Sökresultat

Kiøbenhavn, Høppfner, (16. Martius, 1792). 4to. The entire volume of "Forordninger...", 1792 bound with the entire volumes of 1790 and 1791 as well in a very nice strictly contemporary brown full calf binding with four raised bands, gilt title-label and lovely gilt ornamentatiions to spine as well as the gilt, crowned monogram of King Chritian the VII to top of spine. Light wear and a closed tear to top capital. Otherwise in splendid condition, in- as well as ex-ternally. Stamp from the Danish Royal Military Library to front free end-paper. Pp. 69-71. [Entire volume: 146, 12 pp., 1 f. blank + 288, (8) pp., two folded tables + 323, (13) pp. woodcut vignettes of the Danish Elephant-order to title-pages]. Extremely rare first printing of the very first law anywhere in the world to abandon slave trade. From the library of King Christian VII, who passed the law, with his crowned gilt monogram to spine. With the completely groundbreaking "Forordning on Neger=Handelen" ("Decree about the Negro-Trade") of 1792, under King Christian VII, Denmark became the first country in the world to forbid slave-trade. Although the first law against slavery as such, not just slave-trade, would follow half a decade later, this first decree forbidding trading in slaves was a major milestone towards equality and freedom for all of mankind, in fact the very first of its kind in the entire world. Britain would be the next country to follow lead, and their first law against slave-trading was passed in 1807, 15 years after the Danish. After the British followed The US, Spain in 1811, Sweden in 1813, Netherlands in 1814, and France in 1817.From the 1660'ies until the end of the 18th century, about 111.000 slaves were sent from the Gold Coast in Danish Guinea to the Danish colony on the West-Indian islands St. Thomas, St. Jan, and St. Croix, this slave trade being part of a larger three-way trade between The Gold Coast, The West-Indian Islands, and Denmark. Weapons and alcohol were shipped from Denmark to Africa to buy slaves, and the slaves were transported to The West-Indies, from where other goods, especially sugar, were shipped back to Denmark. During the last decades of the 18th century, many Europeans were having concerns with the continuation of trading with slaves. One of these was the Danish Minister of Finance, himself a plantation owner, Ernst Schimmelmann (1747-1831), who was instrumental in the Royal Decree against slave-trade being formulated and passed. He was clearly affected by the general tendencies and the new Enlightenment view of mankind, the freedom and rights of man, and the question of the decency of trading in human beings. There was also a financial aspect of the wish to forbid slave trade, as it was beginning to become clear that society was moving towards a more humanistic view of all of mankind that would eventually make slave trading difficult. And apart from that there was also the question whether it was even profitable to transport slaves all the longs way over the Atlantic Ocean. Whatever the bearing arguments might have been, the present decree is a groundbreaking document that catapulted Denmark into a modern, humane world, 15 years before any other country, helping to spark a world-wide legal movement that was absolutely essential in order for the world to evolve into one that is free, humane, and equal for all of mankind.

Berlin u. Libau, Lagarde und Friederich, 1790. 8vo (204 x 135 x 60 mm). Near contemporary marbled paper binding with gilt green title-label to spine. Hinges and capitals neatly restored. Old ownership-stamp to title-page. Mid-nineteenth-century Viennese bookseller's label to pasted-down back end-paper. Occasional light foxing in some margins, otherwise clean and bright. Printed on special, heavy paper, making the volume nearly double the thickness of regular copies. LVIII, 476 pp., (1) f. (errata). Extremely rare copy, printed on special paper, of the first edition of Kant's seminal "Critique of Judgment", the third and last of his critiques, which "Kant himself regarded [..] as the coping-stone of his critical edifice; it even formed the point of departure for his successors, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, in the construction of their respective systems." (J.H. Bernard in the introduction to his translation of "Critique of Judgment). THIS MAGNIFICENT COPY IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER WE HAVE SEEN - ONE OF ONLY FOUR OR FIVE PRESENTATION-COPIES PRINTED ON SPECIAL PAPER THAT KANT HIMSELF REQUESTED FROM THE PRINTER, TO BE GIVEN TO A HANDFUL OF NAMED RECIPIENTS. From a letter to Lagarde from January 21st 1790 (see "Briefwechsel von Imm. Kant", ed. Fischer, Müller, 1912, pp. 110-11), we know that Kant had requested 20 author's copies, four of them to be printed on special paper. While the book was in the press, Kant sent Lagarde a list of presentees to whom copies on special paper should be sent. He now named five recipients, so we assume that five copies were printed on special paper, instead of the original requested four copies. The recipients were: Count J.N. Windisch-Grätz, F.H Jacobi, K.L. Reinhold, L.H. Jacob and J.F. Blumenbach (see letter to Lagarde, March 25th, 1790, "Briefwechsel von Imm. Kant", ed. Fischer, Müller, 1912, pp. 126-7). As far as we know, none of these five presentation-copies have been traced and we have never seen one of them before. Neither do we know which of the five recipients received the present copy.Together with his two other critiques, the "Critique of Judgment" arguably constitutes the most important contribution to philosophy since Aristotle and Plato. Kant's seminal third critique was extremely influential from the time of its appearance - Goethe said said it was the first philosophical book ever to move him, and Fichte called it "the crown of the critical philosophy"; "...not only did Goethe think highly of it, but it received a large measure of attention in France as well as in Germany on its first appearance. Originally published at Berlin in 1790, a Second Edition was called for in 1793; and a French translation was made by Imhoff in 1796. Other French versions are those by Keratry and Weyland in 1823, and by Barni in 1846." (J.H. Bernard). In the "Critique of Judgment", Kant develops philosophical aesthetics and teleology that comprises nature and art. This aesthetics fulfills an essential systematic function in the Kantian architectonic. It bridges the gap between reason and nature, thus serving as a complement to practical reason of which Kant had proposed a critique two years earlier.The third critique is essential to an understanding of Kant's project of a critical philosophy. It is here that he seeks to join the dimensions of human experience which he had laid bare in the two previous critiques. A number of the conceptual foundations he had laid from 1782 break down, as he tries to demonstrate that aesthetics mediates between the realm of sensibility and that of reason.In order to do so, he sets out to show that aesthetic intuition ranges over both realms. The key to this demonstration is the claim that the two realms are isomorphic. However, as Kant considers the aesthetic judgment of the products of man's artistic invention, he cannot fit them into the format of a teleology of nature. Instead, he develops a conceptual framework for aesthetic judgment which explains why the first section on the faculty of aesthetic judgment swelled to the point of dwarfing the section on the teleology of nature.In the third critique the tension which inhere in the project of a critical philosophy rises to the surface. The third critique thus provides us with an invaluable glimpse into the actual workings of the mental faculties that Kant attempted to chart in his philosophy. For this very reason, the third critique provided the point of departure for much of later idealist philosophy, especially that of Hegel whose speculative philosophy can be seen as an articulation of the topics which Kant had uncovered in the third critique. "...the Critique of Judgement completes the whole undertaking of criticism; its endeavour is to show that there are a priori principles at the basis of Judgement just as there are in the case of Understanding and of Reason; that these principles, like the principles of Reason, are not constitutive but only regulative of experience, i.e. that they do not teach us anything positive about the characteristics of objects, but only indicate the conditions under which we find it necessary to view them; and lastly, that we are thus furnished with an a priori philosophy of pleasure." (J.H. Barnard). Warda: 125.

London, Joannis Haviland, 1623 [later altered in manuscript to 1624]. Small folio. Bound in a lovely early 19th century full vellum binding with gilt borders to boards and gilt ornamentations and gilt title-label to spine.Lower front hinge cracked, but bindning still tight. A bit of edge wear, but overall very nice. Woodcut title-vignettes (burning heart) and woodcut initials in beginning. Text within single woodcut borders. (18), 493, (1 - errata) pp. Complete with both title-pages (no final blank). Old owner's name to title page (along with the dates 1624 and 1648), unlegible scribbles to second title-page, and "collated e perfect" in old hand to last leaf. A very nice and clean copy with good margins. The extremely rare first edition of what is arguably Bacon's main work "De Augmentis Scientiarum", in which he sets out to lay the foundations of science entirely anew and reform the process of knowledge for the advancement of learning. Bacon believes that the advancement of learning will ultimately relieve mankind from its miseries and needs, and as such he not only reformed the foundations of science, he also laid the philosophical foundations for the dawning of the Industrial age. His proposed change of the collective thought of mankind completely reshaped the entire course of science in history. The aim of the present work - to investigate and re-classify philosophy and the sciences - marks a turning point in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, which is still essential for our conceptions of proper methodology today.The "De Augmentis Scientarum" constitutes a greatly expanded and completely re-written version of the "Advancement of Learning" (1605). The Latin is by William Rawley, in close collaboration with Bacon himself, who oversaw the entire process. When speaking of "De Augmentis Scientiarum" one never refers the incomparable English forerunner of the work (which was only in 2 books as opposed to the 9 of the "De Augmentis Scientiarum"). The first English translation of the "De Augmentis Scientiarum" appeared in 1640 and is translated by Gilbert Wats as "Of the Advancement and Proficiencie of Learning".The "De Augmentis Scientiarum" was intended as Part 1 of Bacon's proposed, but never completed "Instauratio magna" (PMM 119). "Bacon conceived a massive plan for the reorganization of scientific method and gave purposeful thought to the relation of science to public and social life. His pronouncement "I have taken all knowledge to be my province" is the motto of his work... [His] proposal was "a total reconstruction of sciences, arts and all human knowledge... to extend the power and dominion of the human race... over the universe". The plan for this was to be set out in six parts: (1) a complete survey of human knowledge and learning; this was expounded in the "De Augmentis Scientiarum", 1623 (a greatly extended version of "The Advancement of Learning", 1605)... Of parts (3) to (5) only fragments were ever published; part (6) remained unwritten." (PMM 119 - the header being "The Advancement of Learning"). Francis Bacon's Great Instauration for learning and the sciences was thus to be introduced by his most important work, the "De Augmentis Scientiarum", which he himself considered the most fundamental for the project that caused him to be considered one of the fathers of modern science. "In "De augmentis scientiarum", which is concerned primarily with the classification of philosophy and the sciences, Bacon develops his influential view of the relation between science and theology. He distinguishes in traditional fashion between knowledge by divine revelation and knowledge by the senses, and divides the latter into natural theology, natural philosophy, and the sciences of man... Having placed his project within the complete framework of knowledge in true Aristotelian fashion, Bacon proceeds to demolish all previous pretentions to natural philosophy. His aim is to lay the foundations of science entirely anew, neither leaping to unproved general principles in the manner of the ancient philosophers nor heaping up unrelated facts in the manner of the "empirics" (among whom he counts contemporary alchemists and natural magicians). "Histories," or collections of data, are to be drawn up systematically and used to raise an ordered system of axioms that will eventually embrace all the phenomena of nature."... (D.S.B. I:374-75). For Bacon, this proposed reformation would lead to a great advancement in science and a progeny of new inventions that would relieve mankind of its miseries. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a turning point in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today.It is due to his "De Augmentis Scientiarum" that Bacon is referred to as the creator of empiricism. With this work and the work intended as the second of the Great Restauration project, the "Novum Organum, Bacon established and popularized inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, that which we now call the Baconian method, or quite simply "the scientific method". With his belief in the possibility of the advancement of learning of relieving mankind from its miseries and needs, Bacon is furthermore considered the philosophical influence behind the dawning of the Industrial age. He continually proposes that all scientific work should be done for charitable purposes, as matter of alleviating mankind's misery, and that therefore science should be practical and have the purpose of inventing useful things that will improve the conditions of mankind. This proposed change of our collective mind changed the entire course of science in history. The state was no longer merely contemplative; it became a practical and inventive state - one that would have eventually led to the inventions that made possible the Industrial Revolutions of the following centuries.It is furthermore to be noted that it is in the present work that Bacon presents his cipher method for the first time. He had first mentioned the Biliteral Cypher in a brief paragraph of his "Advancement of Learning" in 1605, but it is in the present work that he details with illustrations how to write and use the Biliteral Cypher. As most will know, Bacon's Cypher has had the greatest of impact on modern Bacon-Shakespeare scholarship. Almost all theories of Bacon as the true author of the Shakespearian corpus can be traced back to the cipher that is presented in 1624 in the "De Augmentis Scientiarum"."The system has been recognized, and used, since the day that "De Augmentis" was published, and has had its place in every translation and publication of that work since, but the ages have waited to learn that it was embedded in the original books themselves from the date of his earliest writings (1579 as now known) and infolded his secret personal history." (Elizabeth Wells Gallup, The Bi-Literal Cypher of Sir Francis Bacon Discovered in His Works and Deciphered, p. 48).As is known, since the 19th century, many people have suggested that the plays attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact written by Francis Bacon, and that the published plays contain enciphered messages to that effect. Both Ignatius L. Donnelly and Elizabeth Wells Gallup attempted to find such messages by looking for the use of Bacon's cipher in early printed editions of the plays.For roughly a century from 1850, Bacon's Cypher set the world of literature on fire. A passion for puzzles, codes, and conspiracies fuelled a widespread suspicion that Shakespeare was not the author of his plays. Professional and amateur scholars from all places all over the world have spent extraordinary amounts of time, energy, and money combing Renaissance texts in search of signatures and other messages that would reveal the true identity of their author. Also great authors and thinkers have been convinced that Shakespeare's works contained a secret message. These include Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud, Henry James, Henry Miller, etc. Francis Bacon, with his biliteral cipher -Renaissance England's first and clearest statement about how to hide texts within texts - became the leading candidate for the holder of the key to the puzzle.The cipher, which consists in an alphabet, was first printed in the present first edition, in 1623. It is to be found in Book 6, Chapter 1. It was reprinted in all the later editions of the work (2nd ed. Paris, 1624; London, 1638; English translation, Oxford, 1640) and the alphabet in all are substantially the same. Bacon devised this ingenious code in the late 1570s (when he spent three years in the entourage of the English ambassador in France), but he did not describe its workings until 1623. "Bacon gives both mathematics and analogy which he considers a science and calls "grammatical philosophy," a high place in his Great Instauration; which, when used together help to unlock the doors to that which Bacon has deliberately concealed-- including certain mysteries hidden in the Shakespeare plays. For instance, the two great books published in 1623 were the Shakespeare's Folio "Comedies, Histories & Tragedies" and Bacon's "De Augmentis Scientiarum" {the philosophical background and purpose of the Shakespeare plays} two masterpieces published together, since they are as twins, each being a key to unlock hidden treasures in the other-- two relating to the twin faculties of the mind--imagination and reason--and both drawing upon the third faculty, memory." (Peter Dawkins, "Francis Bacon Herald of the New Age"). Bacon's Cypher, however, has not only been used as the key to the Shakespearian puzzle. It was in fact a highly important cryptographical invention, which constitutes on the the very first English works on the subject (predating Both Wilkins' "Mercury" And Falconer's "Cryptomenysis"). This is one of the earliest illustrations of a cipher intended to hide a text within a text.Not only is this the first edition of "de Augmentis Scientiarum", it is also the most correct, and in addition the most beautiful. "First edition, exceedingly scarce, and according to Archbishop Tenison, the "fairest and most correct edition." A copy is in the British Museum." (Lowndes I:95). Gibson 129a. With the date on both title-pages altered in manuscript, adding a "I", as in some copies (as also noted in the description of e.g. the copy in the Huntington). This was presumably done by either the printer or publisher to those copies that remained unsold at the end of 1623. A second edition of the "De Augmentis Scientiarum" appeared in Paris in 1624. The first English translations of "De Augmentis Scientiarum" appeared in 1640.We have not been able to locate a single copy of this first edition in auctions within the last 40 years.

Riga, Hartknoch, 1781. 8vo. Comtemporary - possibly the original! - beige cardboard-binding with contemporary handwritten paper title-label to spine. Spine relaid, preserving the paper-label, with front hinge neatly reastored, perfectly matching the original paper. Smaller, hardly noticeable, restorations to back hinge and upper capital. All edges coloured in red. Front free end-paper with restorations to upper outer corner. Library-stamp (Stadt-Bibliothek Homburg) to recto and verso of title-page as well as blank part of f. a2r, all with deaccession-stamps over. Internally exceptionally nice, clean, and fresh, with hardly any spotting of any kind. Overall an excellent copy. (24), 856 pp. Rare first edition of Kant's monumental main work, arguably the most important work in the history of philosophy since Aristotle.The "Critique of Pure Reason" took Kant about a decade to write, and the work is of the utmost scarcity. It is due to this work that Kant became world famous as one of the three or four greatest philosophers of all times, and the work fundamentally changed the face of philosophy. With this work philosophy is finally provided with a new and comprehensive way of dealing systematically with the problems of philosophy. "In 1770 Kant became professor of logic and metaphysics, and at this point there is a sudden falling off in number of his publications. The cause of this became clear eleven years later when "The Critique of Pure Reason" appeared; and with it Kant became famous. Kant's great achievement was to conclude finally the lines on which philosophical speculation had proceeded in the eighteenth century, and to open up a new and more comprehensive system of dealing with the problems of philosophy... The influence of Kant is paramount to the critical method of modern philosophy. No other thinker has been able to hold with such firmness the balance between speculative and empirical ideas. His penetrating analysis of the elements involved in synthesis, and the subjective process by which these elements are realized in the individual consciousness, demonstrated the operation of "pure reason", and the simplicity and cogency of his arguments achieved immediate fame." (PMM 226). Hook & Norman 1197.PMM 226.Warda 59.

Paris, Gosselin, 1835-40. Lex 8vo. Bound in two excellent contemporary uniform black half calf bindings with blindstamped ornamentation and gilt lettering to spines. Only the slightest signs of wear to extremities. Some browning and brownspotting due to the paper quality, but overall in very nice condition. A few leaves in volume one with marginal markings. (4), XXIV, 365, (3) + (4), 455 pp. + folded, coloured map + (2), V, (3), 333, (1) + (4), 363 pp. An excellent set of the first edition of Tocqueville's monumental "Democracy in America", one of the most important texts in the history of political thought. Being the founding treatise of conservative liberalism and democracy in the 19th century, and generally "one of the most important texts on political literature" (PMM, p. 217), ""De la démocratie en Amérique"" is a classic of social sience, an analysis on the nature and institutions of American society. Beside the "Federalist Papers", it is considered one of the most significant works ever written on American political and civil life" (Books that made Europe p. 206). It is rare to find all four volumes contemporarily bound, and especially in as nice condition as here. Goldsmiths 28902-3.

Königsberg, Friedrich Nicolovius, 1793. 8vo. In the original bluish cardboardbinding, with handwritten title to spine. Binding very neatly restored at spine and extremities. Previous owner's inscriptions to front free end-paper and title-page as well as pasted-down front end-paper. One leaf with a tiny closed tear to blank outer margin and some leaves with a single hole to the blank outer margin. Light pencil-underlinings and -markings to a few leaves. Internally clean and fresh. Printed on very heavy paper (about three times the thickness of the normal paper) and with wide margins. XX, (2), 296, (2, -errata) pp. Housed in a beautiful marbled half calf box in pastiche-style, with splendidly gilt spine and gilt morrocco title-label. Extremely rare presentation-copy inscribed by the recipient, a close friend of Kant, Johann Gottfried Hasse, to whom Kant gave the present copy. The copy is one of no more than perhaps five copies printed on special paper of the first edition of Kant's "Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason", the seminal work in which he develops his religion of reason and most fully accounts for his philosophy of religion.This magnificent copy is completely unique. Not only is one of only four or five presentation-copies printed on special paper - perhaps less - that Kant himself requested from the printer, to be given to a handful of recipients; we also know to whom it was given, namely his close friend and professor of religion Johann Gottfreind Hasse. And Hasse has not only put his ownership signature in the book, he has also noted that it was given to him by Kant in the year of publication ("Donum auctoris 1793").We have not been able to find information anywhere about the presentation-copies of "Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft" specifically. There is nothing in the Kant-correspondence about that at all, and no letters to/from the publisher about them have been preserved. But we know that Kant commissioned four or five copies of "Critik der Urtheilskraft" on special paper and four copies of "Critik der reinen Vernunft". The present copy is clearly on special paper as well (about three times the size of copies on normal paper), so even though it is not mentioned anywhere, it is fair to assume that Kant also ordered about a handful copies of "Religion..." to be printed on special paper as well. However, this number might be smaller. As opposed to the other two books that we know he commissioned these copies of, the publication of "Religion..." was caught up in a controversy over censorship, and Kant was given a reprimand in the name of the Prussian emperor, Friedrich Wilhelm II. Kant was forced to pledge not to publish on matters of religion. Furthermore, copies of the "Religion..." on special paper seem not to have appeared anywhere, as opposed to the very few copies of the two other works that have surfaced; so all in all, there is absolutely no reason to think that he should have commissioned more than four or five copies of this book either. The inscription to the front free end-paper is in Hasse's hand and reads "(Donum auctoris 1793.)/ J.G. Hasse". The name of Hasse has been crossed out by the later owner, who has written his name underneath "N. Grosch...(?)/ stud. Theol./ Som[mer]. Semest[er]. [18]05" and on the title-page.The Königsberg professor J.G. Hasse (1759-1806) was a close friend of Kant and a frequent guest at his dinner table. He was a then famous German evangelist theologian and orientalist. After having graduated from the University of Jena in 1784, he became assistant professor at the faculty of philosophy there. Due to his very respected publications within science of religion, he became professor of oriental languages and later professor of theology, which is the position he possessed, when Kant gave him the present copy of his own main work on religion. A few years later, in 1801, he took over Kant's position at the academic Senate, after Kant retired from academic life. And in the last years of Kant's life, Hasse grew even closer to him. He was a frequent guest in his home and a close friend. Hasse was furthermore one of the first to publish a biography of Kant. This biography became particularly famous, because it was written by someone in the inner circle of friends. There is no doubt that Kant had tremendous respect for the renowned professor of religion, to whom he gave one of the only four or five copies printed on special paper of his own definitive work on religion. This is presumably the best presentation- or association-copy of a Kant-book that one can hope to come across. Warda: 141.

Frankfurt a. M., 1845. 8vo. Contemporary black half calf. Professionally rebacked. Title-page somewhat dusty and re-hinged. VIII, 335, (1) pp. Incredibly scarce first edition of one the most significant political publications of the 19th century, the first joint work of Marx and Engels, leading to a life-long association that would change the world. "The Holy Family" is one of the most fundamental works in the history of communism and contains the first formulations of a number of fundamental theses of dialectical and historical materialism. For instance, it is here that the idea of mass/the people as the actual maker of the history of mankind is put forth for the first time and here that Marx shows that communism is the logical conclusion of materialistic philosophy.The work became incredibly influential and caused great uproar. Lenin claimed that it was this work that laid the foundations for scientific revolutionary materialist socialism.At the end of August, 1844, Engels passed through Paris,on his way to Manchester. It was here that he met Marx (then for the second time).Marx suggested that the two of them should write a critique of Young Hegelian trend of thought then very popular in academic circles. They decided to co-author the foreword and divided up the other sections between them. Engels had already finished his chapters before leaving Paris after 10 days. Marx had the larger share of work, which he completed by the end of November 1844.The general title, "The Holy Family", was added at the suggestion of the publisher Lowenthal, being a sarcastic reference to the Bauer brothers and their supporters." "The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Critique. Against Bruno Bauer and Co." is the first joint work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. At the end of August 1844 Marx and Engels met in Paris and their meeting was the beginning of' their joint creative work in all fields of theoretical and practical revolutionary activity. By this time Marx and Engels had completed the transition from idealism to materialism and from revolutionary democratism to communism. The polemic The Holy Family was written in Paris in autumn 1844. It reflects the progress in the formation of Marx and Engels's revolutionary materialistic world outlook.In "The Holy Family" Marx and Engels give a devastating criticism of the subjectivist views of the Young Hegelians from the position of militant materialists. They, also criticize Hegel's own idealistic philosophy: giving credit for the rational element in his dialectics, they criticize the mystic side of it.The Holy Family formulates a number of fundamental theses of dialectical and historical materialism. In it Marx already approaches the basic idea of historical materialism - the decisive role of the mode of production in the development of society. Refuting the idealistic views of history which had dominated up to that time, Marx and Engels prove that of themselves progressive ideas can lead society only beyond the ideas of the old system and that "in order to carry out ideas men are needed who dispose of a certain practical force." (See p. 160 of the present edition.) The proposition put forward in the book that the mass, the people, is the real maker of the history of mankind is of paramount importance. Marx and Engels show that the wider and the more profound a change taking place in society is the more numerous Me mass effecting that change will Re Lenin especially stressed the importance of this thought and described it as one of the most profound and most important theses of historical materialism.The Holy Family contains the almost mature view of the historic role of the proletariat as the class which, by virtue of its position in capitalism, "can and must free itself" and at the same time abolish all the inhuman conditions of life of bourgeois society, for "not in vain does" the proletariat "go through the stern but steeling school of labour. The question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is what the proletariat is, and what, consequent on that being, it will be compelled to do." (pp. 52-53.)A section of great importance is "Critical Battle against French Materialism" in which Marx, briefly outlining the development of materialism in West-European philosophy, shows that communism is the logical conclusion of materialistic philosophy.The Holy Family was written largely under the influence of the materialistic views of Ludwig Feuerbach, who was, responsible to a great extent for Marx's and Engels's transition from idealism to materialism; the work also contains elements of the criticism of Feuerbach's metaphysical and contemplative materialism given by Marx in spring 1845 in his Theses on Feuerbach. Engels later defined the place of The Holy Family in the history of Marxism when he wrote: "The cult of abstract man, which formed the kernel of Feuerbach's new religion, had to be replaced by the science of real men and of their historical development. This further development of Feuerbach's standpoint beyond Feuerbach was inaugurated by Marx in 1845 in The Holy Family." (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.)The Holy Family formulates some of the basic principles of Marxist political economy. In contrast to the Utopian Socialists Marx bases the objective inevitability of the victory of communism on the fact that private property in its economic motion drives itself towards its downfall.The Holy Family dates from a period when the process of the formation of Marxism was not yet completed. This is reflected in the terminology used by Marx and Engels. Marxist scientific terminology was gradually elaborated and defined by Marx and Engels as the formation and development of their teaching progressed." (Introduction to the work by Foreign Languages Publishers)"The book made something of a splash in the newspapers. One paper noted, that it expressed socialist views since it criticised the "inadequacy of any half-measures directed at eliminating the social ailments of our time." The conservative press immediately recognized the radical elements inherent in its many arguments. One paper wrote that, in The Holy Family, "every line preaches revolt... against the state, the church, the family, legality, religion and property." It also noted that "prominence is given to the most radical and the most open communism, and this is all the more dangerous as Mr. Marx cannot be denied either extremely broad knowledge or the ability to make use of the polemical arsenal of Hegel's logic, what is customarily called 'iron logic.'Lenin would later claim this work laid the foundations for what would develop into a scientific revolutionary materialist socialism." (Marx Archive).

(Presumably Yemen), 1772. 4to. Bound in a contemporary full leather binding with flap. Boards and flap with blindtooled ornamentation. Spine worn and worn through at hinges. Back board loose at top 2/3, but still attached. A bit of worming to boards and overall signs of wear to leather. Internally well preserved, with occasional light discolouration. 170 ff. with numerous additional smaller pages of notes inserted throughout, several in different colours (pink and blue). Text throughout is written in Naskh script, in a single column. Mostly written in black ink with occasional colorful highlights. Passages of core texts are overlined, generally in red but occasionally in black or green. The first text varies between approximately 18 and 33 lines per page and is occasionally written diagonally (for example, fol. 31rv); the second is consistent at 9 lines per page with considerable interlinear notes. Portions of the text are copied by the primary scribe on smaller pages, for example ff. 70r-79v, to be distinguished from the small pages of notes that were likely inserted later. The title and author of the first text are presented in attractive green and red calligraphy on f. 1r. The scribe’s name is also written in calligraphy on f. 1r and 126r, in addition to the colophon on f. 168v, but the name has been systematically erased in all three locations, for unknown reasons. According to the colophon on f. 168v, the manuscript was copied on the first Friday of Rabi? al-Thani 1186 AH, equivalent to 3 July 1772 CE. As noted above, the scribe’s name has been erased. The style of the script and decorations suggest that it was most likely copied in or near Yemen. Texts: Fol. 1r-126v: Da'ud al-Ashkashi’s supercommentary ?ashiyah ?alá Shar? al-Mara? on A?mad Dikquz’s (15th c.) commentary on A?mad ibn Mas?ud’s (13th c.) grammatical treatise Mara? al-arwa?, on Arabic morphology. Fol. 129v-168v: ?usam al-Din al-Kati’s (d. 1358/9) commentary Shar? al-Isaghuji on Athir al-Din al-Abhari’s (d. 1265) Isaghuji. Miscellaneous notes and poems appear on front and rear flyleaves, on pages between the two texts, in margins, between lines, and on small inserted pages. Many of these paratexts are in the hand of the primary scribe. The notes discuss numerous topics, but especially grammar and logic, the subjects of the two main texts. Marginal and interlinear notes generally comment on specific passages in the main text. A few notes, especially on fol. 128r, are in Turkish, attesting to Ottoman influence. The front pastedown has a short story or riddle about Muslims and nonbelievers on a ship. Unrecorded Arabic manuscript containing two highly important treatises, the first of which is of the utmost scarcity (only three other manuscript copies of the work are known), and the other of which is of the utmost importance to the development of logic in the Arab world. Da'ud al-Ashkashi’s supercommentary “?ashiyah ?alá Shar? al-Mara?” on A?mad Dikquz’s (15th c.) commentary on A?mad ibn Mas?ud’s (13th c.) grammatical treatise “Mara? al-arwa?”, on Arabic morphology, is extremely rare, and the present manuscript is only the fourth known copy of the work known to exist. Being unrecorded, this manuscript contributes significantly to preserving an old Arabic work of logic and grammar that may otherwise have been lost and may very well shed new light on a text that is now extremely obscure. The core texts are relatively well known, but al-Ashkashi’s work is extremely obscure. The spelling of his name is uncertain and virtually nothing is known about his life. There is one copy of this text in the Municipal Library of Alexandria (Egypt) and two at Princeton University (Incipit:????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????????), but so far, no scholars seem to have worked seriously with the work to determine what it may reveal. Husam al-Din al-Kati’s (d. 1358/9) commentary on Athir al-Din al-Abhari’s (d. 1265) “Isaghuji” (Isagoge) is a well-known, popular, and very influential commentary, of which several copies are known in institutions. Although al-Abhari’s Isaghuji is often described as a commentary on Porphyry’s text, it is really more of an imitation, or a text in the same genre. This extremely influential commentary constitutes an introduction to logic in the style of Porphyrios’ famous “Isagoge” of Porphyry. Being extremely popular and influential, numerous manuscripts and supercommentaries of it are known. (Incipit: ????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????). Not much is known about Husam-al-Din-Katia (who is sometimes referred to as al-Rumi) either, but we know he was a native Anatolian. Furthermore, it was his commentary (and glosses) on al-Abhari's Isagoge that became the most popular and the standard accompanying text throughout the Ottoman period. “This work is a super-commentary or gloss on Athir al-Din al-Abhari (d. 663/1264 or 1265)’s Isaghuji, a brief collection of definitions of logic terms named after its inspiration, the Neoplatonist Porphyry (Furfuriyus, d. 309 AD)’s Isagoge. Abhari’s work which only covers the Categories of Porphyry’s work, served as the standard introductory text for the study of logic in madrasas across the Islamic world until modern times, with an emphasis on elementary semantics through the syllogism. Of the many commentaries and glosses on al-Abhari’s Isaghuji, ?üsamüddin ?asan el-Kati’s was one of the most popular, and continued to be the accompanying text by which al-Abhari’s Isaghuji was studied throughout the Ottoman period. In his autobiographical entry, Tasköprüzade mentions having studied the Isagoge via ?üsamüddin el-Kati (Hüsam-i Kati)’s commentary. Well known super glosses (?ashiya) on ?üsamüddin el-Kati’s commentary were produced by Mevlana ?araca A?mad (d. 854/1450) ???? ???? ??????, Mu?yi al-Din Mu?ammad al-Barda?i (d. 927/1521) ???? ?? ???? ??????? and Mu?yi al-Din al-Taliji (al-Talishi) ??? ????? ??????? ??????? (?ashiya ?ala´ shar? ?usam al-Din al-Kati, ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? , composed in the year 1085). These works tend to be bound together in manuscript codices.” (Uiversity of St. Andrews: The Islamisation of Anatolia). The two works bound here on logic and grammar have clearly been thoroughly studied, both by the scribe, whose name has sadly been erased, and by later readers. The comments almost constitute a work in its own, and there may be much new material to be found here, for the serious scholar. This kind of supercommentary is extremely interesting and will reveal a lot about the development of logic in the Arab world over the numerous centuries that this supercommentary has come to cover - documenting an entire tradition of one of the most important disciplines from the middle ages. As of now, the present manuscript remains univestigated, as do several of this type whose contents are not just straightforward.

Kjøbenhavn, Reitzel, 1849. 8vo. XIV, (2), 320; (4), 250 pp. Bound in one original green full cloth binding with blindstamped decorative borders to boards and blindstamped lines and gilt title to spine. Rebacked preserving most of the original spine. White moiré end-papers and all edges gilt. Corners bumped. First title-page browned and brownspotting throughout. Previous owner’s neat pencil annotations about the history of the copy to back free end-paper and annotations/corrections in Kierkegaard’s hand to pp. 208 and 275 of vol. 1. Kierkegaard’s own personal copy of the second issue of Either-Or, with his own corrections – one of them correcting a “not” to an “either”! This copy is with all likelihood nr. 2116 of the auction catalogue of Kierkgaard’s book collection – there merely described as “dainty binding with gilt edges”. The title-gilding on the spine, including the types, the fond, and the size, is identical to that of the five presentation-bindings of the second edition of Either-Or that have been preserved and identified (the ones for Hertz, Andersen, and Winther being the only ones with the presentation-inscription preserved). The spine- and the border-decoration, however, differs, as there is no decorative border on the other copies, which all have gilt volume-identification on them. This is clearly one of the dainty copies Kierkegaard had made, but differing somewhat from the copies he gave away. The style of the handwritten corrections is identical to those in Kierkegaard’s copy of Stadier paa Livets Vei (Stages on Life’s Way) (ex the collection of Muüllertz). The two corrections are:Vol. 1 p. 208: correcting “ret” to “vel”, i.e. meaning to change the sentence “One rightfully feels” to “One presumably feels”Vol. 1 p. 275: correcting “ikke” to “enten”, i.e. meaning to change the sentence “I could not use the conversation…” to “I could either use the conversation…” The two errors were first publicly identified with the publication of Kierkegaard’s collected works half a century later. It is absolutely magnificent to have here what is with all likelihood Kierkegaard’s own personal copy of his magnum opus, with his own handwritten corrections in it. In the light of the history of the work, it makes perfect sense for Kierkegaard to have used and read the second edition of the work. Kierkegaard’s magnum opus Either-Or is considered the foundational work of existentialism and doubtlessly the most famous work by the greatest Scandinavian philosopher of all times, who "is now generally considered to be, however eccentric, one of the most important Christian philosophers" (PMM 314). Kierkegaard's monumental magnum opus seminally influenced later as well as contemporary philosophy and ranks as one of the most important works of philosophy of modern times. Either-Or is the earliest of Kierkegaard’s major works and the work with which he begins his pseudonymous authorship. Kierkegaard’s pseudonymity is an entire subject unto its own. The various cover names he uses play a significant role in his way of communicating and are essential to the understanding of his philosophical and religious messages. And it all properly begins here, with his groundbreaking magnum opus. Conjuring up two distinctive figures with diverging beliefs and modes of life – the aesthetic “A” of Part One, and the ethical B (note that this is the first “pseudonym” that Kierkegaard uses, in his earliest articles – no. I above)/Judge Vilhelm of Part Two, Kierkegaard presents us with the most basic reflections on the search for a meaningful existence, seen from two completely different philosophical views. This masterpiece of duality explores the foundational conflict between the ethical and the aesthetical, providing us along the way with the now so famous contemplations on music (Mozart), drama, boredom, pleasures, virtues, and, probably most famously, seduction (and rejection – The Seducer’s Diary). It is primarily Judge Vilhelm from Part Two of Either-Or that has bestowed upon Kierkegaard the reputation as the Father of Existentialism. His emphasis on taking ownership of oneself and the importance of making choices has made him the (first) personification of Existentialism and the idea that one does not passively develop into the self that he or she should be or ought to become. Kierkegaard went to great lengths to ensure that the public would not know the identity of the author was of Either-Or. He even had the draft of the work done by several hands, so that employees at the printer’s would also be deceived. Despite his efforts, however, it did not take long for the public to guess that Kierkegaard had written this astounding work. But Kierkegaard himself kept up the façade and did not accept authorship until several years later. Nothing Kierkegaard did was left to chance, which his carefully chosen pseudonyms also reflect. This also spills over in his presentation-inscriptions, which follow as strict a pattern as the pseudonyms themselves – he never signed himself the author, if his Christian name was not listed as the author on the title-page. And seeing that he had not accepted authorship of Either-Or and is not mentioned by name anywhere on the title-page (also not as the editor nor publisher as with the other pseudonymous works), he was not able to give away copies of his magnum opus, which is why no presentation-copy of the first edition exists. The appearance of the second edition of this monumental work was, naturally, carefully planned. Either-Or first appeared in 1843, and due to the great demand for the work, which had originally only been printed in ca 525 copies, it had quickly been sold out; but Kierkegaard refused to have it reprinted. In 1849, finally, he decided to let it appear again, in a textually unchanged version. When the second edition appeared (recte second issue), Kierkegaard had meanwhile owned up to the authorship of Either-Or. He had done so in 1846, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript to The Philosophical Fragments (own translation): “For the sake of manners and etiquette I hereby acknowledge, what can hardly in reality be of interest to anybody to know, that I am, as one says, the author of Either-Or (Victor Eremita), Copenhagen in February 1843...”. Now, finally, Kierkegaard could give away his magnum opus! In his Papers from 1849, Kierkegaard states (own translation): “The poets here at home each received a copy of Either-Or. I thought it my duty; and now I was able to do it; because now one cannot reasonably claim that a conspiracy is made concerning the book. -because the book is now old and its crisis over. Of course they were given the copy from Victor Eremita...” (Pap., X1A 402). Naturally, because “as little as I in Either-Or is the Seductor or the Assessor, as little am I the publisher Victor Eremita, exactly as little; he is a poetically-real subjective thinker, as he is also found in “in vino veritas.” “ (the postscript to the Postscript, 1846) But he only sent few copies to very choice people, fewer than he did most of his other works, and only three copies have been identified (to Henrik Hertz, Christian Winther, and Hans Christian Andersen). Three further copies in gift-bindings corresponding to these have been identified, but in these copies, the leaf with the presentation-inscription has also been torn out. He must have given away yet another copy – one presumably not being on vellum-paper, as, according to his own notes, he had asked the printers for six copies on vellum paper (see Pap., Vol. X, part five, p. (203).) -, making the total known (albeit not all identified) number of copies seven. “Two copies in a binding corresponding to Hertz’s copy have been traced, but in both, the front free end-paper has been torn out. It leads one to think that the completely unusual presentation inscription (signed by Victor Eremita!), for the immediate posterity has been of such a curious nature that it has tempted autograph hunters on several occasions.” (Tekstspejle, p. 97, translated from Danish). “The other book, of which the recipients stand out is the second edition of Either-Or, which appeared in May 1849. The first edition from 1843 had been sold out for several years, but Kierkegaard had refused to have it reprinted. In our context we must remember that in 1843, he was unable to send gift copies of the first edition… When, in 1843, he lets Either-Or be reprinted in textually unaltered form, he has meanwhile (1846) admitted to authorship of the work. But the wording on the title-pages of the two leaves does not allow him to sign the dedication “from the Author” or “from the publisher” or the like.” (Tekstspejle p. 96, translated from Danish). Either-Or is now not only the title of Kierkegaard’s most famous and widely read work, it is also a phrase that summarizes much of the thinking for which he is best known and a cornerstone of what we now characterize as Existentialism. The first edition caused a sensation. The second issue (termed “edition”, although it is textually unaltered) is not only the first edition of the work to appear after Kierkegaard had acknowledged authorship of it and thus also confirmed being one and the same with his most famous pseudonym, it is also the first of Kierkegaard’s works to appear in a second edition or issue. The second edition of the work is thus also of the utmost importance and is one of the only important second editions of any of Kierkegaard’s works. Only a few months after Kierkegaard died (11th of November 1855), at the beginning of April 1856, his books were put up for sale. The sale was an event which created stir among scholars all over Denmark, and the event drew large crowds. Everyone wanted a piece of the recently deceased legend, and bidding was lively. The average price for the single items was nearly a rix-dollar a very high price for that time. As the old Herman Lynge wrote in a letter on the 22nd of May (The Royal Library, Recent Letters, D.), to the famous collector F.S. Bang, “At the sale of Dr. Søren Kierkegaard’s books everything went at very high prices, especially his own works, which brought 2 or 3 times the published prices”.” (Rohde Auction Catalogue, p. LVIJ). Many authors, philosophers, and scholars were present in the auction room, which was completely full, as was the Royal Library, who bought ca 80 lots. “Many of the books, not only his own, were paid for with much higher prices than in the book shops” (In Morgenposten no. 99, 30. April 1856, written by “P.”, translated from Danish). "Some books were bought by libraries where they still are today, others were bought by private people, who sometimes wrote their names in the front of the books and thus, indirectly, stated that they came from Kierkegaard’s book collection… The edition (of the auction catalogue, 1967) registers all books from Kierkegaard’s book collection that it has hitherto been possible to identify – either in public or in private ownership… All in all, nearly a couple of hundred volumes – i.e. ca. 10 % – of the Kierkegaardian book collection is said to be rediscovered…" (Rohde). Thus, today, books from Kierkegaard’s library are of the utmost scarcity. Only very few are still possible to acquire, and they hardly ever appear on the market. PMM: 314Himmelstrup 21 The present copy is no. 14 in Girsel's "Kierkegaard" (The Catalogue) which can be found here.

St. Petersburg, 1869. 8vo. Extract in contemporary or slightly later blank blue paper wrappers. Wrappers with neat professional restorations from verso, barely noticeable. A very fine and clean copy. Pp. 60-77. Exceedingly scarce first printing of Mendeleev’s seminal Russian Chemical Society-paper of March 1869, presenting for the first time the periodical table of the elements. “His newly formulated law was announced before the Russian Chemical Society in March 1869 with the statement “elements arranged according to the value of their atomic weights present a clear periodicity of properties.” Mendeleev’s law allowed him to build up a systematic table of all the 70 elements then known.” (Encycl. Britt.) “Early in 1869, Russian chemist Dmitrii Mendeleev was in a predicament many people are familiar with—he was facing a deadline. He had delivered the first volume of his inorganic chemistry textbook to his publisher but was struggling with how to organize the second volume. This struggle would culminate in a remarkable discovery, a system that classified all of the chemical elements. In March 1869, Mendeleev delivered a full paper to the Russian Chemical Society spelling out the most significant aspect of his system, that characteristics of the elements recur at a periodic interval as a function of their atomic weight. This was the first iteration of the periodic law.” (OSU) Mendeleev’s system was not yet perfect when it appeared in 1869, but it would prove to be one of the most fundamental of scientific laws, one that would hold true through new discoveries and against all challenges. Mendeleev not only recognized that what seemed to be a randomness of the elements fitted into a system, he also suggested that the gaps in his system would later be filled with elements yet unknown to the scientific world. The discovery of new elements in the 1870s fulfilled several of Mendeleev’s predictions and brought increased interest to the periodic system, making it an invaluable tool for research. “He had such faith in the validity of the periodic law that he proposed changes to the generally accepted values for the atomic weight of a few elements and predicted the locations within the table of unknown elements together with their properties. At first the periodic system did not raise interest among chemists. However, with the discovery of the predicted elements, notably gallium in 1875, scandium in 1879, and germanium in 1886, it began to win wide acceptance. Gradually the periodic law and table became the framework for a great part of chemical theory. By the time Mendeleev died in 1907, he enjoyed international recognition and had received distinctions and awards from many countries.” (Encycl. Britt.) Horblit 74 Barchas 1412 [Dibner 48 - citing the German translation of 1891]

(Edinburgh, 1839-41). Elephant-folio. In the two original half-calf-folders with green leather-spines and pattern-stamped cloth boards; gilt title and author to front boards. Remains of the original green cloth-ties. Some wear to spines, especially at capitals. 12 magnificent hand-coloured plates with one leaf of text for each, the first, 8th and 11th text-leaves with an engraved illustration measuring 22x13,5 cm. (depicting "Stake Nets of the Solway Firth", "Poke Nets of the Solway Firth", and "Young States of S. Truttafrom Mr. Shaw's Ponds" - the last beautifully hand-coloured); all leaves laid in loose, as originally published, and all plates with the original tissue-guards. Plates and text-leaves measuring ab. 64,5 x 49 cm The exceedingly scarce first printing of this monumental work on British salmon, one of the finest books on fishes ever produced. The work is generally considered the Audubon of salmons; the quality of the plates is considered unsurpassed and the scientific research that lies behind it makes it of the utmost importance to the study of salmons."Jardine was a keen sportsman, expert with rod and gun, and followed his hounds. He was not averse to making deer which strayed from his neighbour's estate onto Jerdine Hall land pay for their trespass. He was also an amateur artist, working in watercolours, and exhibited, as an honorary member, at the Scottish Royal Academy, as well as other art exhibitions in Dumfries. When writing his books, he learned to etch, to draw on wood blocks for wood engraving, to lithograph and to use a variant of lithography called papyrography. One of the finest books of fishes ever printed was Jardine's "The British Salmonidae", for which he did the drawings and etchings himself.Jardine was the foremost ichthyologist in Scotland, perhaps even in the United Kingdom, in the nineteenth century. He was a fine fisherman and fished the Annan, which flowed through his grounds in Dumfriesshire, and the best stretches of the Tweed when he lived for three years at St Boswells, Roxburghshire. One of his aims was to establish his life cycles of the salmon and the sea trout, for which he tagged fish in a specially constructed pool at Jardine Hall, and visited the fisheries at Perth where experiments were carried out. His reputation as a fly fisherman was well known, and he enjoyed many days of sport with other eminent naturalists such as P.J. Selby, John Gould, Richard Parnall, as well as friends and neighbours. His interest in fishing and fisheries led to his appointment as one of the royal commissioners to the Salmon Fisheries Survey of England and Wales in 1860." (Jackson and Davis, "Sir William Jardine. A Life in Natural History", p. X). Jardine was also famous for his huge museum collections, among these a very extensive collection of skins. In the late 1820'ies the collections began to encompass vertebrates other than birds, and it is from this time that his scientific interests in fish began to develop. Although Jardine's interest had always extended beyond the British Isles and he also received many specimens of fish from abroad, his main interest remained British fish, and especially those of the salmon family, which greatly fascinated him. "Some of these were little known, and even in the early nineteenth century were considered rare." (Jackson & Davis, p. 57). From around the beginning of the 1830'ies Jardine was on the lookout for more specimens and further advice, and he began corresponding with the famous Cornish naturalist and ichthyologist, Jonathan Couch. He also began corresponding with other respected scientists and correspondents and with much support from all of these, Jardine devoted more and more of his time and effort to investigating fish, especially the salmon family. In 1834 he began a tour of Sutherland that came to have a significant impact on his studies of the salmon family. He brought Selby with him, and due to their many notes, drawings, and observations, Jardine now had the confidence to present a lecture, in which he revised the scientific status of the Salmonidae discovered on their excursion, to the British Association, which he held in Edinburgh during the late summer of 1834. It is this lecture that established his reputation as an ichthyologist, and it is evident from many sources of the period that he was now much admired within this field. "[w]hen he attended the British Association meeting in Newcastle in August 1838, not only did he chair the Botany and Zoology section, but he also gave a lecture on the Salmonidae of Scotland. By this time he was bringing to fruition a much more ambitious project, with the preparation of the plates for the "Illustrations of British Salmonidae, with Descriptions", which was published in two parts in 1839 and 1841." (Jackson & Davis, p. 60).Jardine had originally planned to work on the project with Selby and had already suggested him this in 1834. Selby supported him throughout the project, but eventually Jardine undertook the work alone. The illustrations of the work were to comprise the salmons of both England and Ireland, and in a letter to T.C. Eyton he indicates many of his thoughts concerning the production as well as his continued interest in fishes around the world; he describes his wish to illustrate the specimens life-size, although that would restrict sales, his and Lizar's frustrations of finding a skilled enough colourist, as well as his view on drawing the fish directly at the edge of the water in order to capture the iridescence and colours of the fish straight away, so that they would not have had time to fade, which they do rapidly after death. Among other things he writes "The sale will of course be limited & one to my list is important. If it will clear its way I shall be satisfied so far as the plates are concerned... but Illustrations of the size which I have chosen are always attended with more expense in the publication than those of a less [?] size. All the drawings have been made at the waters edge, and I am sanguine that the work will be creditable to all both artist and engraver... The 1st number will be out in a very short time it is all prepared except the colouring which we have been annoyed about in the north. We have however now selected Mr. Gould' colourer [Gabriel Bayfield] in London, & from what he has put out in these departments we have considerable reliance." (See Jackson & Davis, p. 61).Thus, the plates were etched by Jardine himself and coloured by Bayfield. The first number of plates were sent to Bayfiled for colouring in July 1838, and the first part of "Illustrations" was advertised as published in August 1839, whereas the second was ready in September 1841. "It is not known how many copies were eventually sold, but Jardine (who had exclusive rights to the publication) hinted in 1844 that "There are only 70 copies coloured" - and indication that few coloured copies were to hand after supplying copies to the subscribers. Lizars had been responsible for producing and distributing the books, but when his establishment in Edinburgh closed, Jardine transferred the stock of uncoloured plates to Jardine Hall. Even in the 1860s there was a demand for copies of the Salmonidae, and also for individual plates, and the faithful Bayfield was asked once more to act as colourist for these. Some indication of the price of the complete work is given by Jardine in a letter to John Gould, asking him to deliver a copy to Pickering in Picadilly and asking him "to take payment for £5 16". Initially prices of £2 12s 6d (coloured) and £1 11s 6d (plain) per part had been suggested, which had risen to £3 3s 0d by August 1839. The first estimates also suggested that an initial run of some 50 copies was sensible until the demand could be gauged, and noted that the cost of colouring each impression was 1s 6d." (Jackson & Davis, p. 62).The work is now considered one of the finest books on fish ever produced, both due to its great artistic value and its "meticulous and painstaiking scientific research" (p. 62); besides its scientific value and scientific importance, it is of the greatest scarcity with no more than 70 copies (at the most) produced, and many fewer that have survived. Nissen 2092; not in Wood;

Kjöbenhavn, 1837-1847. Bound in one nice contemporary half calf binding with blindstamped and gilt ornamentation to spine. Gilding vague, also the gilt title. Minor bumping to corners. Internally a bit of scattered brownspotting, but overall unusually nice, clean, and fresh. A truly excellent copy. See collation below. A magnificent set - unusually nice and clean and bound together in a contemporary binding, which is almost never the case - of the first edition of this exceedingly rare collection of Andersen's earliest fairy tales. This legendary fairy tale-collection that created the fairy tale-genre and brought Andersen international fame, consists in six parts that together make up two volumes. As with most of the other few existing copies, the present set is a mixture of issues (though here, merely two of the parts are in second issue). "With the passing of each year, Andersen's genious brought forth new "wonder stories", and the fame he had so desperately craved and striven for became a reality. Little did he know in the spring of 1835, when he all but had to beg his publisher to accept these remarkable tales, that one day they would make him immortal. And little did the critics, nearly all of whom advised him to give up his "experiment" and devote himself to his other writings, ever dream that they would live to see him gain world acclaim for these tales. For almost a hundred years now, generation after generation has been brought up on Andersen's stories. Take the English-speaking world, for instance. Since the first appearance of Andersen's Fairy Tales in London and New York, in 1846, over seven hundred different editions, including dozens of varied translations, illustrated by more than a hundred different artists, have been published in the United States alone. Indeed, Andersen's stories will live on as classics - as much part of our civilization as the two primary educational factors, reading and writing." (Jean Hersholt, p. 27). Due to the fact that the six little pamphlets together, printed in different years, all have their own title-pages, half-titles, contents, etc. and that there were then also printed all of this for each volume of three (times two) together, the book binders almost always removed several of these "extra" leaves, as they seemed superfluous. It was never the intention of the publisher that the single half-titles, title-pages or tables of contents be preserved. However, due to the many different laves that were deemed "superfluous" or not, all existing sets of these two little volumes have their individual mix-up of half-titles, titles, and tables of contents. Thus, no copies are known to exist with all leaves present. "During Andersen's lifetime 162 of his Fairy Tales were published, but the scarcest and most difficult to obtain are these six little pamphlets. We do not know exactly how many, or how few, copies were printed, but we do know that no copy with all the title pages and tables of contents has ever been offered for sale by any dealer or at any auction. To my knowledge, only five or six complete copies of the first printings (1835-1842) still exist. Even the second printing of the six pamphlets in their entirety (1842-1847) is exceedingly scarce and difficult to obtain." (Jean Hersholt).Here follows a collation including mention of issues and lacunae: Vol. I: VIII pp. (joint title-page (dated 1837) for the three parts, contents-leaf for all three parts, and preface ("Til de ældre Læsere"). The joint half-title merely stating "Eventyr for Børn" has not been bound in.First Part: 61 (including the title-page), (3) (blank verso of p. 61 and the contents-leaf for part one) pp. The half-title has not been bound in. Second issue, 1842.Second Part: 76 (including half-title and title-page), 2 (contents-leaf for part two) pp. + 1 f. (blank). Second issue, 1844.Third Part: 60 (including half-title and title-page) pp., 2 (contents-leaf for part two) pp. + 1 f. (blank). First issue, 1837.Vol. II: 3 ff. (joint title-page, dedication-leaf (for Mrs. Heiberg), contents-leaf for all three parts). First Part: 58 (including title-page), (2) (contents-leaf for part one) pp. The half-title has not been bound in. First issue, 1838.Second Part: 53 (including title-page), (3) (verso of p. 53 and contents-leaf for part two) pp. The half-title has not been bound in. First issue, 1839.Third Part: 49 (including title-page), (3) (verso of p. 49 and contents-leaf for part three) pp. The half-title has not been bound in. First issue, 1842..This is one of the most complete copies we have ever seen, as the only leaves not withbound are some of the half-titles. Usually a lot more leaves have been left out by the binders, and it's even rare to find copies that have all title-pages. The separate contents-leaves are very rarely found preserved in copies that have the joint contents-leaves, and the blank leaves are almost never withbound. BFN: 266; Hersholt: 23; PMM: 299.

Berlin, Franz Duncker, 1859. 8vo. Nice contemporary hafl calf with gilt lettering to spine. A bit of wear to extremities, markings after old label to front board and signs of vague damp staining to front board. A mostly faint damp stain to outer inner corner throrughout, but otherwise very nice. Title-page a bit dusty. Old library number (872) to front free end-paper and top of title-page and marginal pencil-annotations to a number of leaves. VIII, (2), 170 pp. Title-page with the ownership-signature of Alexander Appolonovich Manuilov to top of title-page and binding with his initials "A. M." in gold to the fot of spine. Scarce first edition, in a magnificent association-copy, of the groundbreaking work, in which Marx first presents his revolutionizing theories of capitalism, forming the foundation for his main work "The Capital", which appeared eight year later. It is also in this milestone of political and economic thought that Marx presents his economic interpretation of history for the first time.Alexander Appolonovich Manuilov (1861-1929) was a Russian economist and politician, famous not only as one of the founding members of the Constitutional Democratic party (known as the Kadets), but also as the Russian translator of Marx' "Zur Kritik...", i.e. the present work. "Manuilov graduated from the law department of the University of Novorossiia (Odessa, 1883). He began scholarly and pedagogical work in political economy in 1888. In 1901 he became head of a subdepartment at Moscow University, becoming assistant rector in 1905 and serving as rector from 1908 to 1911. He was dismissed by the tsarist government for attacking the "extremes" of Stolypin’s agrarian legislation. In the 1890’s he was a liberal Narodnik (Populist), later becoming a Constitutional Democrat (Cadet) and a member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party. Manuilov’s draft on agrarian reform (1905) was the basis for the Cadets’ agrarian program. V. I. Lenin sharply criticized Manuilov, calling him one of "the bourgeois liberal friends of the muzhik who desire the ‘extension of peasant land ownership’ but do not wish to offend the landlords" (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 11, p. 126, note).At the beginning of his scholarly career Manuilov accepted the labor theory of value. In 1896 he translated K. Marx’ work A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economy (Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie). During the years of reaction he espoused subjectivist and psychological views in political economy. In 1917 he was minister of education of the Provisional Government. After the October Revolution in 1917 he emigrated but soon returned and cooperated with Soviet power. He participated in the orthographic reform (1918). In 1924 he became a member of the board of Gosbank (State Bank). He taught in higher educational institutions. Changing to Marxist positions and relying on Lenin’s works, he criticized the revisionists and neo-Narodniks on the agrarian question." (Encycl. Britt.).For many years, the exclusive focus on "Das Kapital" meant that the "Kritik" was overlooked. Since the beginning of the 1960's, however, scholars have become increasingly aware of its importance as the blueprint for the social and economic theory Marx shall go on to develop (see for example Raymond Aron, "Le Marxisme de Marx", 1962). It is here that Marx outlines the research programme to which he shall devote the rest of his working life. He himself described "Das Kapital" as a continuation of his "Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie" (see e.g. PMM 359), in which his primary concern is an examination of capital and in which he provides the theoretical foundation for his political conclusions later presented in "Das Kapital". "I examine the system of bourgeois economy in the following order: capital, landed property, wage-labour; the State, foreign trade, world market.The economic conditions of existence of the three great classes into which modern bourgeois society is divided are analysed under the first three headings; the interconnection of the other three headings is self-evident. The first part of the first book, dealing with Capital, comprises the following chapters: 1. The commodity, 2. Money or simple circulation; 3. Capital in general. The present part consists of the first two chapters." (Preface to the present work, in the translation (by S.W. Ryazanskaya) of the Progress Publishers-edition, Moscow, 1977).Apart from the obvious importance of the work as the foundational precursor to what is probably the greatest revolutionary work of the nineteenth century, the "Kritik" is of the utmost importance in the history of political and economic thought, as it is here, in the preface, that Marx outlines his classic formulation of historical materialism. This preface contains the first connected account of what constitutes one of Marx's most important and influential theories, namely the economic interpretation of history - the idea that economic factors condition the politics and ideologies that are possible in a society."The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." (Preface to the present work, in the translation (by S.W. Ryazanskaya) of the Progress Publishers-edition, Moscow, 1977).The work is a summation of Marx' many years of economic studies, mainly undertaken at the Reading Room of the British Museum, and it constitutes the first attempt at a general outline of his theories. Like his "Capital", the "Critique" was originally planned as a work in several volumes, but only this first volume appeared. The work, which was printed in a mere 1000 copies, is scarce and rarely seen on the market.

(Sankt Petersburg, 1748). 8vo. Bound with five other tragedies/dramas in a slightly later (late 18th century) full calf binding with gilt line-borders to boards and richly gilt spine with red and blue title- and tome-labels. Spine with some wear and corners bumped. Upper capital worn. Internally generally nice and clean and on good paper, but "Hamlet" - which has clearly been well red and presumably used for a stage set-up - has some light pencil-annotations and pencil-crossovers, occasional brownspotting, a few paper restorations - no loss of text, a tear to one leaf - no loss, and one leaf slighly loosening at the bottom. Hamlet: 68, (2) pp. - separately paginated. 26pp. + 79, (1) pp. + 62 pp. + 68, (2) pp. + 78 pp. + 1 f. blank + 29 pp. Extremely rare first edition of the first Russian translation/adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The first edition is incredibly scarce and deemed virtually unobtainable. A second appearance, which is also of the utmost scarcity, came out in 1786, in a collection of plays in Russian. The seminal first rendering of "Hamlet" in Russian constitutes a milestone in Russian literature and cultural history. It deeply penetrated Russian culture, and in many ways Sumarokov's "Hamlet" came to epitomize the Russian spirit. "The first Russian adaptation of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" was made by the founder of the Russian classical theatre Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov (1717-1777). The play was written in 1748 by the 31-year old ambitious statesman and poet.Some researchers suggest that this work was commissioned to legitimise the power of Peter the Great's daughter Elizabeth through cultural discourse. Elizabeth took the Russian throne as a result of a court coup against an infant great grandson of Peter's elder brother. Ivan VI was barely two months old when he became Russian Emperor and "reigned" for eleven months. For the rest of his short life he lived in exile and, from the age of 16, in solitary confinement. Elizabeth's actions might be seen as avenging her father by returning power to his successors.Translated from French, Shakespeare in Sumarokov's version was also turned into a classist play, where people represented functions, such as order and chaos, good and evil, wisdom and stupidity. According to this pattern, the state could not be left without a legitimate ruler. Therefore, Sumarokov wrote a happy end with Claudius and Polonius punished by death and Hamlet, Ophelia and Gertrude victorious and content.Although this version was rarely staged, the image of an outcast prince was often referred to. For example, Catherine the Great's son and heir Paul tried on this role - his father was assassinated and overthrown by his mother's lover to get her the throne....In the 20th century the story of Russian Hamlet continued. As the Russian poet of the Silver Age Maksimilian Voloshin put it, "Hamlet - is a tragedy of conscience, and in this sense it is a prototype of those tragedies that are experienced by the "Slavonic soul" when it lives through disintegration of will, senses and consciousness"." (Katya Rogatchevskaia, for the British Library exhibition "Shakespeare in Ten Acts").Sumarokov created the Russian "Hamlet" in 1748 and might have acquainted himself with the character of Hamlet through French sources; However, it is quite probable that his translation was actually done from English, as it is registered that he borrowed a copy of it from the Academic library in the period from 1746 to 1748.It came to play a seminal role in both Russian literature, culture, and politics in the centuries to come. "Soon after its arrival in a Russia in 1748, "Hamlet" and its chief protagonist became inseparable parts of Russian national identity, prompting such remarks as William Morris's: "Hamlet should have been a Russian, not a Dane". However, at the outbreak of the Second World War, the play seems to have disappeared for more than a decade from the major stages of Moscow and Leningrad. Thus was born the 'myth' of Stalin and Hamlet. Today virtually every mention of Hamlet in the Stalin era refers to the dictator's hatred for this tragedy and his supposed banning of it from all Soviet stages. Notwithstanding the efforts of theatre directors such as Sergei Radlov with his heroic production of Hamlet in 1938, there is no doubt that Hamlet was problematic in the context of the paradigm of Socialist Realism. And it was certainly not the most suitable play for a war-stricken country. Moreover, from Stalin's own pejorative reference to 'an indecisive Hamlet' in connection with Eisenstein's ill-fated depiction of Ivan the Terrible (Part II), it is evident that for the dictator the character of Hamlet had negative connotations. The chequered history of Hamlet in the Soviet Union from the outbreak of the War to the death of Stalin in 1953 and the flood of new productions almost immediately after this date, together with the myth of Stalin's 'ban', deserve more nuanced and broadly contextualised study than they have received to date, based on concrete historical facts, memoirs and official documents. (Michelle Assay :What Did Hamlet (Not) Do to Offend Stalin?)."Reforms initiated by Tsar Peter the Great (1672-1725) had far reaching effects on all spheres of life in eighteenth-century Russia, including the cultural sphere. Profound changes also occurred in Russian literature. As Russian literature was becoming increasingly secular and new literary genres evolved there began an intensive search for aesthetic principles and an ideological platform that would be suitable for the demands of the post-Peter the Great epoch. Alexander Sumarokov (1717-1777) was among those Russian writers who considered adopting ethical principles and aesthetic norms of French classicism the most appropriate path for the development of an emergent secular Russian literature. In his rendering of Shakespeare's Hamlet into the Russian language, Sumarokov subscribed to the rules and traditions of French classicist dramaturgy. He adopted the modus operandi and approaches to translation prevalent during the period of classicism in French literature. By doing so, Sumarokov followed a very clear objective. Tailoring his Hamlet according to the patterns of French classicism and bringing in a strong didactic element into his version of Shakespeare's masterpiece, Sumarokov was able to re-evaluate the original material and focus on the issues that he considered most important for his contemporaries in eighteenth-century Russia… Church authority that had dominated public life for centuries was greatly diminished and undermined in both political and cultural spheres. In the 18th century, Russia was a rapidly changing country. A long period of self isolation ended as Russia was opening up and turning its face towards Europe. Profound changes within society also affected the development of 18th-century Russian literature." (Nikitina, Larisa. (2008). The First Translation of Shakespeare into Russian: A Metamorphosis of Hamlet on Russian Soil. Philologie im Netz. 43. 17-27)."Alexander Sumarokov was the first Russian professional author who chose national subjects for his plays. He introduced Shakespeare to the Russian people with his adaptation of Hamlet, and it was as a spectator at his play Khorev that Elizabeth fell in love with Nikita Beketov who played the leading role." (Encycl. B.).Apart from Sumarokov's seminal version of "Hamlet", the present volume contains the following five works, all by Sumarokov, and all in first editions:Pustynnik [The Hermit]. Drama. 1769Yaropolk i Dimizia. Tragediya, 1768Vysheslav. Tragediya. (1768)Artistona. Tragediya. (1751) Dve Epistoly [Two Letters]Like Hamlet, Sumarokov's other works are very rare in all early printings, especially the first.OCLC lists two copies of this first printing of "Hamlet" in Russian in libraries worldwide: One in Germany, one in the UK.

Paris, Firmin Didot, 1822. 8vo. Uncut in the original printed wrappers. Front wrapper slightly soiled and a bit of light dampstaining throughout. Upper corner worn. Six leaves with contemporary neat annotations, scholarly notes and drawings have been inserted at the front and the back - one double-leaf in front of the title-page (with one page of annotations with references to other works by Champollion), two leaves between plates III and IV (with two and a half pages of Greek-ancient Greek-Latin correspondence alphabet) and three leaves at the end, before the final blank (with five pages of an alphabet of the first Egyptian letters - very neatly drawn - and an alphabet-correspondence at the end). A very charming and interesting copy in the exceedingly rare original wrappers. Housed in a half morocco slipcase with gilt lettering to spine. (4), 52 pp. + 4 folded plates + 1 blank leaf. The scarce first edition, in the even scarcer original printed wrappers, of Champollion's milestone work, which announced for the first time the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone, provided the key to reading Egyptian hieroglyphs, and gave birth to the entire field of modern Egyptology. This seminal work arguably constitutes the single most important philological work ever written. "[...] in the actual state of Egyptian studies, when the monuments stream out from all sides and are collected by the rulers as by amateurs, and when also the scientists of all countries are eager to engage in serious research of their subject matter and are eager to penetrate deeply into the knowledge of these written monuments which must be used to explain all the others, I do not think I should wait till another time to bring to the scientists' attention and under your honourable auspices a short but important series of new developments, which naturally belong to my Memory on HIEROGLYPHIC writing, and which will doubtlessly save you the trouble that I have taken to establish what may be very serious errors about the different periods in the history of Egyptian art and the general administration of Egypt: for this is about the series of hieroglyphs that, making an exception to the general nature of the signs of this writing, have been equipped with the ability to EXPRESS THE SOUNDS of the words, and which are used in the inscriptions of the public monuments of Egypt, the TITLES, the NAMES, and the EPONYMS OF THE GREEK OR ROMAN SOVEREIGNS, who rule Egypt one after the other. Many certainties in the history of this celebrated piece of land must arise from this new result of my research, to which I have been led quite naturally." (pp. 2-3) (*) says Champollion on the opening pages of the present letter to Mr. Dacier. And thus was laid the foundation of modern Egyptology. Jean Francois Champollion (1790-1832), known as the father of Egyptology, was by no means exaggerating when he stated the above - his letter to Mr. Dacier upon his new discoveries and the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs did change the study of Egypt and Egyptology more profoundly than any work before or after. Ever since the publication of the present work, Champollion has been credited with being the first to correctly and fully decipher the inscription on the famous Rosetta Stone, translating it, and breaking the mystery of the ancient hieroglyphic script; it is in the present work that this milestone event in the history of modern man is announced first time, and it is due to this discovery that he is accepted as the founder of Scientific Egyptology. The Rosetta Stone, which dates back to 196 B.C was found in 1799 by French Troops and was immediately brought to England, where it has been ever since. The stone was (and is) of the utmost importance to the understanding of the Egyptian language, the principles of which were totally unknown up until this point. Because the hieroglyphic inscription on the stone is accompanied by a Greek and a Demotic one with the same contents (the commemoration of Ptolemy V's accession to the Egyptian throne), Champollion was able to crack the code of the hieroglyphs and to read a language that had not been read for far more than a millennium. Other very skilled linguists had worked on the decipherment of the hieroglyphic inscription simultaneously with Champollion, but they had all given up by the time that Champollion finally had his first true breakthrough. It came in 1822, when he successfully deciphered two Egyptian names, Ramses and Thutmos, written in hieroglyphic characters in temple cartouches. Champollion's discovery pointed to the fact that the Egyptian hieroglyphs functioned as an alphabet, a phonetic language and a system of symbols that could stand for words or concepts. "And if the resembling signs of the two names render THE SAME SOUNDS on both cartouches, it is due to their ENTIRELY PHONETIC character." (p. 7). (**) He succeeded in showing that the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system was a combination of phonetic and ideographic signs, and using his new discovery as a foundation, Champollion next turned his attention to common nouns, and deciphered the phrase "birthday celebrations" from the Rosetta Stone."It is a complex system, writing figurative, symbolic, and phonetic all at once, in the same text, the same phrase, I would almost say in the same word" says Champollion about the hieroglyphs, in the present work, after having established their meaning. He had finally cracked the code and was sure of it. He was so excited by this monumental discovery that he immediately ran to his brother's house, into his office, shouting the famous words "Je tiens l'affaire!", i.e. "I've got it!". It is said that he then fainted and spent the next five days in bed recovering. Shortly after his recovery, he began writing the letter for Mr. Dacier, outlining the discovery that laid the foundation for deciphering hieroglyphs, which was published later the same year, and a condensed version of which he presented as a speech at the Academie des Inscriptions. When he presented the speech, Thomas Young, who had given up breaking the code four years earlier, was also in the audience.In 1824, Champollion published a more comprehensive explanation of the hieroglyphic system, his famous "Précis du Système Hieroglyphiques des Anciens Egyptiens".Champollion was an extraordinary philologist, who, by the age of sixteen, besides Greek and Latin, mastered six ancient Middle Eastern languages, among these Coptic, the knowledge of which, unlike that of Egyptian, was never lost. As the first, Champollion realized the connection between the Coptic and the Egyptian language, and was able to identify many of the Egyptian words on the Rosetta Stone, as he could read them with their Coptic equivalents. He was the first to believe that both Demotic and Hieratic represented symbols, and not sounds as earlier presumed. After that he quickly realized that each single hieroglyph could represent a sign, and he began compiling a hieroglyphic alphabet. When publishing his letter to Mr. Dacier, he presented the fact that the hieroglyphs represented sounds as well as concepts, according to context. Champollion is thus the constructor of our present code of the hieroglyphic alphabet. "Further study enabled him to discover the values of a number of syllabic hieroglyphic signs, and to recognize the use of hieroglyphs as determinatives. In cases where the Greek text supplied him with the meaning of hieroglyphs of which he did not know the phonetic values, his knowledge of Coptic enabled him to suggest values which he found subsequently to be substantially correct. Further reference to determinatives and the importance of parallel passages and texts will be made later on in his work. Between 1822-24 CHAMPOLLION worked incessantly, and was enabled to modify much of his earlier views, and to develop his Alphabet, -and he evolved some rudimentary principles of Egyptian Grammar..." (Wallis Budge, The Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, pp. 224-25). "We have only been able to locate 4 auction records of the work within the last 40 years (ABPC & JAP), none of them in original wrappers.________________________________________________________________________________ORIGINAL FRENCH TEXT OF THE QUOTATIONS ABOVE (WHICH ARE IN OWN TRANSLATION):(*) "[...] dans l'etat actual des études égyptiennes, lors-que de toutes parts les monuments affluent et sont recueilles par les souverains comme par les amateurs, lorsqu'aussi, et a leur sujet, les savants de tous les pays s'empressent de se livrer à de laborieuses recherches, et s'efforcent de pénétrer intimement dans la connaissance de ces monuments écrits qui doivent servir à expliquer tous les autres, je ne crois pas devoir remettre à un autre temps d'offrir à ces savants et sous vos honorables auspices, une courte mais importante série de faits nouveaux, qui appartient naturellement à mon Mémoire sur l'écriture HIÉROGLYPHIQUE, et qui leur épargnera sans doute la peine que j'ai prise pour l'établir, peut-être aussi de graves erreurs sur les époques diverses de l'histoire des arts et de l'administration générale de l'Égypte: car il s'agit de la série ges HIÉROGLYPHES qui, faisant exception à la nature générale des signes de cette écriture, étaient doués de la faculté d'EXPRIMER LES SONS des mots, et ont servi à inscrire sur les monuments publics de l'Égypte, les TITRES, les NOMS, et les SURNOMS DES SOUVERAINES GRECS OU ROMAINS qui la gouvernèrent successivement. Bien des certitudes pour l'histoire de cette contrée célèbre doivent naître de ce nouveau résultat des mes recherches, auquel j'ai été conduit très-naturellement." (pp. 2-3).(**) "et si les signes semblables dans ces deaux noms exprimaient dans l'un et l'autre cartouche LES MÊMES SONS, ils devaient constater leur nature ENTIÈREMENT PHONÉTIQUE." (p.7).

Strasbourg, Johannes Grüninger, 28 August 1502. Folio (298 x 204 mm). Bound in an exquisite later (c. 1850) brown full morocco binding by John Clarke with gilt title and five raised bands to spine. Gilt and blindstamped lines to spine. Boards with gilt and blindstamped lines and gilt fleurons to corners. Edges and inside of boards with gilt and blindstamped lines. All edges gilt. Kept in a marbled slipcase. Slight wear to capitals and outer hinges. Armorial exlibris pasted to inside of front board. Woodcut title page remargined. Several underlinings and interlinear and marginal annotations in at least two different contemporary (or near-contemporary) hands. A6 and colophon leaf mounted (no loss). Four insignificant wormholes in lower margin, not affecting the text, from B1 through E2. A few scattered brownspots, otherwise a clean copy. Text of varying length surrounded by 72 lines of commentary. With all 214 woodcut illustrations as well as numerous woodcut initials. 449 leaves: A6 B-S8 (H +1) T-V10 x-z8 AA-HH8 II6 KK-VV8 XX6 YY-ZZ8 a-f8 aa-cc8 dd10. An excellent, complete copy of the marvellous Brant-Grüninger edition of the works of Vergil, being the first illustrated printed edition of Vergil, and altogether one of the most magnificent illustrated books in the history of printing. Arguably the most outstanding illustrated edition of any work of Classical literature, the Brant-Grüninger Vergil had a tremendous impact on sixteenth-century illustration art: "Because of the wealth and erudition of its illustrations, as well as the fact that it was the first in its field, the 1502 Vergil had a considerable influence on almost everyone who wished to illustrate the same subject during the following half century." (T.K. Rabb, Sebastian Brant and the First Illustrated Edition of Vergil, 1960, p. 196) Best known for his satirical work 'Das Narrenschiff' (1494), Sebastian Brant (1457/58 - 1521) was one of the greatest German humanists of the fifteenth (and early sixteenth) century. According to a charming epigram at the end of the book, the purpose of the illustrations was to assist 'unlearned and rustic readers' (lat. 'indoctis rusticolisque viris') in understanding the often complex content of Vergil's poetry. Although Brant indicates in the introductory poem that these were created by himself (lat. 'has nostras quas pinximus ecce tabellas'), the general assumption is that only provisional design sketches can be attributed to him. In any case, the illustrations, though in many respects anachronistic, reveal his thorough knowledge of Vergil and Vergilian scholarship. Along with the text of Vergil, including his spurious writings, the present edition contains five ancient and Renaissance Vergilian commentaries, those of Servius, Donatus, Cristoforo Landino, Antonio Mancinelli and Domizio Calderini. Adams V-457; Brunet V 1277; Dibdin II 542.

London, 1855. 8vo. Entire volume 16, second series of "The Annals..." present, bound in a very nice red half morocco with richly gilt spine. A nice, clean, fresh, and sturdy copy. A vague stamp to title-page (London Institution) and a blindstamped marking to top of first leaf of contents (Cranbrook Institute of Science). Pp. 184-196. [Entire volume: VII, 472 pp. + 11 plates]. Exceedingly scarce first printing of Wallace's very first publication on the theory of evolution, predating any publication on the subject by Darwin. This milestone paper in the history of the theory of evolution - "A stunning scientific debut" (Nature vol. 496, p. 162) - formulates what is now known as the "Sarawak Law", which is in essence half of the theory of evolution by natural selection, which Wallace would later (1858) so famously publicize together with Darwin. From as early as 1845, Wallace had been convinced of the idea that species arise through natural laws rather than by divine fiat and he invested all in supplying scientific details and uncovering a satisfactory evolutionary mechanism. He kept this more or less to himself, however, and refrained from commenting on it in public until 1855, when he, provoked by an article by Edward Forbes Jr., published this seminal paper, "a concise synthesis of his ideas on the subject. Like many brilliant works, his "On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" (September 1855) was based on well-known, acceptable scientific observations, although he had transformed the mass of facts into an unusually persuasive argument. The evidence was drawn from geology and geography - the distribution of species in time and space - and following nine acceptable generalizations (axioms), Wallace concluded: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species". He claimed that he had explained "the natural system of arrangement of organic beings, their geographical distribution, their geological sequence", as well as the reason for peculiar anatomical structures of organisms." (D.S.B.). It was this paper by Wallace - not greatly read in the public, but very seriously studied by the greatest biologists of the time - that led directly to Darwin beginning his "origin of Species". - "Despite this excellent presentation (i.e. Wallace's 1855 paper), there were no public replies, although the private comments were quite another matter. Indeed, Edward Blyth, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin all read Wallace's article and were greatly impressed by his arguments, but in particular Lyell, who began a complete reexamination of his long-held ideas on species. On 16 April 1856 Lyell discussed Wallace's paper with Darwin, urging him to publish his own views on species as soon as possible. Darwin then began what we now call the long version of the "Origin", and that version was used as a basis for the "Origin" as published in 1859." (D.S.B.).It was in 1848 that Wallace first left England for the tropics. He did so with his friend the entomologist Henry Walter Bates, with the specific intention of solving the problem of the origin of species. "In the autumn of 1847 Mr. A.R. Wallace, who has since acquired wide fame in connection with the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection, proposed to me a joint expedition to the river Amazonas, for the purpose of exploring the Natural History of its banks; the plan being to make for ourselves a collection of objects, dispose of the duplicates in London to pay expenses, and gather facts, as Mr. Wallace expressed it in one of his letters, "towards solving the problem of the origin of species"." (Bates I: p. III). It is during these travels that Wallace begins noticing the remarkable coincidences in the distribution of species in space and time, and in 1855, while sitting in Sarawak, Borneo, he writes the paper that is now a landmark work in the history of evolutionary thought, his so-called "Sarawak-paper", which was published later the same year in the present volume of "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History". "This paper, formulating what came to be known as the "Sarawak Law", is remarkable... (Wallace) advances what is, in effect, half of the theory of evolution, namely what Darwin would call "descent with modification": the idea that the generation of a biological novelty is a genealogical process." (Berry, p. XXVII). The law now known as the Sarawak Law, or "the first half of the theory of eveolution", is stated as follows: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species." This law connected and explained a vast number of independent facts. It was, in fact, Wallace's first statement of a belief in evolution, and for the following three years from the time that he wrote the essay, Wallace recounts that "the question of how changes of species could have been brought about was rarely out of my mind."According to one of the most celebrated anecdotes in the history of science, the second half of the theory of evolution by natural selection finally came to Wallace in February 1858, while delirious during an attack of malarial fever in Ternate in the Mollucas. In his own words, "there suddenly flashed upon me the idea of the survival of the fittest." The theory was thought out during the rest of the fit, drafted the same evening, and written out in full in the two succeeding evenings. Knowing that Darwin was working on the same problem, Wallace sent a manuscript summary to Darwin, who now feared that his discovery would be pre-empted. In order to avoid conflict between the two, Joseph Hooker and Carles Lyell suggested a joint publication. The essay was read, together with an abstract of Darwin's own views, as a joint paper at the Linnean Society on the 1st of July 1858.

(Venice, 1470'ies - 80'ies). 4to. 210x240 mm. In a lovely, strictly contemporary Italian binding. Original wooden boards with beveled edges. Top outer edge of front board chipped and a small split at bottom outer edge. Boards with remnants of the original leather previously partially covering boards, revealing the leather cords, and with an exposed spine revealing four strips of Medieval parchment that hold the quires together (along with a bit of restoration glue, barely noticeable). The top strip with red paint and the other three with fourteenth-century Gothic script. Original brass clasps to front board. An excellent, solid, contemporary binding. 70 ff. (f.70 blank), complete (i-v 12, vi 10), 29 lines to a page, mostly with ruling, occasionally only with frame ruling (150 x 77 mm). Vertical catchwords at the bottom of verso of the last folio of each of quire (i.e. ff. 12, 24, 36, 48, 60), surrounded by wave lines. Written in an easily legible, experienced Italian humanist miniscule. Space (sometimes with cue letters) for initials left blank. No rubrication, but majuscule lettering as headlines at new beginnings or major text divisions. Large, detailed drawing of pointing hand on f. 3, in contemporary hand. Ff. 8v and 24v with scribbled border in light brown ink around the textblocks, in an early modern hand. Another later hand, presumably a later owner, has added “Jacopi – che qui anno 1693 i Viterbo 1693” in runny ink on f. 29v. Crudely written calculations in the same hand to ff. 59v and 61r. Front pasted-down end-paper with paste stains, presumably from a previous bookplate, and with a note in 19th century German script to top. Foliation in modern pencil in top right corner throughout. F1 a bit dusty and with brownspotting. Occasional minor brownspotting. Minor damp staining to margins of last two quires, no loss and not affecting text. Otherwise generally in excellent condition. Two different watermarks in the paper: 1) a scale inside a circle (see ff. 52+57, at inner margin) – this is described in Briquet (Les filigranes…, 1923) as “Balance dens un cerele, à plateau concaves”, nr. 2474 – Venice, 1480. 2) the letter P with loop through shaft also (see ff. 64+70, at inner margin). We have not been able to identify this. The text is divided into the major setions divided mostly by Majuscule "headlines", and begins thus: 1) “[C]ARMINA QVI Condam studio florente peregi...", ending (f. 9v) "hec ubi regnant”; 2) beginning “[P]POST HEC PAVLIS PER opticuit Atentionem...", ending (f. 21v) "Quo celum regitur regat”; 3) beginning “[I]AM CANTUM illa finierat…", ending (f. 41) "Perdit dum videt inferos”; 4) "Explicit iii Incipit iiii L", beginning “[H]EC cum Phylosophia dignitate vultus...", ending (f. 58) "Si dera donat”; 5) beginning “[D]IXERUNT Orationisque cursum ad alia...", ending (f. 69v) "cum ante oculos agitis iudicis cuncta cernentis / GRATIAS DEO Amen”. F70 blank. Complete version of the text, with some minor word and orthographic variations in comparison to the printed standard version, and without the printed edition’s few lines in Greek. No space has been left for these and they were clearly not intended to be added later. A truly magnificent and rare complete Medieval manuscript copy of one of the most significant philosophical texts ever written, Boethius’ magnum opus. The seminal Consolation of Philosophy revolutionized modern thought and influenced medieval and renaissance philosophy to an unprecedented degree. Although one of the most widely read and studied works of the Middle Ages, Medieval manuscript copies of the “Consolation of Philosophy” are very rare on the market. The present manuscript is written in a steady, easily legible, clearly very experienced humanist hand. It does not have the gloss found in most contemporary manuscripts of this sort of text, and is therefore arguably not one of the more usual schoolbooks from the period. It has possibly been copied for the humanist scribe’s own use – in or around Venice during the last quarter of the 15th century – and has thus possibly functioned as a template for other manuscript copies of the text. Boethius (480-ca. 525) is a difficult figure to place in the history of philosophy. Chronologically, he clearly belongs to late Antiquity, but he is a Christian and he writes in Latin. Thus, as a late antique philosopher, a Christian, and one of the thinkers that influenced the middle ages the most, he has come to represent the very centre of a tradition that goes directly back to Plotinus and thereby indirectly back to Plato and Aristotle. As such, he constitutes one of the single most important thinkers in the entire history of philosophy. "Only Aristotle himself, and perhaps Augustine, were more important and wide-ranging in their influence... In short it would be hard to understand the development of philosophy in the medieval Latin West without looking carefully at Boethius' work..." (Marenbon pp. 11-12). Accused of treason against the gothic regime as well as of sorcery, Boethius was imprisoned and later executed, in spite of denying the claims against him. His own theory was that his political activity - as a court official known for defending the weak - was at the core of the accusations against him. He was simply too upright and his enemies were too many. According to historians, the most plausible explanation is that Theoderic doubted the loyalty of the Roman aristocracy and thereby especially the outspoken Boethius. While in prison, Boethius wrote what was to become one of the most widely read, commented upon, and influential works in the history of philosophy. This highly original work, composed as a philosophical conversation between Boethius himself and the goddess of Philosophy, paved the way for a genre completely unknown at the time; both its style, composition, and contents matter has been imitated hundreds of times since its first appearance. Though always true to Christianity, this philosophical magnum opus contains many allusions to pagan neo-platonism. During the Middle Ages, however, all passages of the work were very popularly interpreted, in full accordance with Christianity. Few thinkers have been of such seminal importance to Medieval and Renaissance philosophy and religion as Boethius. Few books were so widely read during the Middle Ages as the "Consolation of Philosophy", and virtually no book has been as major a source of ancient philosophy from the early Middle Ages and throughout the Renaissance as this one. As well of being of great textbook value, this work profoundly inspired and influenced a wide range of influential religious, philosophical and literary writers. "For some writers, such as the Middle English poet, Chauser, the "Consolation" seems to have provided a model for writing about serious issues in a way which presupposes no commitment to Christianity, a philosophical precedent for the use of pagan setting in a literary fiction." (John Marenbon, Medieval Philosophy, 1998, p. 24). With the death of Boethius, "The first scholastic" (Copenhaver & Schmitt, p. 130), came also the end of ancient tradition of philosophy in the Latin West, though through his writings, the influence of this philosophical tradition was preserved during the Middle Ages and through to the Renaissance and early modern times. "The last roman author of significance, Boethius, was not a rhetorician, though he had surely received a rhetorical education, but a trained philosopher thoroughly familiar with Greek philosophy and literature. He was a Christian and wrote a few treatises on theology, but his philosophical works show no Christian influence. The "Consolation of Philosophy" is a highly personal and original work imbued with Stoic and Neoplatonic conceptions that has continued to impress its readers to its present day although it is no longer as widely read as it was in former centuries." (Kristeller, p. 226). "The crowning work of his life, the "Philosophiae Consolatio", was composed in prison not long before his death. It is in the form of a dialogue, and includes 39 short poems in 13 different metres... Throughout the work there is no evidence of distinctively Christian belief, but there are a few phrases of apparently Christian origin... But the absence of all reference to the consolations of religion is much more remarkable than the presence of a few phrases such as these... He does not oppose any Christian doctrine, but his attitude is that of a Theist and not that of a Christian. He supplied the Middle Ages with an eclectic manual of moral teaching severed from dogma and endued with all the charm of exquisite verse blended with lucid prose; and, as the latest luminary of the ancient world, he remained long in view, while the sources of the light he reflected were forgotten. The masterpiece which was his last legacy to posterity was repeatedly translated, expounded and imitated in the Middle Ages, and these translations were among the earliest literary productions of the vernacular languages of Europe, - English, French, German, Italian and Spanish among the translators being names of no less importance than king Alfred, Chaucer and queen Elizabeth. It was also translated into Greek by Maximus Pledanus (d. 1310). The emperor Otho III, who died in 1002, a hundred years after Alfred, placed in his library a bust of Boëthius, which was celebrated by the best Latin poet of his age, the future pope Silvester II. Three centuries later, he is quoted more than 20 times in the "Convito" and elsewhere by Dante, whose best-known lines "Nessun maggior dolore Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nelle miseris", are a reminiscence of Boëthius... Dante places him in the Fourth Heaven among the twelve "living and victorious splendours" which are the souls of men learned in Theology... Two hundred years after Dante, the book of Consolation composed by Boëthius in the "Tower of Pavia" brought solace to Sir Thomas More in the Tower of London. It has since won the admiration of the elder Scaliger and Casaubon, and has been described as a "golden volume" by Gibbon, who eulogises its author as "the last of the Romans whom Cato or Tully could have acknowledged for their countryman." (Sandy's I: 256-58).

Kjøbenhavn, Reitzel, 1844. Small 8vo. 110, (1) pp. Splendidly bound in beautiful ornamental mint green patterned paper over boards with branches, flowers, birds, squirrels, and dogs in a relief-pattern. Green end-papers and all edges gilt. Printed on fine vellum-paper. Slight soiling to spine and a bit of wear to paper on spine and over boards, where the relief is high. But a splendid, tight copy with no restorations and absolutely minimal brownspotting.Back pasted-down end-paper with a later, neat pencil-inscription from the previous owner stating that this is Kierkegaard’s own copy, bought by Høedt at the auction after Kierkegaard’s death and stating where the previous owner found the copy in 1995.Housed in a beautiful marbled paper box with richly gilt greenish morocco spine in ornamental pastichestyle with a red gilt leather title-label with Gothic gilt lettering. Gilt super ex-libris to front board (Anker Kysters Eftf., gilt by Hagel Olsen). The most splendid copy of the first edition possible, namely Kierkegaard’s own copy, one of the two copies he had printed on special paper and specially bound, one for Regine, one for himself. This is Kierkegaard’s own copy that he kept himself, from the love-set of the two copies of Prefaces he had made, where the other was for Regine. One of the two copies of the book that he had made on special paper and bound in this particularly beautiful and romantic binding. Kierkegaard had his eight pseudonymous works made like this, one for Regine, one for himself. So far, only four of these have surfaced, Regine’s copies of Repetition, Prefaces, and Either-Or (all sold at auction in 2002), and Kierkegaard’s own copy of Either-Or (in the Danish Royal Library). The other copies are unregistered, and the whereabouts unknown. The present copy is presumably that described merely as “dainty w. gilt edges”, nr. 2133 from the auction catalogue of Kierkegaard's books sold after his death. Published simultaneously with The Concept of Anxiety, Prefaces can be viewed as its companion piece. It represents an altogether different genre and is the most humorous of all of Kierkegaard’s works, but the two fictional authors of the works interestingly contrast each other. Although having been eclipsed by the now notoriously famous Concept of Anxiety, Prefaces was in fact more popular when it appeared and sold many more copies. Written under the pseudonym of Nicolaus Notabene, the “author” name indicates that despite its humorous approach, Prefaces is still something serious – something to be noted. And it certainly is. It is here that we find Kierkegaard’s sarcastic roasting of the Hegelian system and of the Danish Hegelians with Johan Ludvig Heiberg as the main representant. Through Notabene, he makes fun of Heiberg and Hegel, who both want to explain everything and want to be mediators of understanding. Just as Hafniensis in The Concept on Anxiety poses that “how sin came into the world each man understands solely by himself. If he would learn it from another, he would misunderstand it” (p. 51), so Notabene in Prefaces states that “My frame, my health, my entire constitution do not lend themselves to mediation” (p. 45). In Prefaces we also find Kierkegaard’s thoughts about the relationship between the reading public and the author and his fierce criticism of literary critics and reviewers, among these also Heiberg as well as Martensen, who famously reviewed Either-Or and Repetition respectively. And in the very amusing preface to the Prefaces, we are given another glimpse into Kierkegaard’s thoughts on marriage and the dilemma he found himself in with Regine – the inner struggle between he, who is the husband, and he, who is the author; can one be both? With its challenging notions on the idea of the book and the interaction of the book with its readers, his little ironic masterpiece is a clear forerunner of Postmodernism. “Kierkegaard’s ‘Prefaces’ is a brief though not unimportant work. Themes he develops elsewhere at greater length here are presented with characteristic insight and wit. This richly suggestive text has never received the attention it deserves. William McDonald’s fine translation now makes it possible to assess the importance of ‘Prefaces’ for Kierkegaard’s œuvre and to appreciate its significance for philosophical, literary, and theological issues that are still with us.” (From the review of William McDonald’s 1989 edition of Prefaces in English in the Kierkegaard and Postmodernism-series). Written under a pseudonym and without Kierkegaard’s name appearing as publisher or indeed as anything else, he was unable to give away presentation-copies of the work (due to his own strict set of rules for this). Thus, not a single presentation copy of the work exists. A single copy of the book was in the auction catalogue of his book collection after his death – described as in a dainty binding and with all edges gilt. Like Repetition and his other seven pseudonymous works, Prefaces, was printed in two copies both on vellum-paper and bound in special bindings, one for Regine, one for Kierkegaard himself. 24 years ago, three of these books surfaced, at an auction in 2002, namely Either-Or, Repetiton, and Prefaces, all being the copies Kierkegaard had bound for Regine. Before that, only one single copy of one of these eight titles for Kierkegaard himself or for Regine were known (namely Kierkegaard’s own copy of Either-Or, which is in the Danish Royal Library). Seven of the books, Kierkegaard’s own copies, were listed in the auction catalogue after his death, but apart from the mentioned copy of Either-Or in the Royal Library, the others had not been found. Kierkegaard’s wildly famous love story and failed engagement to Regine Olsen plays a pivotal role throughout Kierkegaard’s entire life and work. It all begins in 1837, when Kierkegaard meets the lovely young girl Regine Olsen at a visit to the widowed Cathrine Rørdam. Three years later, in September 1840, after having corresponded frequently with her and visited her on numerous occasions, Kierkegaard decides to ask for her hand in marriage. She and her family accept, but the following day, Kierkegaard regrets his decision and ends up finally breaking off the engagement in October 1841. Disregarding the scandal, the heartbreak (his own included), and the numerous pleas from family members and friends alike, Kierkegaard’s tortured soul, still searching for God and for the meaning of faith, cannot continue living with the promise of marriage. Later the same month, he flees Copenhagen and the scandal surrounding the broken engagement. He leaves for Berlin, the first of his four stays there, clearly tortured by his decision, but also intent on not being able to go through with the engagement. As is evident from his posthumously published Papers, Kierkegaard’s only way out of the relationship was to play a charming, but cold, villain, a charlatan, not betraying his inner thoughts and feelings. Despite the brevity of the engagement, it has gone down in history as one of the most significant in the entire history of modern thought. It is a real-life Werther-story with the father of Existentialism as the main character, thus with the dumbfounding existentialist outcome that no-one could have foreseen. This exceedingly famous and difficult engagement became the introduction to one of the most influential authorships in the last two centuries. “She was the reason for my authorship”, Kierkegaard writes in his Papers, and there is no doubt that several of his most significant works are born out of the relationship with Regine – and its ending. It is during his stay in Berlin, his first of four altogether, right after the rupture of the engagement, that he begins writing Either-Or, parts of which can be read as an almost autobiographical rendering of his failed engagement. After a couple of years, Regine got engaged to someone else, whom she married in 1847. But as is well known, Kierkegaard never married, and the impact of his engagement to Regine and what it made him understand – about himself, about religion, faith, the inner workings of the philosopher and the poet –, never lost its significance. It is evident from the many drafts of a letter that he sent to Regine, through her husband, in 1849 (which was returned to him, unopened) that he had never lain the matter to rest and that the relationship with Regine was still very much alive. He also states in his Notebook 15 from 1849 “By the way, it is certainly the case that my relationship with her has been a very close, present study for me of what faith is. For I know better in this relationship how it is apparently the exact opposite of the foundational. That I have lasted in this relationship has been useful for me in relating to God as a believer.” In his Notebook 15, also known as My Relationship with Her, from 1849, Kierkegaard describes how, when he finally broke off the engagement and she tried to get him to stay, she had told him “that she would thank me her entire life for being allowed to stay with me, even if she were to live in a little cupboard” (SKS No. 16: 6). Thus, Kierkegaard had a little cupboard made, with no shelves in it. Here, he kept “everything that reminds me of her and will remind me of her. There is also a copy of the pseudonyms (i.e. the works that he wrote under a pseudonym); of these, there were always only two copies on vellum-paper, one for her and one for me.” (SKS: Not. 15:6.). In all, Kierkegaard wrote eight pseudonymous books, Prefaces being one of them, all of which were evidently printed in two copies each on vellum-paper and bound in special bindings, one for Regine, one for Kierkegaard himself. Himmelstrup 70 The present copy is no. 27 in Girsel's "Kierkegaard" (The Catalogue) which can be found here.

Kjøbenhavn, P.G. Philipsens Forlag, 1841. 8vo. (8), 350 pp. Gift binding of elaborately blindpatterned full cloth with single gilt lines to spine. All edges gilt and printed on thick vellum paper. A splendid copy in completely unrestored state with minimal edge wear. Slight sunning to upper 1 cm of front board and slight bumping to corners and capitals. Leaves completely fresh and clean. Pencil-annotation from the Kierkegaard archive of the Royal Library (nr. 83) and discreet stamp from the Royal Library of Copenhagen to inside of front board (with a deaccession-inscription) and to verso of title-page. With ownership signatures of P.S. Lund and Troels Lund to title-page. Inside of back board with previous owner’s pencil-annotations listing the entire provenance of the copy and explaining that this is one of two copies printed on thick vellum paper. Laid in is the original agreement for the exchange of real property between the previous owner and the Royal Library of Denmark, from which is evident that in 2003, The Royal Library and the previous owner legally agreed to exchange their respective copies of Om Begrebet Ironie – the present one for Ørsted, being one of two copies on thick vellum paper, and the copy on normal paper for Heiberg, which is now in the holdings of the Royal Library of Denmark. Arguably the best possible copy one can ever hope to acquire of Kierkegaard’s dissertation – one of two copies on thick vellum paper, being a presentation-copy from Kierkegaard to the discoverer of electromagnetism H.C. Ørsted. Inscribed to verso of front fly-leaf: “Til / Hans Magnificens / Universitetets Rector / Hr. Conferentsraad Ørsted. / C og D.M.” (For / His Magnificence / Principle of the University / Mr. [a high Danish title, now obsolete] Ørsted. / C (ommandør) (i.e. Commander) and DM (short for Dannebrogsmand, another honourable title) ). The copy is with the Thesis, and both the day and the time has been filled in by hand. As mentioned in the introduction to the Irony, Kierkegaard had two copies made on thick vellum paper –one for himself (which is in the Royal Library of Denmark), and one for H. C. Ørsted, a towering figure of the Danish Golden Age, one of the most important scientists that Denmark has produced, then principle of the University of Copenhagen. This copy is unique among the 11 registered presentation-copies of Kierkegaard’s dissertation and is without doubt the most desirable. It is approximately twice as thick as the other copies and stand out completely. THIS IS KIERKEGAARD’S dissertation, which constitutes the culmination of three years’ intensive studies of Socrates and “the true point of departure for Kierkegaard’s authorship” (Brandes). The work is of the utmost importance in Kierkegaard’s production, not only as his first academic treatise, but also because he here introduces several themes that will be addressed in his later works. Among these we find the question of defining the subject of cognition and self-knowledge of the subject. The maxim of “know thyself” will be a constant throughout his oeuvre, as is the theory of knowledge acquisition that he deals with here. The dissertation is also noteworthy in referencing many of Hegel’s theses in a not negative context, something that Kierkegaard himself would later note with disappointment and characterize as an early, uncritical use of Hegel. Another noteworthy feature is the fact that the thesis is written in Danish, which was unheard of at the time. Kierkegaard felt that Danish was a more suitable language for the thesis and hadto petition the King to be granted permission to submit it in Danish rather than Latin. This in itself poses as certain irony, as the young Kierkegaard was known to express himself poorly and very long-winded in written Danish. One of Kierkegaard’s only true friends, his school friend H.P. Holst recounts (in 1869) how the two had a special school friendship and working relationship, in which Kierkegaard wrote Latin compositions for Holst, while Holst wrote Danish compositions for Kierkegaard, who “expressed himself in a hopelessly Latin Danish crawling with participial phrases and extraordinarily complicatedsentences” (Garff, p. 139). When Kierkegaard, in 1838, was ready to publish his famous piece on Hans Christian Andersen (see nr. 1 & 2 above), which was to appear in Heiberg’s journal Perseus, Heiberg had agreed to publish the piece, although he had some severe critical comments about the way and the form in which it was written – if it were to appear in Perseus, Heiberg demanded, at the very least, the young Kierkegaard would have to submit it in a reasonably readable Danish. “Kierkegaard therefore turned to his old schoolmate H. P. Holst and asked him to do something with the language…” (Garff, p. 139). From their school days, Holst was well aware of the problem with Kierkegaard’s Danish, and he recounts that over the summer, he actually “translated” Kierkegaard’s article on Andersen into proper Danish. The oral defense was conducted in Latin, however. The judges all agreed that the work submitted was both intelligent and noteworthy. But they were concerned about its style, which was found to be both tasteless, long-winded, and idiosyncratic. We already here witness Kierkegaard’s idiosyncratic approach to content and style that is so characteristic for all of his greatest works. Both stylistically and thematically, Kierkegaard’s and especially a clear precursor for his magnum opus Either-Or that is to be his next publication. The year 1841 is a momentous one in Kierkegaard’s life. It is the year that he completes his dissertation and commences his sojourn in Berlin, but it is also the defining year in his personal life, namely the year that he breaks off his engagement with Regine Olsen. And finally, it is the year that he begins writing Either-Or. In many ways, Either-Or is born directly out of The Concept of Irony and is the work that brings the theory of Irony to life. Part One of the dissertation concentrates on Socrates as interpreted by Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes, with a word on Hegel and Hegelian categories. Part Two is a more synoptic discussion of the concept of irony in Kierkegaard’s categories, with examples from other philosophers. The work constitutes Kierkegaard’s attempt at understanding the role of irony in disrupting society, and with Socrates understood through Kierkegaard, we witness a whole new way of interpreting the world before us. Wisdom is not necessarily fixed, and we ought to use Socratic ignorance to approach the world without the inherited bias of our cultures. With irony, we will be able to embrace the not knowing. We need to question the world knowing we may not find an answer. The moment we stop questioning and just accept the easy answers, we succumb to ignorance. We must use irony to laugh at ourselves in order to improve ourselves and to laugh at society in order to improve the world. The work was submitted to the Philosophical Faculty at the University of Copenhagen on June 3rd 1841. Kierkegaard had asked for his dissertation to be ready from the printer’s in ample time for him to defend it before the new semester commenced. This presumably because he had already planned his sojourn to Berlin to hear the master philosopher Schelling. On September 16th, the book was issued, and on September 29th, the defense would take place. The entire defense, including a two hour long lunch break, took seven hours, during which ”an unusually full auditorium” would listen to the official opponents F.C. Sibbern and P.O. Brøndsted as well as the seven “ex auditorio” opponents F.C. Petersen, J.L. Heiberg, P.C. Kierkegaard, Fr. Beck, F.P.J. Dahl, H .J.Thue og C.F. Christens, not to mention Kierkegaard himself. Two weeks later, on October 12th, Kierkegaard broke off his engagement with Regine Olsen (for the implications of this event, see the section about Regine in vol. II). The work appeared in two states – one with the four pages of “Theses”, for academics of the university, whereas the copies without the theses were intended for ordinary sale. These sales copies also do not have “Udgivet for Magistergraden” and “theologisk Candidat” on the title-page. The first page of the theses always contains the day “XXIX” of September written in hand, and sometimes the time “hora X” is also written in hand, but not always. In all, 11 presentation-copies of the dissertation are known, and of these only one is signed (that for Holst), all the others merely state the title and name of the recipient. As is evident from the auction catalogue of his collection, Kierkegaard had a number of copies of his dissertation in his possession when he died. Five of them were bound, and two of them were “nit. M. Guldsnit” (i.e. daintily bound and with gilt edges). These two copies were obviously meant as presentation-copies that he then never gave away. The gift copies of the dissertation were given two types of bindings, both brownish cloth, one type patterned, the other one plain, and some of them have gilt edges, but most of the plain ones do not. There exist two copies on thick vellum paper – one being Kierkegaard’s own copy, the other being the copy for H.C. Ørsted, discoverer of electromagnetism and then principle of the University of Copenhagen. “As already implied, two works of the authorship stand out in the sense that Kierkegaard sent his presentation-copies to a special circle of people: The dissertation from 1841...” (Posselt, Textspejle, p. 91, translated from Danish). Most of the copies were given to former teachers and especially to people who, due to leading positions, personified the university. “For this circle of initiated we can now, due to registered copies, confirm that Kierkegaard gave copies with handwritten dedications to the headmaster of the University H.C. Ørsted (printed on thick paper), Kolderup-Rosenvinge and to J.L. Heiberg. It is granted that Sibbern, Madvig and F.C. Petersen were also given the dissertation as a gift,... but these copies are not known (yet).” (Posselt, Textspejle, pp. 93-94, translated fromDanish). (N.b. We have since handled the copy given to Petersen and can thus confirm that it exists). The presentation-inscriptions in the 11 registered copies of the Irony all follow a certain, strict pattern. “The wording could not be briefer. In the donation of his academic treatise, the otherwise prolific Kierkegaard sticks to name, titles, and the modes of address that goes with the titles.” (Tekstspejle p. 96, translated from Danish). When presenting his later books, he always signs himself “from the author”, sometimes abbreviated (i.e. “Forf.” In stead of “Forfatteren”), unless he is mentioned by name on the title-page as the publisher, not the author, as is the case with some of the pseudonymous works. In that case he signs his inscriptions “From the publisher”, always accompanied by “in deep reverence”, “with reverence”, “with friendship” or the like, adapted to the rank of the recipient and his place on Kierkegaard’s personal scale. An academic treatise, however, published before the oral defense took place – in the mind of Kierkegaard – required certain demands in relation to the donation of it. Thus, the brevity and rigidity in the following inscriptions. With the exception of Kierkegaard Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) is arguably the most famous and influential Dane ever to have lived, universally known for his discovery of Electro-magnetism in 1820, which led to new theories and discoveries that constituted the foundation of all later electro-technology. After this milestone of scientific discovery, Ørsted went on to write a number of important philosophical works on natural philosophy and empiricism, of which The Spirit in Nature is the most famous and the work he himself considered his main work. Both H.C. Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard admit to having been influenced by the writings of Ørsted. “He was an enthusiastic follower of the “Naturphilosophie” school in Germany, whose main object was the unification of physical forces, thus producing a monistic theory of the universe. It was to further this purpose that Oersted sought in actual phenomena the electro-magnetic identity of which he had already convinced himself on metaphysical grounds” (Percy H. Muir in Printing and The Mind of Man). “The natural scientist Hans Christian Ørsted was one of the most significant and influential personalities of his age and together with the sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, the poet Hans Christian Andersen, and the thinker Søren Kierkegaard, constituted the small handful of figures from “The Danish Golden Age” who achieved international and even world fame.” (Troelsen in Kierkegaard and his Danish Contemporaries I: p. (215) ). In intellectual circles in Denmark at the time of Kierkegaard, Ørsted was inevitable. He influenced not only natural sciences profoundly, but also philosophy, literature, and Danish languages (coining more than 2.000 neologisms). He was furthermore rector of the university of Copenhagen, when Kierkegaard in 1841 submitted his master’s thesis On the Concept of Irony. Being the rector, Ørsted was the one who needed to pass the treatise, but having read it, he was simply not sure whether to do so or not and needed to consult other experts, before making his decision. He ended up allowing it to pass, but not without having first famously said about it (in a letter to Sibbern) that it “makes a generally unpleasant impression on me, particularly because of two things both of which I detest: verbosity and affectation.” (Kirmmmse (edt.): Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 32). Kierkegaard makes several references to Ørsted’s Spirit in Nature and mentions him several times in his journals and notebooks. Although being of different generations and not particularly close on a personal level, the two intellectual giants would naturally be unavoidably connected in one way or the other. Ørsted was simply so centrally placed and so influential that there was no way around him for someone like Kierkegaard. Himmelstrup 8 The present copy is no. 9 in Girsel's "Kierkegaard" (The Catalogue) which can be found here.

Paris, Charles Estienne, 1553. Small 4to. Bound in a lovely 19th century red morocco binding with five raised bands and gilt ornamentations to spine. Boards with blindstamped frame-borders and gilt ornamental centre-pieces. All edges of boards gilt and inner gilt dentelles. All edges gilt. "E. THOMAS" discreetly printed to top of front free end-paper. Front free end-paper with woodcut armorial book-plate (Bibliotheque du Plessis Villoutreys). First and last leaves with a bit of brownspotting, otherwise very nice and clean throughout. The last three leaves with neat restorations - neatly closed tear, with no loss and a couple of small restorations to top margin (far from affecting text). (8), 148 pp. Estienne's printer's device to title-page and woodcut initials. The extremely rare first translation printed in any language, being the first printed French translation, of one of the most important and influential works in the history of mankind, Machiavelli's "The Prince". After the original printing in Italian, the present is arguably the most desirable edition of the seminal masterpiece that is Machiavelli's magnum opus. "The Prince" constitutes the beginning of modern political philosophy and one of the most influential works in the history of modern thought. It founded the science of modern politics on the study of mankind, and even today no political thinker can disregard the importance of this masterpiece of political theory.The translation not only inaugurated the tradition of translating "The Prince" into other languages than Italian, it also exercised the greatest influence upon the entire Machiavellian tradition and constitutes an immeasurable historical source in its own right. Although the work was never reprinted and this extremely scarce edition is the only available version of the text, the effects of it are still clearly visible in our times. It secured the diffusion of the text throughout Europe and it served as the basis for the most important of the later translations, e.g. Jacques Gohory's from 1571, which is considered not much more than a slight reworking of Cappel's translation. As Jean Bingen points to, Cappel's translation also directly influenced (and influences) almost all modern translations of the work. The reason for this continued direct and strong influence is of course not only due to its priority in time over all other translations, it is also due to the fact that Cappel's translation always has been and still is considered the most "Machiavellian" translation of "The Prince" ever made and the one closest to the source - both in time, in style, and in rendering of the content. Cappel was the only of the early translators who was himself a Machiavellian and his respect for and understanding of the text shines from the pages. "Besides being a politically charged text, the "Principe" was also a piece of beautiful and clear Italian prose, and its tightness and brevity constituted a decisive advantage over the "Discorsi". An awareness of the literary qualities of the text is also evident in the preface Guillaume Cappel wrote to his translation (dedicated to Jean Bertrand, Lord Privy Seal), in which he underlines Machiavelli's use of an appropriate style and the good use to which he puts his knowledge of history... These qualities prompted Cappel to undertake his translation...Cappel's enterprise was praised for his literary qualities by the members of the Pléiade who had their own poems inserted at the end of the translation. More recently, his version had been justly praised as "very literal and sinewy". It has also been noted, however, that it was not reprinted, thought Jacques Gohery's version, published 1571, followed it "almost verbatim"." (Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, p. 12). "Guillaume Cappel II, sieur de Preigny (1530-86), was widely known in medicine for his work on nutrition and his editing of texts on how to avoid the plague and on general medical diagnosis. A member of the Catholic League, he was determined not only to bring up his brother's children in the Catholic faith but also to exploit Tilloy to his own profit. However, in 1586 he was killed in an affray with the enemies of the League... Family divisions of the kind that occurred at Le Tilloy were customary during the religious wars, but it is not because of his part in them, nor even because of his Catholic enthusiasm and his medical reputation, that Guillaume Cappel deserves attention. In 1553, at the age of twenty-three, he published a French translation of Machiavelli's "Prince", dedicating it to a powerful patron, the "Garde des sceaux" Jean Bertrand. Appended to the book were poems praising Mchiavelli, and Cappel as his French interpreter, by Marc-Antoine Muret and Rémy Belleau, and other verses about the relative merits of French and Italian princes by Etienne Jodelle. Guillaume Cappel clearly mixed in the foremost literary circles of the time. He claimed to be a student of politics, as well as of medicine and letters, and in his dedication to Bertrand, which he modelled on Machiavelli's own prefatory letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, he expressed an admiration for Machiavelli that knew no bounds. Politics, he remarked, constituted the highest branch of philosophy, itself the queen of the "sciences". Other political writers were sophists producing utopias, but Machiavelli wrote of government as it really was. Cappel went on to argue in his preface that men were more ungrateful towrads their ruler than any animal towrads its master. The exercise of power was shaped by necessity, not by virtuous intentions, and only those who understood this could govern successfully. For his part, the ruler necessarily pursued two aims, to keep his authority intact and to extend his dominions. According to Cappel, Machiavelli had boldly analysed the faults committed by princes in the pst, had shown how problems could be dealt with in the future, and had brilliantly explained the causes of political upheavals.Guillaume Cappel's translation of "The Prince" was the first of three to be published in France before the massacre of St. Bartholomew, when the black legend of Machiavelli became dominant... Guillaume Cappel was not only the first translator of "The Prince" but also the one most in sympathy with Machiavelli himself. He scornfully refuted those who accused his author "de facooner un prince trop rigoreux." A good doctor, said Cappel in his dedication, did not worry whether his patient disliked the remedy he prescribed, but merely whether the cure would work. Cappel refused to take up the rumor whether Machiavelli was an atheist, because, he claimed, there was nothing he had written that could support or deny the charge... Cappel's translation was sharper, and truer to the original than Gaspard d'Auvergne's or Gohory's.... The young Guillaume Cappel was, at this time at least, a true Machiavellian." (McMillan Salmo, Renaissance and Revolt, pp. 62-63). The work is of the utmost scarcity, with only few copies known. According to the "Catalogue général" of the Bibliothèque National, at least thirty-five editions of three French translations of "The Prince" appeared between 1553 and 1664. "The doctor Guillaume Cappel is credited with the first French translation of "The Prince" (1553), followed by Gaspard d'Auvergne (1553) and Jacques Gohory (1571)." (Jacob Soll, Publishing The Prince, p.73).(See PMM 63 - first edition).

High Holborn, for the Council by Edward Truelove, 1871. Small 8vo. Near contemporary quarter cloth with silver lettering to front board. Binding with signs of use, but overall good. One closed marginal tear and title-page with a few brownspots, otherwise very nice and clean. 35 pp. Exceedingly rare first edition (with the names of Lucraft and Odger still present under "The General Council") of one of Marx' most important works, his seminal defense of the Paris Commune and exposition of the struggle of the Communards, written for all proletarians of the world. While living in London, Marx had joined the International Working Men's Association in 1864 - "a society founded largely by members of Britain's growing trade unions and designed to foster international working class solidarity and mutual assistance. Marx accepted the International's invitation to represent Germany and became the most active member of its governing General Council, which met every Tuesday evening, first at 18 Greek Street in Soho and later in Holborn. In this role, Marx had his first sustained contact with the British working class and wrote some of his most memorable works, notably "The Civil War in France". A polemical response to the destruction of the Paris Commune by the French government in 1871, it brought Marx notoriety in London as 'the red terror doctor', a reputation that helped ensure the rejection of his application for British citizenship several years later. Despite his considerable influence within the International, it was never ideologically homogenous... (homas C. Jones: "Karl Marx' London").The work was highly controversial, but extremely influential. Even though most of the Council members of the International sanctioned the Address, it caused a rift internally, and some of the English members of the General Council were enraged to be seen to endorse it. Thus, for the second printing of the work, the names of Lucraft and Odger, who had now withdrawn from the Council, were removed from the list of members of "The General Council" at the end of the pamphlet. "[Marx] defended the Commune in a bitterly eloquent pamphlet, "The Civil War in France", whose immediate effect was further to identify the International with the Commune, by then in such wide disrepute that some of the English members of the General Council refused to endorse it." (Saul K. Padover, preface to Vol. II of the Karl Marx Library, pp. XLVII-XLVIII)."Written by Karl Marx as an address to the General Council of the International, with the aim of distributing to workers of all countries a clear understanding of the character and world-wide significance of the heroic struggle of the Communards and their historical experience to learn from. The book was widely circulated by 1872 it was translated into several languages and published throughout Europe and the United States." (The Karl Marx Archive)Marx concluded "The Civil War in France" with these impassioned words, which were to resound with workers all over the world: "Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priests will not avail to redeem them."The address, which was delivered on May 30, 1871, two days after the defeat of the Paris Commune, was to have an astounding effect on working men all over the world and on the organization of power of the proletarians. It appeared in three editions in 1871, was almost immediately translated into numerous languages and is now considered one of the most important works that Marx ever wrote. " "The Civil War in France", one of Marx's most important works, was written as an address by the General Council of the International to all Association members in Europe and the United States.From the earliest days of the Paris Commune Marx made a point of collecting and studying all available information about its activities. He made clippings from all available French, English and German newspapers of the time. Newspapers from Paris reached London with great difficulty. Marx had at his disposal only individual issues of Paris newspapers that supported the Commune. He had to use English and French bourgeois newspapers published in London, including ones of Bonapartist leanings, but succeeded in giving an objective picture of the developments in Paris. ...Marx also drew valuable information from the letters of active participants and prominent figures of the Paris Commune, such as Leo Frankel, Eugene Varlin, Auguste Serraillier, Yelisaveta Tornanovskaya, as well as from the letters of Paul Lafargue, Pyotr Lavrov and others.Originally he intended to write an address to the workers of Paris, as he declared at the meeting of the General Council on March 28, 1871. His motion was unanimously approved. The further developments in Paris led him, however, to the conclusion that an appeal should be addressed to proletarians of the world. At the General Council meeting on April 18, Marx suggested to issue "an address to the International generally about the general tendency of the struggle." Marx was entrusted with drafting the address. He started his work after April 18 and continued throughout May. Originally he wrote the First and Second drafts of "The Civil War in France" as preparatory variants for the work, and then set about making up the final text of the address.He did most of the work on the First and Second drafts and the final version roughly between May 6 and 30. On May 30, 1871, two days after the last barricade had fallen in Paris, the General Council unanimously approved the text of "The Civil War in France", which Marx had read out."The Civil War in France" was first published in London on about June 13, 1871 in English, as a pamphlet of 35 pages in 1,000 copies. Since the first edition quickly sold out, the second English edition of 2,000 copies was published at a lower price, for sale to workers. In this edition [i.e., MECW], Marx corrected some of the misprints occurring in the first edition, and the section "Notes" was supplemented with another document. Changes were made in the list of General Council members who signed the Address: the names of Lucraft and Odger were deleted, as they had expressed disagreement with the Address in the bourgeois press and had withdrawn from the General Council, and the names of the new members of the General Council were added. In August 1871, the third English edition of "The Civil War in France" came out, in which Marx eliminated the inaccuracies of the previous editions.In 1871-72, "The Civil War" in France was translated into French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Flemish, Serbo-Croat, Danish and Polish, and published in the periodical press and as separate pamphlets in various European countries and the USA. It was repeatedly published in subsequent years....In 1891, when preparing a jubilee German edition of "The Civil War in France" to mark the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune, Engels once again edited the text of his translation. He also wrote an introduction to this edition, emphasising the historical significance of the experience of the Paris Commune, and its theoretical generalisation by Marx in "The Civil War in France", and also giving additional information on the activities of the Communards from among the Blanquists and Proudhonists. Engels included in this edition the First and Second addresses of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association on the Franco-Prussian war, which were published in subsequent editions in different languages also together with "The Civil War France". (Notes on the Publication of "The Civil War in France" from MECW Volume 22). Only very few copies of the book from 1871 on OCLC are not explicitly stated to be 2nd or 3rd editions, and we have not been able to find a single copy for sale at auctions within the last 50 years.

Valencia, Francisco Diaz Romano, 1531. 4to (205 x 145 mm). Exquisitely bound in a sumptuous richly blind-ornamented and gilt 20th century full calf binding. Five raised bands, gilt lettering, and smaller gilt decorations to richly blindstamped spine. Boards elaborately blindstamped with frames in different patterns and with smaller dispersed gilt ornamentations. Front board with a large centre-piece, also elaborately blindstamed and with gilt ornamentations, at the center of which the words “Libre de Consells de Jaume Roig” in gilt Gothic lettering. Back board with the same large centre-piece repeated, inside which a gilt centre-illustration (reminiscent of Bacchus) and the words “a bon seny no hi valengan” (Old Catalan for “common sense is not worth it”) in gilt lettering underneath. Binding signed Miquerlius to lower inside of front board. Single gilt line to edges of boards and broad inner gilt dentelles. All edges gilt. Leaf A4 with ink-annotations in contemporary hand. First leaves with marginal repairs and a closed wormtract, with loss of a few letters. Leaves L-O with closed wormtract in upper outer margin. Last leaves with marginal repairs and final leaf (woodcut illustration) with closed tear and a few wormholes, with minor loss of the illustration. With occasional brownspotting and a few leaves evenly browned. Washed. 139, (1) pp. (A-R8, S4) The exceedingly rare first edition of Roig’s magnum opus, his seminal masterpiece of Catalan literature. This satirical work on women offering extensive advice on avoiding their alleged deceptive nature, the pitfalls of marriage, including all the misadventures Roig himself has suffered during four marriages is widely considered one of the most significant pieces of literature in Catalan. The first edition is of the utmost scarcity and hardly ever finds its way into the trade. Salva (author of “Catalogue of Spanish and Portuguese Books with occasional literary and bibliographical remarks”) only knew of two complete copies, and as early as 1735, the book was already so unprocurable that the editor of an attempted reprint had to omit some parts for lack of an early copy. Salva’s own copy is now housed in the British Library, who states: “Scarcely any Spanish book is more rare than this first edition of Roig, of which Carlos Ros, who edited the works of Roig in 1735, was unable to find any copy whatever. It was unknown to Nic. Antonio who quotes the second edition of 1532 as if it was the first”. It was written in 1459-60 and has only survived in one manuscript (MS. Vat. Lat. 4806). During the sixteenth century, however, several editions of Roig’s text were published, although with a modified title: Llibre de consells (Valencia, 1531 and 1532; Barcelona, 1561) and Llibre de les dones me´sverament dit de consells (Valencia, 1561); in recent years, it is often seen referred to as “The Espill” or "The Mirror". While the 15th century saw the emergence of other renowned literary works in Catalan, such as Tirant lo Blanc by Joanot Martorell and the anonymously written Curial e Güelfa, the present work distinguishes itself through its distinctive fusion of realism, social critique, sharp satire and, to some extent, medical knowledge. This combination makes it a remarkable portrayal of the evolving socioeconomic dynamics and cultural attitudes of Valencian society at the time: “(The present work) is mere fiction, but it is full of autobiographical ele­ments and, despite the deformations imposed by the liter­ary genre, it especially offers a very realistic picture of Va­lencian society in the 15th century and specifically of the city of Valencia. Roig describes very precise aspects of the trades and customs of the era and evokes real events which he knew about first-hand. He also furnishes priceless de­tails on the knowledge and profession of medicine. In any event, as Antònia Carré accurately states, “the satirical de­formations and comical inversions of Espill should be un­derstood within the context of Galenic medicine.” (Ferrando, Catalan fiction in the 15th century, p. 37) ”The Espill (1460) (also called Libre de consells (Book of Advice) or Libre de les dones (Book of the Women) by its old publishers) seems to me to be one of the most singular works in 15th-century Valencian art as a consequence of the summa of a series of elements that its author, Jaume Roig (circa 1400-1478), mixes with unusual skill. Thus, its format (a narrative poem that consists of over sixteen thousand tetrasyllabic couplets), its subject matter (a misogynist satire with didactic and moralising contents), its external (a preface and four books divided into four sections) and internal (resort to fictitious autobiography in three of the four books) structures, the medieval traditions that channel the discourse (artes praedicandi, exempla, jokes...), the linguistic and rhetorical registers used (combining colloquial and vulgar language with learned terms), etc. However, Roig’s singularity must be understood equally in the literary context of 15th century Valencia, as interesting interrelations can be established between its creation and some of the most important works and authors of that time, ranging from Joanot Martorell to Joan Roís de Corella, passing through Isabel de Villena. On the other hand, it is also worth highlighting its wider context, for example in relation with its dialogue with the classical and biblical traditions or with the European (and Hispanic) “pro-” and “anti-feminist” debates of the 13th century, as Cantavella has analysed, within which it consolidates scientific and religious references, which are what are of most interest here” (Merida, Sodomy and the Sick Body of Women).In the 15th century, Catalan fiction flourished within the context of the Crown of Aragon's Mediterranean expansion marked by the rise of Valencia as its cultural center, a growing monetary economy, and increased interaction with other European regions, notably Italy, France and Burgundy. This rich environment produced several significant literary works including the present.“In the second half of the 15th century, writers from or imitating the bourgeoisie who liked to cultivate satirical and burlesque stories in verse, often in collaboration with one another, proliferated in Valencia. One of the most prominent was Jaume Roig... His Espill, is much more than a simple mi­sogynistic satire: it is a true novel that quite skilfully de­scribes the most grotesque aspects of the society of his day. (Ferrando, Catalan fiction on the 15th century, p. 37). Although bitter towards women in general, the work culminates in a glorification of the Virgin and finally in a beautiful full-page woodcut of the Virgin and Child with Saints Dorothy and Eulalie and two other saints - considered a masterpiece of the late Spanish Gothic style. Jaume Roig (circa 1400 – 1478) was a Valencian doctor and medical advisor to Dona Maria, wife of Alfonso V. “He studied Medicine and Arts and soon became a prominent doctor in the city, where he combined his medical practice with reading and writing. In 1443 he married Isabel Pellisser with whom he had six children. Jaume Roig's Espill was one of the most important works of the fifteenth century. His writing was in the romantic tradition of narrative in verse, not to mention the misogynist didactic tradition with comic and instructive elements. Espill consists of 16,359 couplets by means of which the narrator addresses his nephew, warning him about the ill-treatment he has received from women and therefore advising him to keep away from the female sex. Divided into an introductory poem, a Preface and four "books", Espill had a great impact in its day, so much so that four editions were published in the sixteenth century.” (Associació d'Escriptors en Llengua Catalana). Palau 275503: "rarissima" Lyell, p. 118: "very rare" Brunet IV, 1356: "fort rare"

New-York, 1852. Bound in a later (ab. 1900) red full cloth binding with silver lettering to front board. A bit of wear to capitals, corners, and extremities. Front free end-paper with small repairs and strengthening. A couple of closed tears to blank outer margin of title-page (no loss and not affecting printing)Inner blank margins of the first few leaves strengthened (far from affecting text). Occasionally a few marginal notes. and underlinings. A near contemporary notice in Russian about the work has been inserted between the title-page and the preface. All in all a good copy with no major flaws. IV, (4), 62 pp. The exceedingly scarce first edition of one of the absolutely most important writings by Marx - his seminal essay on the French coup of 1851, which not only constitutes our principal source for the understanding of Marx' theory of the Capitalist state (together with "The Civil War in France"), but which is also the work in which Marx formulates for the first time his view of the role of the individual in history."This work (i.e. "The Eighteenth Brumaire"), written on the basis of a concrete analysis of the revolutionary events in France from 1848 to 1851, is one of the most important Marxist writings. In it Marx gives a further elaboration of all the basic tenets of historical materialism - the theory of the class struggle and proletarian revolution, the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of extremely great importance is the conclusion which Marx arrived at on the question of the attitude of the proletariat to the bourgeois state. He says, - "All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it.". Lenin described it as one of the most important propositions in the Marxist teaching on the state. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx continued his analysis of the question of the peasantry, as a potential ally of the working class in the imminent revolution, outlined the role of the political parties in the life of society and exposed for what they were the essential features of Bonapartism." (note 1 in the Preface to the Third German Edition (Engels, 1885) )."The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" was written between December 1851 and March 1852 and originally published - as it is here - in 1852 in "Die Revolution", a German monthly magazine established by Joseph Weydemeyer and published in New York. In this cornerstone of modern political thought, Marx discusses the French coup of 1851 in which Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte assumed dictatorial powers and does so by treating actual historical events from the viewpoint of his materialist conception of history.Marx states that his purpose with the work is to "demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part" (preface to the second edition, 1869), and he famously formulates his view of the role of the individual in history ("Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past").If one wants to understand Marx' views on the capitalist state, "The 18th Brumaire" is absolutely essential, as it is to the understanding of the nature, the rise, and the meaning of fascism. Among Marxist scholars, there's wide consensus about regarding Louis Bonaparte's coup and rise to power as a forerunner of the fascism that is to emerge the 20th century. In the words of Engels: "The fact that a new edition of "The Eighteenth Brumaire" has become necessary, thirty-three years after its first appearance, proves that even today this little book has lost none of its value. It was in truth a work of genius. Immediately after the event that struck the whole political world like a thunderbolt from the blue, that was condemned by some with loud cries of moral indignation and accepted by others as salvation from the revolution and as punishment for its errors, but was only wondered at by all and understood by none-immediately after this event Marx came out with a concise, epigrammatic exposition that laid bare the whole course of French history since the February days in its inner interconnection, reduced the miracle of December 2 to a natural, necessary result of this interconnection and in so doing did not even need to treat the hero of the coup d'état otherwise than with the contempt he so well deserved. And the picture was drawn with such a master hand that every fresh disclosure since made has only provided fresh proofs of how faithfully it reflected reality. This eminent understanding of the living history of the day, this clear-sighted appreciation of events at the moment of happening, is indeed without parallel. ...In addition, however, there was still another circumstance. It was precisely Marx who had first discovered the great law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes, and that the existence and thereby the collisions, too, between these classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their economic position, by the mode of their production and of their exchange determined by it. This law, which has the same significance for history as the law of the transformation of energy has for natural science - this law gave him here, too, the key to an understanding of the history of the Second French Republic. He put his law to the test on these historical events, and even after thirty-three years we must still say that it has stood the test brilliantly." (Preface to the Third German Edition (Engels, 1885)).The work is incredibly scarce. OCLC lists no more than two copies in libraries world-wide: One in the USA: University of Wisconsin, one in France: Bibliothèque Nationale. We have not been able to locate a single copy at auction over the last 60 years.

Paris, Durand, 1758. Large 4to. Large-paper copy bound in a beautiful contemporary full calf binding with five raised bands to richly gilt spine. Triple gilt line-borders to boards, all edges of boards gilt and inner gilt dentelles. All edges gilt. A stunning, bright, clean, and fresh copy, with minimal wear and no restorations of any kind. Presentation-inscriptions to front free end-paper and to verso of title-page (see description in note below). Large woodcut title-vignette and many smaller vignettes throughout. (4), XXII, 643, (1) pp. + 40 ff. (i.e. the original, uncorrected leaves: pp. 1-16; 35-38; 59-62; 67-70; 75-78; 139-142; 145-154; 169-176; 187-190; 233-34; 227-230; 459-462; 547-550; 603-606 + 2 extra leaves that were printed incorrectly, namely p. 160 - reset & p. 239 - different vignette). Extremely rare first edition, first issue, with manuscript dedication-inscription from the author, of this monumental work of the French Enlightenment. This magnum opus of modern thought is considered the founding work of modern Utilitarianism, as it is here that Helvétius articulates the greatest happiness principle ("the greatest happiness for the greatest number") for the first time and becomes the first to define social welfare upon this utilitarian maxim, directly influencing Bentham and Mill.The materialistic philosophy of Helvétius' "De l'Esprit" also directly influenced Karl Marx, who had studied the work while in Paris and called the ideas presented in it "the social basis of communism"."De l'Esprit" arguably constitutes the greatest "succès de scandale" of Western thought and one of the most influential works of Western philosophy.This magnificent copy is stunning in all ways. It contains all the extremely rare condemned and repressed leaves of the first issue (bound in the back), it is printed on large paper, contemporarily bound (presumably under instruction by Helvétius himself) in a stunning full calf gift binding and with two manuscript ex-dono- (presentation-) inscriptions by Helvétius himself. One of them, on the verso of the title-page, is crossed out, but is still legible (reading "donum auctoris 17 avril 1760 Cl. Helvetius"), the second, on the front free end-paper reads "ex dono auctoris 1761" - thus indicating that Helvétius, who had the copy in his possession, to give away when he felt it appropriate, had first intended to give it away - perhaps late in the year - in 1760, and then ended up giving it away in 1761. The work lost its privilege almost immediately, and even though Hélvetius wrote three retractions, it was still condemned and publicly burnt. In spite of this, Helvétius still kept a few copies of the very first issue, with all the original leaves. According to Smith, 15 copies existed, and as Jacques Guérin also notes, these copies were all intended for his close friends and family (we know for instance that Rousseau received one of the copies). These copies, of which the present is one, are thus of the utmost scarcity. Only one other has been on the market within the last 25 years, namely that of Jacques Guérin, which, however, did not have a dedication-inscription from Helvétius.As Tchermerzine describes, the extremely rare copies of the first issue, which are either without the newly formulated leaves or with the original leaves preserved (our copy has them all!) are between 10 and 60 times as valuable as the later issues, depending on condition - these between 4 and 15 copies are the only ones to contain the 80 revolutionary pages that caused the work to be condemned and burnt and sent Helvétius into exile. Tchermerzine does not, however, account for copies with a presentation-inscription like the present. The work caused an immense uproar, when it appeared. It was considered so heretical, atheistic, and immoral that it lost its privilege within a fortnight; it was heavily condemned by the Church and the State and was burnt by the Hangman, the plan being to destroy all copies of it. Few books in the entire history of printing have been met with such opposition - it was condemned by both the son of Louis XV and the Sorbonne, and the priests succeeded in convincing the court that the doctrines were so dangerous that even though Helvetius wrote three retractions, the book was still publically burned; and when the Encyclopédie of Diderot and d'Alembert was suppressed for the second time, this had much to do with Helvétius' De l'Esprit and the scandal it had caused.This scandalous work, however, gained so much attention that it was almost immediately translated into all European languages, contributing to the immense influence it came to have on all European thought. "The history of Helvetius's De l'esprit (1758), his first major work, is eventful, complicated and paradoxical. No book during the eighteenth century, except perhaps Rousseau's Emile, evoked such an outcry from the religious and civil authorities or such universal public interest. Condemned as atheistic, materialistic, sacrilegious, immoral and subversive, it enjoyed a remarkable succes de scandale. The work lost its privilege within a fortnight of its publication. It was attacked in Church periodicals and in polemical pamphlets, in the literary salons and in popular songs, from bishops' pulpits and from the stage of the Théâtre francais. Though Helvetius retracted his book three times, he was condemned by the Archbishop of Paris (Nov. 1758), the Pope (Jan. 1759), the Parlement of Paris (Feb. 1759), the Sorbonne (Apr. 1759) and by various bishops." (Smith, p. 332)."In "De l'ésprit" (1758), Helvétius follows the Lockean sensationalism of Condillac and pairs it with the claim that human beings are motivated in their actions only by the natural desire to maximize their own pleasure and minimize their pain. "De l'ésprit", though widely read, gives rise to strong negative reactions in the time, both by political and religious authorities (the Sorbonne, the Pope and the Parlement of Paris all condemn the book) and by prominent fellow philosophes, in great part because Helvétius's psychology seems to critics to render moral imperatives and values without basis, despite his best attempts to derive them. Helvétius attempts to ground the moral equality of all human beings by portraying all human beings, whatever their standing in the social hierarchy, whatever their special talents and gifts, as equally products of the nature we share plus the variable influences of education and social environment." (SEP).D. W. Smith, The Publication of Helvetius's De l'esprit, in French Studies, 1968, p. 105.Tschermerzine III:672.