(_Continued from page 325._)
(13.) Is it not a grievous and calumnious charge against the principal
libraries of England, Germany, and France, that not one of them contains a
copy of the _Florentine Pandects_, in three folio {422} volumes,
"magnifice, ac pereleganter, perque accurate impressis," as Fabricius
speaks? (_Bibl. Græc._ xii: 363.) This statement, which may be but a libel,
is found in Tilgner (_Nov. lib. rar. Collect._ Fascic. iv. 710.), Schelhorn
(_Amæn. Lit._ iii. 428.), Vogt (_Catal._ p. 562. Hamb. 1738), and Solger
(_Biblioth._ i 163.). According to the last writer, the edition in
question, Florent. 1553, (for a fac-simile of the letters of the original
MS. see Mabillon's _Iter Italicum_, p. 183.) is,--"splendidissima, et
stupendæ raritatis, quæ in tanta est apud Eruditos æstimatione ut pro 100
Imperialibus sæpius divendita fuerit." Would that the race of such
purchasers was not extinct! In Gibbon's notice of this impression (_Decline
and Fall_, iv. 197. ed. Milman), there are two mistakes. He calls the
editor "Taurellus" instead of _Taurellius_; and makes the date "1551", when
it should have been 1553. These errors, however, are scarcely surprising in
a sentence in which Antonius Augustinus is named "Antoninus." The
Archbishop of Tarragona had received a still more exalted title in p. 193.,
for there he was styled "Antoninus Augustus." Are these the author's
faults, or are they merely editorial embellishments?
(14.) In what year was the improved woodcut of the _Prelum Ascensianum_
used for the first time? And has it been observed that the small and
separated figures incised on the legs of this _insigne_ of Jodocus Badius
may sometimes be taken as a safe guide with reference to the exact date of
the works in which this mark appears? As an argument serving to justify the
occasional adoption of this criterion I would adduce the fact, that the
earliest edition of Budæus _De Contemptu Rerum fortuitarum_ is believed to
have been printed in 1520 (Greswell's _Parisian Greek Press_, i. 39.), and
this year is accordingly visible in the title-page on the print of the
_Prelum Ascensianum_. That recourse must, however, be had with caution to
this method of discovering a date, is manifest; from the circumstance, that
1521, or perhaps I should say an injured 1520, appears on the Badian Device
in the third impression of the same treatise (the second with the
_expositio_), though it was set forth "postridie Cal. April 1528."
(15.) Is it owing to the extreme rarity of copies of the first edition of
the Pagninian version of the Scriptures that so many writers are perplexed
and ignorant concerning it? One might have expected that such a very
remarkable impression in all respects would have been so well known to
Bishop Walton, that he could not have asserted (_Proleg._ v.) that it was
published in 1523; and the same hallucination is perceptible in the
_Elenchus Scriptorum_ by Crowe (p. 4.) It is certain that Pope Leo X.
directed that Pagnini's translation should be printed at his expense
(Roscoe, ii. 282.), and the Diploma of Adrian VI. is dated "die, xj. Maij.
M.D.XXIII.," but the labours of the eminent Dominican were not put forth
until the 29th of January, 1527. This is the date in the colophon; and
though "1528" is obvious on the title-page, the apparent variation may be
accounted for by remembering the several ways of marking the commencement
of the year. (_Le Long_, by Masch, ii. 475.; _Chronol. of Hist._, by Sir H.
Nicolas, p. 40.) Chevillier informs us (_Orig. de l'Imp._ p. 143.) that the
earliest Latin Bible, in which he had seen the verses distinguished by
ciphers, was that of Robert Stephens in 1557. Clement (_Biblioth._ iv.
147.) takes notice of an impression issued two years previously; and these
bibliographers have been followed by Greswell (_Paris. G. P._ i. 342.
390.). Were they all unacquainted with the antecedent exertions of Sante
Pagnini (See Pettigrew's _Bibl. Sussex._ p. 388.)
(16.) Why should Panzer have thought that the true date of the _editio
princeps_ of Gregorius Turonensis and Ado Viennensis, comprised in the same
small folio volume, was 1516? (Greswell, i. 35.) If he had said 1522, he
might have had the assistance of a misprint in the colophon, in which
"M.D.XXII." was inserted instead of M.D.XII.; but the royal privilege for
the book is dated, "le douziesme iour de mars lan _milcinqcens et onze_,"
and the dedication of the works by Badius to Guil. Parvus ends with "Ad.
XII Kalendas Decemb. Anni huius M.D.XII."
(17.) Who was the author of _Peniteas cito_? And is it not evident that the
impression at Cologne by Martinus de Werdena, in 1511, is considerably
later than that which is adorned on the title-page with a different
woodcut, and which exhibits the following words proceeding from the
teacher: "Accipies tanti doctoris dogmata sancta?"