This work, both in the original edition, and in the reprint of Bergomi,
1608, is reputed to be of extreme rarity. Mr. Mendham, in his _Literary
Policy of the Church of Rome Exhibited, in an Account of her Damnatory
Catalogues or Indices, both Prohibitory and Expurgatory, &c._, 2nd ed.,
London, 1830, calls it "perhaps the most extraordinary and scarcest of
all this class of publications," p. 116., while all of the class are
known to be by no means of common occurrence. Clement (_Bibliothèque
Curieuse_, art. "Brasichellensis," v. ccvii.) designates the Roman
edition as "_extrêmement_ rare;" and (note 48., p. 211 a.) says of the
other, "cette édition de Bergame est encore plus rare que celle de
Rome."
Now Clement informs us that "on a copié l'édition de Rome de 1607 à
Ratisbonne, vers l'an 1723, sur de beau papier;" and Mr. Mendham says
that this was done by "Serpilius, a priest of Ratisbon, in 1723," and
that the copy so closely resembled the original "as to admit of its
being represented as the same." Accordingly, Clement says that it was
furtively sold as the genuine work, until the announcement of an
intended reprint by Hessel, at Altorff, in 1742, induced the owner of
the remainder of the Ratisbon counterfeit to avow his fraud. Then, Mr.
Mendham says, it "appeared with a new title-page, as a second edition."
Of _that_ circumstance Clement makes no mention.
"The original and counterfeit editions of this peculiar work are
sufficiently alike to deceive any person who should not examine them in
literal juxtaposition; but upon such examination the deception is easily
apparent," says Mr. Mendham, p. 131. The natural inference from this is,
that _he has_ so examined them.
His mention of the Bodleian "copy of the original edition" may warrant
the belief that he has made use of it. The fact that Dr. James, "chief
keeper" of the Bodleian, used and cited the Roman edition in his
_Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils and Fathers, &c._ in
1612, may further warrant the belief that the copy in that library is an
indubitable original, placed where it is before the counterfeit was
gotten up.
If these inferences are correct, I have, what I much desire, a criterion
by which to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine Roman edition.
Yet I hardly dare to trust it, because it involves a charge of
carelessness against Clement, who is not often justly liable to such
reproach.
He says, "J'ai eu le bonheur d'acquérir l'édition originale de Rome." He
therefore either copied the title of what he thought a genuine edition,
or carelessly substituted that of the counterfeit.
Now I have a copy of what purports to be the Roman edition, the title of
which, agreeing exactly neither with Clement nor with the title given by
Mr. Mendham (p. 116.), yet coincides with the latter in one curious
particular, which seems to identify it with Mr. Mendham's genuine
original, while its rare disagreements from Clement's distinguish it
from that. Mr. Mendham's transcript of the title runs:
"Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti.
Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris
desiderati emendantur, Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen Sacri
Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ
commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. MDCVII.
Superiorum Permissu."
In this there are two observable peculiarities: 1. The full-stop after
"confecti," breaking the grammatical construction; 2. The omission of
such a stop (as a sign of contraction) after the portion of a word,
"Brasichellen," from which the final syllable "sem" has been dropped, as
appears in the archetype, for want of room.
That Mr. Mendham faithfully copied this last peculiarity is shown by his
own singular misconception of the word, which he has taken to be
complete, and on p. 130. writes of "_Brasichellen_, or _Guanzellus_;" a
mistake into which he has been led by Jugler, whom he is there
reporting; Jugler, as quoted in the note, seeming to have been led into
it by Zobelius.
The peculiarity which has thus led Mr. Mendham, and before him Zobelius
and Jugler, into error, does not appear in Clement's title. It runs:
"Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti,
Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris
desiderati emendantur. Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen. Sacri
Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ
commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. M.DC.VII.
Superiorum Permissu."
Both the peculiarities pointed out in Mendham's copy are wanting in
this; and a third difference is, that where Mendham, after "emendantur,"
has a comma, this has a full-stop. All these differences are
corrections, and therefore more likely to be found in a reprint, than
the reverse.
My copy agrees with Mendham in the two peculiarities first remarked; but
with Clement in the last. It has, beside, another peculiarity which
neither has retained, but resembling those of Mendham's copy. After the
word "auctorum" there is a full-stop, breaking the grammatical
construction just as that after "confecti" does.
These circumstances lead me to think my copy one of the genuine edition,
and to suppose that Mendham's was of the same; in which case, Clement
must have either carelessly given the title of the counterfeit, while he
had the genuine at hand (as he says); or, still more carelessly,
miscopied the genuine; or deceived himself with the belief that he had
the genuine, while he had only a counterfeit.
It is singular that there is room for a similar doubt about the Bergomi
edition of this work. Of that, too, I have what purports to be a copy;
but am led by Clement's description of the Altorff edition to have
misgivings that it may have been made as studiously a counterfeit of the
Bergomi edition, as its predecessor of Ratisbon had been of that of
Rome. In all the particulars of which Clement says, "Ceux qui auront
l'édition de Bergame, pourront juger sur ce détail, si la copie
d'Altorff la représente exactement ou non," my copy _does_ agree with
his description; and it may be that some of the Altorff copies bear a
false title, with Bergomi as the imprint.
The genuineness of this book is of no ordinary interest. It is one of
the most damaging witnesses against Rome, to convict her of conscious
fraud. How much its evidence is dreaded, is proved by the industrious
suppression that has made it of so great rarity.
May I not hope, therefore, that some of your readers who have access to
the Bodleian will inform me through your columns--
1. Whether any copy there, purporting to be of the Roman edition, can be
identified as having been in the library before 1723?
2. Whether the title of such copy (if there be any) agree with Mr.
Mendham's, or Clement's, or mine?
3. Whether there is in that library (or elsewhere in England) an
undoubted copy of the Bergomi edition?
A copy of the titles of the Ratisbon and Altorff editions would also be
desirable; and (if they could be identified) any distinguishing note of
the Ratisbon counterfeit, _e.g._ the signature marks of its preliminary
sheet.