The Sacrificed Books of The Ninth Gate: Inquiry into Polanski’s Cursed Book

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

By an adept, in the manner of Lucas Corso, surveyor of the bibliophilic margins.

Some years ago I was told about a man in Toulon who owned Latin leaves of the seventeenth century whose provenance was murky. Not murky in the way ordinary bibliophiles mean it: no dubious trimming of the margins, no ill-judged restoration. Murky because these leaves, he said, came from a book that had been taken apart on purpose to make another book, one that had never existed. I noted the name, filed the information under things to check, and then forgot it. Until the other evening, when I watched Roman Polanski’s The Ninth Gate again.

The film, released in 1999, adapts Arturo Pérez-Reverte’s El Club Dumas. It tells of the quest of a rare-book broker, a trade I know well, commissioned to authenticate one of the three known copies of a book called De Umbrarum Regni Novem Portis, On the Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows, supposedly printed in Venice in 1666 by one Aristide Torchia, and said to have been co-signed by the Devil himself. Torchia, burned by the Inquisition, was supposed to have left three copies identical except for nine engravings which, compared with one another, would yield the keys to invoking Lucifer. The book does not exist, of course. Pérez-Reverte invented it for his novel. Polanski had it manufactured for his film. And this is where the bibliophilic story starts to get interesting.

Three false books, two real ones sacrificed. The production designer of The Ninth Gate is Dean Tavoularis, the man behind The Godfather, Apocalypse Now and Bonnie & Clyde. Oscar, 1975. A man of that stature has a team of prop makers, and the film’s head prop master is called Gilbert Pieri. Pieri had to make three hero copies of the Ninth Gate: the Balkan, the Fargas and the Kessler. Three distinct bindings, nine engravings per volume and, a decisive detail, a Latin text inside that had to look real under the camera, in close-up, open on Johnny Depp’s knees.

Pieri did not print that text. He did what any bibliophile will recognise as heresy: he bought two authentic old Latin books, one of more than five hundred pages, the other of more than eight hundred, and he took them apart. Some twenty leaves from the two volumes were combined, reinserted into the custom-made bindings, and duplicated to serve the three copies needed for the film. The detail is known to specialist collectors, who tell it to one another on forums devoted to film props. Some claim to own original pages from these two books, torn out during production and given to members of the crew. One of them eventually identified the source book by typing a Latin phrase from the film into Google: it was a Latin theological and Catholic work of 1588, from which the production had merely removed a few words to give the illusion of a coded text.

Some twenty leaves of a book of 1588, dismembered to appear in a Polanski film: this should make any lover of old paper tremble. Two real books were immolated on the pretext of making a third, rarer still, since it does not exist.

Then there are the nine engravings. They are, in Pérez-Reverte’s novel as in the film, the central element: each copy contains nine, but three of them differ from one volume to the next, and comparing the eighteen images reveals the secret. These engravings, too, have a bibliophilic history worth attention.

Here is a rare particularity: the engravings already existed in Pérez-Reverte’s novel, where they bear the initials AT and LCF; those in the film take up their formal language. The formal language of these engravings, as everyone knows, draws ostensibly on the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, the allegorical romance printed by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1499 and attributed to Francesco Colonna. It is, as everyone knows, one of the most prestigious incunabula ever printed, famous for its one hundred and seventy-two anonymous woodcuts, themselves the object of five centuries of speculation about their author. A copy can be consulted online on Gallica, the digital library of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (bpt6k587910); those who want to see what a perfect copy costs today will remember that a Poliphilo in a fine binding has passed four hundred thousand euros at public sale, and that Jean Grolier alone owned five copies.

To make his cursed book, then, Pérez-Reverte had the formal language of the rarest and most mysterious book of Western printing adapted. It is a choice of great elegance: a seventeenth-century fake imitating a real book of the late fifteenth. The film’s engravings were drawn, engraved and printed like real copperplate prints, nine for each copy, twenty-seven prints in all, not counting the variants that Polanski had redrawn. Those prints exist somewhere, framed at Polanski’s or at Pieri’s, or scattered among the members of the crew.

As for official sales, the record is poorer than for The Name of the Rose. Neither Christie’s, nor Sotheby’s, nor Bonhams, nor Heritage, nor Propstore has seen a hero copy of the Ninth Gate go through. The three bindings made by Pieri are, to my knowledge, still in private collections; one belongs to the collection of a certain “balkan.press”, a discreet figure who runs a specialist website devoted to the object.

But the parallel market is teeming. More than forty official replicas of the book are listed online, sold for between five hundred and twelve hundred dollars depending on quality. A whole tinkerer’s literature circulates, with manufacturing tutorials, reconstructed typefaces, tracings of the nine engravings and of the tenth (the one called the “true ninth gate”, inscribed LCF). The Ninth Gate is probably the most copied prop book in the history of cinema.

And then there are the leaves. Those from the two sacrificed books. They circulate quietly, sometimes on eBay, more often in private transactions between collectors. The bibliophilic status of these objects is staggering: they are at once fragments of real old books (the Latin theological work of 1588), film props deposited by the production, and relics of the shoot co-signed Polanski. Three provenances for a single leaf: for the collector, an object to the third degree.

I do not know whether the man from Toulon really has Latin leaves that passed through the shooting of The Ninth Gate. I did not bother to go and see. But the idea that real old books were destroyed (consumed is the right word) to make a fictional book whose market value reaches several hundred euros today in replica, and incalculably more as a hero copy, should give us pause.

Polanski and his team inverted the bibliophilic equation. Where the usual market pays for the old manuscript and despises the modern copy, their film does the opposite: it buys and destroys a theological book of 1588 to make a modern fake that resells for more than the pages it is woven from. The cursed book has done its work. The real work has dissolved into the matter of the fake. And the leaves now in circulation are, as in the film, fragments that must be compared with one another to guess where they come from.

Burned books vanish, but those that are shut away always end up coming back.

Guild shelfmark: GBO-C/2 — Le Livre Démembré [The Dismembered Book]

Document classified: restricted circulation — Bureau of Litigious Props.

La lettre du bibliophile

Si cette chronique vous a plu : recevez trois nouvelles par semaine — livres rares, reliures, enchères, et les Dossiers IGLI. 18 ans d'archives, quelques milliers de lecteurs.

Pas de pub, pas de revente de données. Désabonnement en un clic.

À lire ensuite

De auctionibus: a Little Handbook for the Well-Advised Auctioneer

By Barthélémy d’Arcole, Inspector of Bibliophilic Aesthetics and Modern Heresies to the Guilde des Bibliopolicés.

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

In March 1981, in a library in Milan, an Italian semiologist gave a lecture to librarians in which he set out, in perfect seriousness, the rules for making a library thoroughly hostile to its readers. There was a good deal of laughter; nothing changed; the text has become a classic. I borrow his method here and turn it on another edifice, one the Guild frequents more often.

For there is an abundant literature on how to sell. There is none on how to sell well to few people, which is nonetheless the art most practised in the profession and the only one in which our age has made measurable progress… or even on how not to sell, and that generally conceals darker designs.

Below will be found the eight precepts that govern this art. I did not invent them: I noted them down, then put them in the imperative, which is the only operation a semiologist is permitted to perform on a custom.

1. Arrange the catalogue in an order no one can guess.

Neither alphabetical, nor chronological, nor thematic: the order in which the boxes arrived. An incunable between a solfège method and a lot of postcards, then forty numbers of twentieth-century literature, then, without warning, three manuscripts.

Thus the amateur will be able to look up nothing: he will have to read everything. Whoever has read your four hundred and twelve lots will have paid his entrance fee in time, the one currency you do not invoice and yet levy on each of them. It will be objected that alphabetical order has solved this problem since Callimachus, around 250 BC. The answer is that it solves the wrong problem.

2. Make up your lots of one desirable item and six that are not.

“Lot of fourteen miscellaneous volumes, including an Elzevir.” The amateur who wants the Elzevir will carry off the other thirteen, which he does not want, which he cannot throw away — one does not throw away a book, it is the last taboo of a civilisation that has not many left — and which he will therefore end by reselling.

You will not have sold him a book: you will have handed him a problem. And since this problem can only be solved in a saleroom, your buyer of today is your seller of tomorrow. The composite lot is not a defect of classification, it is a reproductive organ: it manufactures stock, transport and commission out of nothing, indefinitely, like those machines that eighteenth-century mechanicians dreamed of, which were to run without being fed.

3. Let the bidding advance by a rule you will never state.

Fifty, eighty, ninety-six, one hundred, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and fifty, one hundred and eighty, two hundred, two hundred and twenty, five hundred and twelve. The sequence is neither arithmetic nor geometric; it is written down nowhere; it is perfectly known to all who count.

Whoever announces ninety will have singled himself out to the whole room with the efficiency of a foreign accent. Do not correct him — one never corrects. Go up to one hundred with perfect courtesy, which is the finished form of exclusion.

4. Put into every description a term whose definition helps in no way.

“Light dampstain in the margin,” “a few scattered spots of foxing,” “copy a little short in the margins,” “binding slightly later.” These expressions all have a precise, attested meaning, which can be looked up in any handbook — and knowing them tells you nothing about the condition of the object, since everything rests on light, a few, a little and slightly, four adverbs for which no bibliographer has ever fixed the scale.

Your language therefore does not serve to describe. It serves to signal that a language is being spoken. Linguists call this the phatic function: the message carries no information, it checks that the channel exists and that your interlocutor exists.

5. Publish your results exclusive of fees.

It is the French custom, and it must be kept: a lot knocked down at one thousand euros cost the winner twelve hundred and fifty or thirteen hundred, but it is one thousand that will enter the databases, one thousand that the experts will cite, one thousand that will serve as an estimate in ten years, one thousand that will be compared with a London result calculated by another convention.

You will thus write the history of rare-book prices in a currency nobody has ever paid. This is not falsification: it is a convention, and conventions presuppose an informed reader. It happens only that the informed reader is here precisely the one for whom the information was no longer of any use.

6. Make the room inhospitable.

Folding chairs, excessive heating, no cloakroom, no surface on which to set down a catalogue. This will be put down to negligence; it is a sorting. The curious leave, the professional stays, for he has been before and will come again. An establishment that discourages passers-by is not badly kept: it is kept for something else.

7. Multiply the channels until no one knows any longer where the sale is.

In the room, by telephone, on three platforms, with different fees for each and deadlines that do not match. Whoever nonetheless manages to establish where he is bidding, at what total price and under what right of withdrawal will have passed your real entrance examination.

8. Never answer a precise question.

To “is leaf 137 present?”, answer that the lot may be viewed at the exhibition. This is not a refusal, it is a displacement: the question concerned the object, the answer concerns the procedure, and since the procedure is irreproachable, the question ceases to exist.

It remains to say what one manufactures by applying these eight precepts, and one would be wrong to answer: deception. No profession is capable of coordinating itself for three centuries in lying; it manages very well in ritual.

Together, these rules produce a community.

A device that methodically discourages the newcomer does not lose clients at random: it retains those who agree to learn a code. To know that after one hundred and twenty comes one hundred and fifty; to know that a few spots of foxing means “go and look”; to know that a result is understood exclusive of fees and must be marked up in one’s head; to know that one never buys the Elzevir alone, and to plan in advance what one will do with the other thirteen; to know that the precise question is not put by telephone but at the exhibition, in a low voice, to the right person. This body of knowledge is learned nowhere, written nowhere, and constitutes exactly what medievalists call an initiation.

The auction house is therefore not a deficient market. It is a restricted-entry market that has kept the forms of the open market. It resembles a public place as the Latin Mass resembled a speech: everyone could attend, a minority knew what was said there, and this asymmetry was not a defect of the rite — it was its function.

Hence the very particular irritation aroused by online platforms. They are reproached for their approximate descriptions and their superlatives. Their scandal lies elsewhere: they have put the code in writing. They sort the catalogue by ascending price, display the total, fees included, before the bid, sell item by item, answer by message, and the reply stays written. They have desacralised, and we know what one gains by desacralising: a wider public and a dissolved community.

The title of this manual must therefore be corrected. These eight precepts do not serve to discourage the buyer: they serve to distinguish the one who is discouraged from the one who is adopted.

And if you have read this far nodding at each article, it is because you are not an auctioneer, because you have long been on the right side of the sorting, and because you no longer have any reason to complain of it.

References. Umberto Eco, De Bibliotheca, trans. Eliane Deschamps-Pria, Paris, L’Échoppe, 1986 (lecture delivered in Milan on 10 March 1981). Roman Jakobson, “Linguistique et poétique,” in Essais de linguistique générale, vol. I, Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1963, for the phatic function. Luciano Canfora, La Véritable Histoire de la bibliothèque d’Alexandrie, Paris, Desjonquères, 1988, on Callimachus’s classifications. Book of Judges, XII, 5-6, for the password and the use made of it.

GBA/DE-AUCTIONIBUS

Document classified: restricted circulation – given the number of active bibliophiles and auctioneers….

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.