, who was also present. Castelli had succeeded Galileo in the chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa and was aware of the growing opposition to Galileo’s views on astronomy and physics from Boscaglia and others, such as the Florentine philosopher Ludovico delle Colombe. Their antipathy had been growing since the publication of Galileo’s Sidereus nuncius in 1610, describing his discoveries with the telescope and the inferences he drew from them. His critics thought he claimed too much in view of the Scriptures and the province of natural philosophy. Castelli reported by letter on the argument, outlining his own answers, which he felt effectively refuted the contentions of Professor Boscaglia.

“Fearing perhaps a threat to his position as the Tuscan court philosopher and mathematician, Galileo gathered his observations on the problem and sent them to Castelli, and the monk seems to have widely circulated copies of the missive. During the year following the exchange, anti-Galileist sentiment grew in Florence among friends and supporters of Colombe. On December 14, I614, the Dominican Tomasso Caccini preached a sermon in Santa Maria Novella attacking Galileo, reputedly by using a pun on the text of Acts I:1, ‘ye men of Galilee [Galileo], why stand ye gazing up into heaven?’ About the same time another Dominican friar, Niccolo Lorini, sent to the Holy Office a replica of Galileo’s letter to Castelli, which seems to have contained some alterations by an unknown hand that rendered the thought suspect of heresy. Upon hearing of this Galileo retrieved the original and sent his own authenticated copy to his friend Bishop Piero Dini in Rome. He asked that it be shown to influential clerics, Cardinal Bellarmine among them, to aid in the defense of the Copernican system, rumored to be facing condemnation. At the same time, mid-February of 1615, he told Bishop Dini that he was at work on an amplified version of the letter that he would send to him soon. Galileo took much more time than he had anticipated, however, probably because he decided to consult theologians in order to buttress his views with references to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. He evidently pressed Castelli and others into helping him in this. A letter from Castelli in January 1615 mentions that he will send on to Galileo some opinions of St. Augustine and other recognized authorities, which had been compiled by a Barnabite priest on the subject of the proper relationship of science to Scripture.

“The new version of the letter was completed sometime before Galileo made a visit to Rome at the end of 1615 to press his case for Copernicus. In its much-expanded form the letter seems to have been widely circulated there, as the numerous extant manuscript copies and correspondence about it suggest. Neither it nor the original version had the desired effect, unfortunately, for on February 26, 1616, Galileo was told in an interview in Rome with Cardinal Bellarmine that the Holy Office had decided to ban the teaching of the heliocentrism espoused by Copernicus. For this reason Galileo would be expected not to advocate the system. Under this stricture he could not afford to expose his ‘Letter to Christina’ to a wider audience at that time” (Moss, pp. 548-550). A committee then pronounced in 1616 that Copernicanism was heretical, and Copernicus’ book On the Revolutions (1543) was, for the first time, placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. Galileo’s trial was still 16 years away, but the stage had now been set, thanks to the Letter to Christina.

The Letter to Christina was first published in 1636, three years after Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition, by Matthias Bernegger, a Protestant born in Austria who had moved to Strasbourg in his youth. Strasbourg was at that time a free city federated with the Holy Roman Empire. Bernegger had previously published Latin translations of Galileo’s booklet on the proportional compass in 1612, and of the Dialogo in 1635 to which the Letter to Christina was originally intended to form an appendix. According to Bernegger the Letter was furnished by his and Galileo’s friend Elio Diodati, who translated it into Latin (Diodati used the pseudonym Robertus Robertinus Borussus). One might conjecture that this was with Galileo’s knowledge, but Favaro points out there is no evidence in Galileo’s correspondence that he was aware of these preparations. “There was a Preface consisting of a five-page letter from Robertinus to Bernegger, and a one-page letter from Bernegger to Robertinus … the Preface is openly critical of Galileo’s condemnation and explicitly praises his moral character … Isabelle Pantin does not exaggerate when she states that this Preface was meant to be ‘a conclusive document for Galileo’s rehabilitation’ … There was also an Appendix consisting of a four-page excerpt from Diego de Zúñiga’s Commentaries on Job, suggesting a geokinetic interpretation of the biblical passage Job 9:6; this part of Zúñiga’s book had caused its suspension in the anti-Copernican decree of 1616.

“The Latin title could be translated as New and Old Doctrine of the Most Holy Fathers and Esteemed Theologians on Preventing the Reckless Use of the Testimony of the Sacred Scripture in Purely Natural Conclusions that can be Established by Sense Experience and Necessary Demonstrations. The title conveyed several suggestions that are worth stressing. One was that the view Galileo was propounding was both old and new; new, but rooted in the tradition of the Church Fathers and the arguments of traditional theologians. Another was that Galileo was objecting to what he saw as a widespread abuse, namely using the words of Scripture to prove or disprove conclusions in astronomy. And the conclusions on which he focused were those that were capable of being conclusively proved by sense experience and necessary demonstrations, not merely those that had already been conclusively so proved; for in regard to the latter (e.g., the fact that the earth was spherical) there was no controversy, and nobody would dream of trying to overturn them on the basis of biblical texts.

“This descriptive title did indeed correspond to the content of Galileo’s essay. Its key thesis was that Scripture is not an authority on philosophical (astronomical) questions but only on questions of faith and morals. This principle would imply that those who advanced the scriptural argument against Copernicanism were committing a non sequitur or were reasoning irrelevantly; for they argued that heliocentrism must be rejected because it contradicts scriptural passages, but, given the principle, scriptural passages cannot be properly used to support astronomical conclusions. Galileo formulated his ‘new-old’ principle in a memorable aphorism that he attributed to Cardinal Cesare Baronio: ‘The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes’. Of course, Galileo could not simply state his principle and apply it against his opponents. The bulk of the Nov-Antiqua consisted of arguments designed to justify it” (Finocchiaro, p. 75).

Following Galileo’s trial and conviction in 1633, he was sent to Siena, under the charge of its archbishop, Ascanio Piccolomini. Within a few weeks Piccolomini had revived Galileo’s spirits and induced him to take up once more his old work in mechanics and bring it to a conclusion. Early in 1634 Galileo was transferred to his villa in Arcetri, in the hills above Florence. Following the death of his elder daughter in April 1634, Galileo briefly lost interest in his studies, but the unfinished work on motion soon absorbed his attention once more, and within a year it was virtually finished.

The final work, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Concerning Two New Sciences, is divided into four ‘days’. “The first two days treat the problems of matter. It is often said that these deal with the strength of materials, but claiming this is the topic makes it difficult to see why Galileo would have considered this to be an important new science. More clearly, they are Galileo's attempt to show the mathematics necessary for and the problems inherent in treating the nature of matter. Days Three and Four are a sustained treatment of the problem of local motion, and they contain the results of his research during his earlier time in Padua” (Machamer, p. 24).

“The book opens with the observation that practical mechanics affords a vast field for investigation. Shipbuilders know that large frameworks must be strongly supported lest they break of their own weight, while small frameworks are in no such danger. But if mathematics underlies physics, why should geometrically similar figures behave differently by reason of size alone? In this way the subject of strength of materials is introduced. The virtual lever is made the basis of a theory of fracture, without consideration of compression or stress; we can see at once the inadequacy of the theory and its value as a starting point for correct analysis. Galileo’s attention turns next to the problem of cohesion. It seems to him that matter consists of finite indivisible parts, parti quante, while at the same time the analysis of matter must, by its mathematical nature, involve infinitesimals, parti non quante. He does not conceal—but rather stresses—the resulting paradoxes. An inability to solve them (as he saw it) must not cause us to despair of understanding what we can. Galileo regards the concepts of ‘greater than,’ ‘less than,’ and ‘equal to’ as simply not applicable to infinite multitudes; he illustrates this by putting the natural numbers and their squares in one-to-one correspondence.

“Galileo had composed a treatise on continuous quantity (now lost) as early as 1609 and had devoted much further study to the subject. Bonaventura Cavalieri, who took his start from Galileo’s analysis, importuned him to publish that work in order that Cavalieri might proceed with the publication of his own Geometry by Indivisibles. But Galileo’s interest in pure mathematics was always overshadowed by his concern with physics, and all that is known of his analysis of the continuum is to be found among his digressions when discussing physical problems.

“Galileo’s parti non quante seem to account for his curious physical treatment of vacua. His attention had been directed to failure of suction pumps and siphons for columns of water beyond a fixed height. He accounted for this by treating water as a material having its own limited tensile strength, on the analogy of rope or copper wire, which will break of its own weight if sufficiently long. The cohesion of matter seemed to him best explained by the existence of minute vacua. Not only did he fail to suggest the weight of air as an explanation of the siphon phenomena, but he rejected that explanation when it was clearly offered to him in a letter by G. B. Baliani. Yet Galileo was not only familiar with the weight of air; he had himself devised practicable methods for its determination, set forth in this same book, giving even the correction for the buoyancy of the air in which the weighing was conducted.

“Phenomena of the pendulum occupy a considerable place in the Two New Sciences. The relation of period to length of pendulum was first given here, although it probably represents one of Galileo’s earliest precise physical observations. Precise isochronism of the pendulum appears to have been the one result he most wished to derive deductively. In discussing resistance of the air to projectile motion, he invoked observations (grossly exaggerated) of the identity of period between two pendulums of equal length weighted by bobs of widely different specific gravity. He deduced the existence of terminal constant velocity for any body falling through air, or any other medium, but mistakenly believed increase of resistance to be proportional to velocity.

“Like the pendulum, the inclined plane plays a large role in Galileo’s ultimate discussion of motion. The logical structure of his kinematics, as presented in the Two New Sciences, is this: He first defines uniform motion as that in which proportional spaces are covered in proportional times, and he then develops its laws. Next he defines uniform acceleration as that in which equal increments of velocity are acquired in equal times and shows that the resulting relations conform to those found in free fall. Postulating that the path of descent from a given height does not affect the velocity acquired at the end of a given vertical drop, he describes an experimental apparatus capable of disclosing time and distance ratios along planes of differing tilts and lengths; finally, he asserts the agreement of experiment with his theory. The experiments have been repeated in modern times, precisely as described in the Two New Sciences, and they give the results asserted. Following these definitions, assumptions, and confirmation by experiment, Galileo proceeds to derive a great many theorems related to accelerated motion.

“In the last section Galileo deduces the parabolic trajectory of projectiles from a composition of uniform horizontal motion and accelerated vertical motion. Here the concept of rectilinear inertia, previously illustrated in the Dialogo (‘Second Day’), is mathematically applied but not expressly formulated. This is followed by additional theorems relating to trajectories and by tables of altitude and distance calculated for oblique initial paths. Because of air resistance at high velocities, the tables assumed low speeds and hence were of no practical importance in gunnery. But like Galileo’s theory of fracture, they opened the way for rapid successive refinements at the hands of others” (DSB).

The Discorsi concludes with an appendix on centres of gravity. In 1587, just two years after Galileo started learning Euclid and Archimedes, he was recommended for a lectureship in mathematics at the University of Bologna. The university refused to employ him, however, because Galileo did not then have any written works that demonstrated his ability. Galileo therefore began a new area of research. “The title of the output of this research is Theoremata circa centrum gravitatis solidorum, published first in 1638 as an appendix to the Discorsi. Most of the Theoremata were written between 1587 and July 1588. It is one of Galileo’s ‘unpublished treatises,’ representing a further extension of Archimedes’ mechanics into the context of practical applications. They present theorems that demonstrate where the centers of gravity of certain bodies are located. In particular, Galileo found the center of gravity of ideal balances, whose weights are hung in a few different and well-determined distributions, and also the center of gravity of bodies like those determined by a cross-section of a parabolic conoid. Galileo probably did not approach this study casually. From a letter by Guidobaldo del Monte, it is possible to infer that several mathematicians were trying to improve, or better said, to generalize the final proposition of Federico Commandino’s Liber de centro gravitatis solidorum, as one of Galileo’s theorems from the Theoremata tries to do as well” (Valleriani, 15-16).

The Roman mathematician Luca Valerio, who had first met Galileo in Pisa in 1590, influenced him to renew his studies on centres of gravity. “Early in 1609 Galileo sent his demonstration that a parabolic line through the corners of a rectangle divided its area in the ratio of one-third to two-thirds to a friend in Rome for delivery to Luca Valerio, whose book on centers of gravity and quadrature of the parabola, De Centro Gravitatis Solidorum libri tres (1604), he greatly admired. Galileo had forgotten his meeting with Valerio at Pisa nearly twenty years before, of which the Roman mathematician reminded him in reply, praising Galileo’s demonstration. The correspondence thus opened resulted in Galileo’s sending to Valerio for criticism two principles upon which he intended to establish his treatise on motion, now greatly expanded, in June 1609” (Drake, p. 136). “Galileo repeatedly stated that he had given up the idea of publishing his early work, Theoremata, because ‘some time later, he ran across the book of Luca Valerio, a prince of geometers, and saw that this resolved the entire subject without omitting anything; hence he went no further, though his own advances were made along quite a different road from that taken by Valerio’” (Napolitani & Saito, p. 108, n. 1).

With all his writings banned by the Inquisition, Galileo hoped to have the Discorsi published by the Elzeviers. This was agreed when Louis Elzevier visited Galileo at Arcetri in May 1636. By December, with Fulgenzio Micanzio acting as intermediary, Elzevier was back in Leiden and in possession of the first three days. On 16 March of the following year, Elzevier wrote to Micanzio asking for the rest of the book; he was able to forward the fourth day to Elzevier in June. Galileo had considered including a fifth day on percussion, and his indecision over this resulted in some delay in the completion and printing of the Discorsi.

The dedication, dated Arcetri, 6 March 1638, was to Comte François de Noailles, who had been a pupil of Galileo’s in Padua, and was now French ambassador at Rome. Noailles had attempted, but without success, to alleviate Galileo’s detention at Arcetri. In the autumn of 1636, Galileo met Noailles in Poggibonsi and may have given him a copy of the Discorsi manuscript there. In the dedication, Galileo praised the publishers for their taste and skill.

“The printed TwoNew Sciences appears not to have been offered for sale before June 1638, despite its March dedication. On 7 May Micanzio reported his surprise that the book was not even mentioned in a list of titles sent by Elzevier to his Venetian agent. Noailles did not acknowledge receipt of the dedication copy until 20 July. No copies were sent in advance to the author … From a letter to Diodati supposed to have been written by Galileo on 7 August it appears that only a single copy of his book had been received, and only after he was totally blind and could not see it” (Drake, p. 386).

The Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library in Toronto holds a sammelband of 15 works on comets (including one very rare work by Galileo) in a similar binding with the same arms, formerly in the collection of Stillman Drake. Lot 785 in the Macclesfield sale (Sotheby’s, November 4, 2004: Fine, De rebus mathematicis, 1556), was also from d’Étampes de Valençay’s library.

Moseley was the author of a number of articles on astronomy in the Philosophical Magazine (e.g. ‘On Mr. Groombridge’s tables of Vesta’, vol. 61, 1823) and the Quarterly Journal of Science (e.g., ‘On the recurrence of the smallest light of the variable star Algol’, vol. 17, 1824).

[Nov-Antiqua:] Berghman, Des Impressions Elzeviriennes 636 (‘piece d'un grand interet et d’une extrême rareté’); Carli & Favaro 155; Cinti 98; Lalande p. 207; Riccardi I 515 (‘rarissimo’); Willems 441 (‘rare’). Finoccchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992, 2007. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, 1959. Moss, ‘Galileo’s Letter to Christina: Some Rhetorical Considerations,’ Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983), pp. 547-576. [Discorsi:] Carli and Favaro 162; Cinti 102; Dibner 141; Evans, Epochal achievements in the history of science 27; Horblit 36; Norman 859; Parkinson, Breakthroughs pp. 80-81; Printing and the Mind of Man 130; Riccardi I 516; Roberts & Trent, Bibliotheca Mechanica, pp. 129-130; Sparrow, Milestones 75; Wellcome 2648; Willems 468. Drake, Galileo at Work, 1978. Machamer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998. Napolitani & Saito, ‘Royal Road or Labyrinth? Luca Valerio’s De Centro Gravitatis Solidorum and the beginnings of modern mathematics,’ Bollettino di Storia delle Scienze Matematiche 24 (2004), pp. 67-124. Valleriani, Galileo Engineer, 2010.

Two work in one vol., 4to (203 x 148 mm). [Discorsi:] pp. [viii], 306 [recte 314], [6], with numerous woodcut diagrams and illustrations in text. [Nov-Antiqua:] pp. [viii], 60, [4], printed in double columns with parallel Latin and Italian text. Seventeenth-century calf gilt with gold-tooled arms of Archbishop Léonor d’Estampes de Valençay on both covers [Olivier 1663], spine gilt in compartments (minor restoration). Very light damp satin to upper outer margin of 20 pages in the Discorsi and small traces of worm hole having been professionally repaired. Nov-Antiqua with light toning.

Item #4995

Price: $250,000.00