1. Has anything recently transpired which could lead bibliographers to form
an absolute decision with regard to the "unknown" printer who used the
singular letter R which is said to have originated with Finiguerra in 1452?
That Mentelin was the individual seems scarcely credible; and there is a
manifest difference between his type and that of the anonymous printer of
the _editio princeps_ of Rabanus Maurus, _De Universo_, the copy of which
work (illuminated, ruled, and rubricated) now before me was once in Heber's
possession; and it exhibits the peculiar letter R, which resembles an
ill-formed A, destitute of the cross stroke, and supporting a round O on
its reclined back. (Panzer, i. 78.; Santander, i. 240.)
2. Is it not quite certain that the acts and decrees of the synod of
Würtzburg, held in the year 1452, were printed in that city previously to
the publication of the _Breviarium Herbiplense_ in 1479? The letter Q which
is used in the volume of these acts is remarkable for being of a double
semilunar shape; and the type, which is very Gothic, is evidently the same
as that employed in an edition of other synodal decrees in Germany about
the year 1470.
3. When and where was the _Liber de Laudibus gloriosissime Dei genitricis
Marie semper Virginis_, by Albertus Magnus, first printed? I do not mean
the supposititious work, which is often confounded with the other one; but
that which is also styled _Super Evangelium_ Missus est _Quæstiones_. And
why are these Questions invariably said to be 230 in number, when there are
275 chapters in the book? Beughem asserts that the earliest edition is that
of Milan in 1489 (_Vid._ Quetif et Echard, i. 176.), but what I believe to
be a volume of older date is "sine ullâ notâ;" and a bookseller's
observation respecting it is, that it is "very rare, and unknown to De
Bure, Panzer, Brunet, and Dibdin." {324}
4. Has any discovery made as to the author of the extraordinary 4to. tract,
_Oracio querulosa contra Inuasores Sacerdotum?_ According to the Crevenna
_Catalogue_ (i. 85.), the work is "inconnu à tous les bibliographes."
Compare Seemiller, ii. 162.; but the copy before me is not of the
impression described by him. It is worthy of notice, that at signature A
iiiij the writer declares, "nostris jam temporibus calchographiam, hoc est
impressioram artem, in nobilissima Vrbanie germe Maguncia fuisse repertam."
5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or a love of conjectures was
the source of Chevillier's mistake, not corrected by Greswell (_Annals of
Paris. Typog._, p. 6.), that signatures were first introduced, anno 1476,
by Zarotus, the printer, at Milan? They may doubtless be seen in the _Opus
Alexandride Ales super tertium Sententiarum_, Venet. 1475, a book which
supplies also the most ancient instance I have met with of a "Registrum
Chartarum." Signatures, however, had a prior existence; for they appear in
the _Mammetractus_ printed at Beron Minster in 1470 (Meermau, ii. 28.;
Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the impression of 1476. Dr.
Cotton (_Typ. Gaz._, p. 66.), Mr. Horne (_Introd. to Bibliog._, i. 187.
317), and many others, wrongly delay the invention or adoption of them till
the year 1472.
6. Is the edition of the _Fasciculus Temporum_, set forth at Cologne by
Nicolaus de Schlettstadt in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is
confessedly "omnium prima," and which was issued by Arnoldus Ther Huernen
in the same year? If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing date
1476, and entered in pp. 1, 2. of Dr. Maitland's very valuable and accurate
_List_, must appertain to the third, not the second, impression. To the
latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in the catalogue of the
books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), but there is an error in the remark that the
"Tabula" prefixed to the _editio princeps_ is comprised in _eight_ leaves,
for it certainly consists of _nine_.
7. Where was what is probably a copy of the second edition of the _Catena
Aurea_ of Aquinas printed? The folio in question, which consists of 417
unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, and I should say that it is
certainly of German origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingen, and
perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks would afford some assistance
in tracing it. Of these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis may be
seen on folio 61. It would be difficult to persuade the proprietor of this
volume that it is of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which what is
generally called the second impression of this work appeared.
8. How can we best account for the mistake relative to the imaginary
Bologna edition of Ptolemy's _Cosmography_ in 1462, a copy of which was in
the Colbert library? (Leuglet du Fresnoy, _Méth. pour étud. l'Hist._, iii.
8., à Paris, 1735.) That it was published previously to the famous Mentz
Bible of this date is altogether impossible; and was the figure 6 a
misprint for 8? or should we attempt to subvert it into 9? The _editio
princeps_ of the Latin version by Angelus is in Roman letter, and is a very
handsome specimen of Vicenza typography in 1475, when it was set forth "ab
Hermano Leuilapide," alias Hermann Lichtenstein.
9. If it be true, as Dr. Cotton remarks in his excellent _Typographical
Gazetteer_, p. 22., that a press was erected at Augsburg, in the monastery
of SS. Ulric and Afra, in the year 1472, and that Anthony Sorg is believed
to have been the printer, why should we be induced to assent to the
validity of Panzer's supposition that Nider's _Formicarius_ did not make
its appearance there until 1480? It would seem to be more than doubtful
that Cologne can boast of having produced the first edition, A.D. 1475/7;
and it may be reasonably asserted, and an examination of the book will
abundantly strengthen the idea, that the earliest impression is that which
contains this colophon, in which I would dwell upon the word "_editionem_"
(well known to the initiated): "Explicit quintus ac totus formicarii liber
uxta editionem fratris Iohannis Nider," &c., "Impressum Auguste per
Anthonium Sorg."
10. In what place and year was _Wilhelmi Summa Viciorum_ first printed?
Fabricius and Cave are certainly mistaken when they say Colon. 1479. In the
volume, which I maintain to be of greater antiquity, the letters _c_ and
_t_, _s_ and _t_, are curiously united, and the commencement of it is:
"Incipit summa viciorum seu tractatus moral' edita [_sic_] a fratre
vilhelmo episcopo lugdunes. ordinsq. fratrû predicator." The description
given by Quetif and Echard (i. 132.) of the primary impression of Perault's
book only makes a bibliomaniac more anxious for information about it: "in
Inc. typ. absque loco anno et nomine typographi, sine numeris reclamat. et
majusculis."
11. Was Panormitan's _Lectura super primo Decretalium_ indubitably issued
at Venice, prior to the 1st of April, 1473? and if so, does it contain in
the colophon these lines by Zovenzonius, which I transcribe from a noble
copy bearing this date?
"Abbatis pars prima notis que fulget aliemis
Est vindelini pressa labore mei:
Cuius ego ingenium de vertice palladis ortum
Crediderim. veniam tu mihi spira dabis."
12. Is it not unquestionable that Heroldt's _Promptuarium Exemplorum_ was
published at least as early as his _Sermones_? The type in both works is
clearly identical, and the imprint in the latter, at the end of _Serm._
cxxxvi., vol. ii., is Colon. 1474, an edition unknown to very nearly all
bibliographers. For instance, Panzer and Denis commence with that of
Rostock, in 1476; Laire {325} with that of Cologne, 1478; and Maittaire
with that of Nuremberg, in 1480. Different statements have been made as to
the precise period when this humble-minded writer lived. Altamura (_Bibl.
Domin._, pp. 147. 500.) places him in the year 1400. Quetif and Echard (i.
762.), Fabricius and Mansi (_Bibl. Med. et inf. Latin._), prefer 1418, on
the unstable ground of a testimony supposed to have proceeded from the
author himself; for whatever confusion or depravation may have been
introduced into subsequent impressions, the _editio princeps_, of which I
have spoken, does not present to our view the alleged passage, viz., "à
Christo autem transacti sunt _millequadringenti decem et octo_ anni," but
most plainly, "M.cccc. & liij. anni." (_Serm._ lxxxv., tom. ii.) To this
same "Discipulus" Oudin (iii. 2654.), and Gerius in the Appendix to Cave
(p. 187.), attribute the _Speculorum Exemplorum_, respecting which I have
before proposed a Query; but I am convinced that they have confounded the
_Speculum_ with the _Promptuarium_. The former was first printed at
Deventer, A.D. 1481, and the compiler of it enters upon his prologue in the
following striking style: "Impressoria arte jamdudum longe lateque per
orbem diffusa, multiplicatisque libris quarumcunque fere materiarum," &c.
He then expresses his surprise at the want of a good collection of
_Exempla_; and why should we determine without evidence that he must have
been Heroldus?