(_Continued from_ Vol. iii., p. 139.)
(43.) Is there any valid reason for not dating the publication of some of
Gerson's treatises at Cologne earlier than the year 1470? and if good cause
cannot be shown for withholding from them so high a rank in the scale of
typographic being, must we not instantly reject every effort to extenuate
Marchand's obtuseness in asserting with reference to Ulric Zell, "On ne
voit des editions de ce Zell qu'en 1494?" (_Hist. de l'Imp._, p. 56.) {183}
Schelhorn's opinion as to the birthright of these tracts is sufficient to
awaken an interest concerning them, for he conceived that they should be
classed among the earliest works executed with cut moveable characters.
(_Diat. ad Card. Quirini lib._, p. 25. Cf. Seemiller, i. 105.) So far as I
can judge, an adequate measure of seniority has not been generally assigned
to these Zellian specimens of printing, if it be granted "Coloniam
Agrippinam post Moguntinenses primum recepisse artem." (Meerman, ii. 106.)
This writer's representation, in his ninth plate, of the type used in 1467,
supplies us with ground for a complete conviction that these undated
Gersonian manuals are at least as old as the _Augustinus de singularitate
clericorum_. But why are they not older? Is there any document which has a
stronger conjectural claim? Van de Velde's _Catalogue_, tome i. Gand, 1831,
contains notices of some of them; and one volume before me has the first
initial letter principally in blue and gold, the rest in red, and all
elaborated with a pen. The most unevenly printed, and therefore, I suppose,
the primitial gem, is the _Tractatus de mendicitate spirituali_, in which
not only rubiform capitals, but whole words, have been inserted by a
chirographer. It is, says Van de Velde, (the former possessor,) on the
fly-leaf, "sans chiffres et reclames, en longues lignes de 27 lignes sur
les pages entieres." The full stop employed is a sort of twofold,
recumbent, circumflex or caret; and the most eminent watermark in the paper
is a Unicorn, bearing a much more suitable antelopian weapon than is that
awkwardly horizontal horn prefixed by Dr. Dibdin to the Oryx in profile
which he has depicted in plate vi. appertaining to his life of Caxton:
_Typographical Antiquities_, vol. i.
(44.) Wherein do the ordinary _Hymni et Sequentiae_ differ from those
according to the use of Sarum? Whose is the oldest _Expositio_ commonly
attached to both? and respecting it did Badius, in 1502, accomplish much
beyond a revision and an amendment of the style? Was not Pynson, in 1497,
the printer of the folio edition of the Hymns and Sequences entered in Mr.
Dickinson's valuable _List of English Service-Books_, p. 8.; or is there
inaccuracy in the succeeding line? Lastly, was the titular woodcut in
Julian Notary's impression, A.D. 1504 (Dibdin, ii. 580.), derived from the
decoration of the _Hymnarius_, and the _Textus Sequentiarum cum optimo
commento_, set forth at Delft by Christian Snellaert, in 1496? From the
first page of the latter we receive the following accession to our
philological knowledge:
"Diabolus dicitur a _dia_, quod est duo, et _bolos_ morsus; quasi
dupliciter mordens; quia laedit hominem in corpore et anima."
(45.) (1.) In what edition of the Salisbury Missal did the amusing errors
in the "Ordo Sponsalium" first occur; and how long were they continued? I
allude to the husband's obligation, "to haue and to holde fro thys day
_wafor beter_ for wurs," &c., and to the wife's prudential promise, "to
haue et to holde _for thys day_." (2.) Are there any vellum leaves in any
copy in England of the folio impression very beautifully printed _en rouge
et noir_ "in alma Parisiorum academia," die x. Kal. April, 1510?
(46.) On the 11th of last month (Jan.) somebody advertised in "NOTES AND
QUERIES" for _Foxes and Firebrands_. In these days of trouble and rebuke,
when (if we may judge from a recent article savouring of Neal's second
volume) it seems to be expected that English gentlemen will, in a Magazine
that bears their name, be pleased with a rechauffe of democratic obloquy
upon the character of the great reformer of their church, and will look
with favour upon _Canterburies Doome_, would it not be desirable that
Robert Ware's (and Nalson's) curious and important work should be
republished? If a reprint of it were to be undertaken, I would direct
attention to a copy in my possession of "The Third and Last Part," Lond.
1689, which has many alterations marked in MS. for a new edition, and which
exhibits the autograph of Henry Ware.
(47.) Was COHAUSEN the composer of "Clericus Deperrucatus; sive, in
fictitiis Clericorum Comis moderni seculi ostensa et explosa Vanitas: Cum
Figuris: Autore ANNOEO RHISENNO VECCHIO, Doctore Romano-Catholico," printed
at Amsterdam, and inscribed to Pope Benedict XIII.? One of the
well-finished copperplates, page 12., represents "_Monsieur l'Abbe prenant
du Tabac_."
(48.) Where can a copy of the earliest edition of the _Testamentum XII.
Patriarcharum_ be found? for if one had been easily obtainable, Grabe,
Cave, Oudin, and Wharton (_Ang. Sac._ ii. 345.) would not have treated the
third impression as the first; and let it be noted by the way that "Clerico
_Elichero_" in Wharton must be a mistake for "Clerico _Nicolao_." Moreover,
how did the excellent Fabricius (_Bibl. med. et inf. Latin._, and also
_Cod. Pseudepig. V. T._, i. 758.) happen to connect Menradus Moltherus with
the _editio princeps_ of 1483? It is certain that this writer's letter to
Secerius, accompanying a transcript of Bishop Grossetete's version, which
immediately came forth at Haguenau, was concluded "postridie Non. Januar.
M.D.XXXII."
(49.) (1.) Who was the bibliopolist with whom originated the pernicious
scheme of adapting newly printed title-pages to books which had had a
previous existence? Sometimes the deception may be discerned even at a
glance: for example, without the loss of many seconds, and by the aspect of
a single letter, (the long s,) we can perceive the falsehood of the
imprint, "Parisiis, apud Paul Mellier, 1842," together with "S.-Clodoaldi,
e typographeo Belin-Mandar," grafted upon tome i. {184} of the Benedictine
edition of S. Gregory Nazianzen's works, which had been actually issued in
1778. Very frequently, however, the comparison of professedly different
impressions requires, before they can be safely pronounced to be identical,
the protracted scrutiny of a practised eye. An inattentive observer could
not be conscious that the works of Sir James Ware, translated and improved
by Harris, and apparently the progeny of the year 1764, (the only edition,
and that but a spurious one, recorded in Watt's _Bibliotheca Britannica_,)
have been skilfully tampered with, and should be justly restored--the first
volume to 1739, the second to 1745.
(2.) We must admit that a bookseller gifted with mature sapience will very
rarely, or never, be such an amateur in expensive methods of bamboozling,
as to prefer having recourse to the title-page expedient, if he could
flatter himself that his purpose would be likely to be effected simply by
_doctoring the date_; and thus a question springs up, akin to the former
one, How great is the antiquity of this timeserving device? At this moment,
trusting only to memory, I am not able to adduce an instance of the
depravation anterior to the year 1606, when Dr. James's _Bellum Papale_ was
put forth in London as a new book, though in reality there was no novelty
connected with it, except that the last 0 in 1600 (the authentic date) had
been compelled by penmanship to cease to be a dead letter, and to germinate
into a 6.
(3.) If neither the judicious naturalisation of a title-page, nor the
dexterous corruption of the year in which a work was honestly produced,
should avail to eliminate "the stock in hand," _res ad Triarios
rediit_--there is but one contrivance left. This is, to give to the
ill-fated hoard _another name_; in the hope that a proverb properly
belonging to a rose may be superabundantly verified in the case of an old
book. What Anglo-Saxon scholar has not studied "_Divers Ancient
Monuments_," revived in 1638? and yet perhaps scarcely any one is aware
that the appellation is entirely deceptive, and that no such collection was
printed at that period. The inestimable remains of AElfric, edited by L'Isle
in 1623, and then entitled, "_A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New
Testament_," together with a reprint of the "_Testimonie of Antiquitie_,"
(sanctioned by Archbishop Parker in 1567,) had merely submitted to
substitutes for the first two leaves with which they had been ushered into
the world, and after fifteen years the unsuspecting public were beguiled.
When was this system of misnomers introduced? and can a more signal
specimen of this kind of shamelessness be mentioned than that which is
afforded by the fate of Thorndike's _De ratione ac jure finiendi
Controversias Ecclesiae Disputatio_? So this small folio in fours was
designated when it was published, Lond. 1670; but in 1674 it became
_Origines_ _Ecclesiasticae_; and it was metamorphosed into _Restauratio
Ecclesiae_ in 1677.
(50.) Dr. Dibdin (_Typ. Antiq._ iii. 350.) has thus spoken of a quarto
treatise, _De autoritate, officio, et potestate Pastorum
ecclesiasticorum_:--
"This very scarce book is anonymous, and has neither date, printer's
name, nor place; but being bound up with two other tracts of
Berthelet's printing _are my reasons_ for giving it a place here."
The argument and the language in this sentence are pretty nearly on a par;
for as misery makes men acquainted with dissimilar companions, why may not
parsimony conglutinate heterogeneous compositions? I venture to deny
altogether that the engraved border on the title-page was executed by an
English artist. It seems rather to be an original imitation of Holbein's
design: and as regards the date, can we not perceive what was meant for a
modest "1530" on a standard borne by one of the boys in procession? In
Simler's Gesnerian _Bibliotheca_ SIMON HESS (let me reiterate the question,
Who was he?) is registered as the author; and of his work we read, "Liber
impressus in Germania." This observation will determine its locality to a
certain extent; and the tractate may be instantly distinguished from all
others on the same subject by the presence of the following alliterative
frontispiece:--
"Primus Papa, potens Pastor, pietate paterna,
Petrus, perfectam plebem pascendo paravit.
Posthabito plures populo, privata petentes,
Pinguia Pontifices, perdunt proh pascua plebis."