(_Continued from page 421._)
(18.) What could have induced the accurate and learned Saxius (_Catal. Lib.
Mediol., edit._ p. DXC.) to give the name _Elucidarium_ to the first part
of the _Mariale_ of Bernardinus de Bustis? This writer, who has sometimes
erroneously been reputed a Dominican, and who is commemorated in the
Franciscan Martyrology on the 8th of May (p. 178.), derived his
denomination from his family, and not "from a place in the country of
Milan," as Mr. Tyler has supposed. (_Worship of the Virgin_, p. 41. Lond.
1846.) Elsewhere Saxius had said (_Hist. Typog.-Liter. Mediol._, col.
ccclii.) that the _Mariale_ was printed for the first time in 1493, and
dedicated to Pope Alexander VI.; and Argelati was led by him to consider
the _Elucidarium_ to be a distinct performance; and he speaks of the
_Mariale_ as having been published in 1494. (_Biblioth. Scriptor. Med._,
tom. i. p. ii. 245.) Unquestionably the real title assigned by the author
to the first part of his _Sermonarium_ or _Mariale_ was "PERPETUUM
SILENTIUM," and it was inscribed to Alexander's predecessor, Pope Innocent
VIII.; and, in conjunction with De Bustis's Office of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary (sanctioned by a Brief of Pope Sixtus IV.,
who in 1476 had issued the earliest pontifical decree in favour of an
innovation now predominant in the Church of Rome), was primarily printed
"Mli," that is, _Mediolani_, "per Uldericum scinzenzeler, Anno dni
M.cccc.lxxxxij" (1492). Wharton, Olearius, Clement, and Maittaire knew
nothing of this edition; and it must take precedence of that of Strasburg
named by Panzer (i. 47.).
(19.) Can any particulars be easily ascertained relative to reprints of the
acts of the canonisation of the Seraphic Doctor in their original small
quarto shape?
(20.) To whom should we attribute the rare tract entitled _Lauacrum
conscientie omnium sacerdotum_, which consists of fifty-eight leaves, and
was printed in Gothic letter at Cologne, "Anno post Jubileum quarto?"
(21.) Where can information be met with as to the authorship of the
_Dialogus super Libertate Ecclesiastica_, between Hugo, Cato, and Oliver?
Fischer (_Essai sur Gutenberg_, 79.) traces back the first edition to the
year 1463; but I know the treatise only in the form in which it was
republished at Oppenheim in 1516.
(22.) Who was the compiler or curator of the _Viola Sanctorum_? and can the
slightest attempt be made at verifying the signatures and numbers inserted
in the margin, and apparently relating to the MSS. from which the work was
taken? One of two copies before me was printed at Nuremberg in 1486, but
the other I believe to belong to the earliest impression. It is of small
folio size, in very Gothic type, perhaps of the year 1472, without date,
place, or name of printer, and is destitute of cyphers, catchwords, and
signatures. There are ninety-two leaves in the volume, and in each page
generally thirty-three (sometimes thirty-four, rarely thirty-five) lines.
(See Brunet, iii. 547.; Kloss, 280.; Panzer, i. 193.)
(23.) By what means can intelligence be procured respecting "Doctor
Ulricus," the author of _Fraternitas Cleri_? A satisfactory reply to this
inquiry might probably be found in the _Bibl. Spenceriana_; but I have not
now an opportunity of determining this point.
(24.) A question has been raised by Dr Maitland, from whose admirable
criticism nothing connected with literature is likely to escape, as to the
meaning of the letters "P.V." placed over a sudarium held by St. Peter and
St. Paul. (_Early printed Books in the Lambeth Library_, pp. 115. 368.) Any
person who has happened to obtain the _Vitas Patrum_, decorated with the
curious little woodcuts of which Dr. Maitland has carefully represented
two, will cheerfully agree with him in maintaining the excellence of the
acquisition. In a copy of this work bearing date 1520, eleven years later
than the Lambeth volume (_List_, p. 85.), the reverse of the leaf which
contains the colophon exhibits the same sudarium, in company with the words
"Salve sancta Facies." This circumstance inclines me to venture to ask
whether my much-valued friend will concur with me in the conjecture that
_Pictura Veronicæ_ may be the interpretation of "P.V.?" Though the
pseudo-Archbishop of Westminster declared, in the simplicity of his heart
(_Letters to John Poynder, Esq._, p. 6.), that he had "never met" with the
sequence "quæ dicitur in Missa Votiva _de Vultu Sancto_," doubtless some of
his newly-arrested subjects are {441} well aware that it exists, and that
its commencement (see Bona, iii. 144.) is,--
"Salve sancta Facies nostri Redemptoris,
In qua nitet species divini splendoris,
Impressa panniculo nivei candoris,
Dataque Veronicæ signum ob amoris."