ON THE FIRST, FINAL, AND SUPPRESSED VOLUME OF THE ONLY EXPURGATORY INDEX
OF ROME.
(Vol. iv., p. 440.; Vol. v., p. 33.)
Receiving the "N. & Q." only in monthly parts, I was, till last week,
unacquainted with the article of your correspondent U. U., from
Baltimore. This ignorance, however, has been attended with the advantage
of the very decisive information on the matter of inquiry by B. B., as
far as the Bodleian Library, Oxford, is concerned. I am relieved by it
from the necessity of describing more particularly the copy of the
first, and Roman, Expurgatory of 1607; for the copy in my possession
_agrees exactly_ in title with that of the Bodleian. Of the genuineness
of the latter, the proof is as demonstrative as anything historical can
be. I have the same assurance of the genuineness of mine. It was in the
possession of the celebrated and intelligent collector, J. G. Michiels,
as his autograph, with the year 1755 attached, testifies. The title, as
given in my _Literary Policy_, has indeed a trifling error in
punctuation, whether my own or the printer's, but from simple oversight,
as in some cases _fas est obrepere somnum_. There was, however, and
could be, no error as to the meaning of Brasichellen., of which
Catalani, besides others, had given me information sufficiently correct
in his _De Magistro S. Pal._
These observations will not, however, satisfy the _want_ of your
transatlantic correspondent so completely as I trust I am enabled, and
shall be much pleased to do; for I have likewise the celebrated
_counterfeit_, of which I have given an ample account in my forecited
volume; and the _difference_ between it and the original is sensibly
evident on a _synoptical comparison_. But other marks, where this is
impracticable, may be adduced; and in the title itself, without
depending upon the _minutiæ_ of punctuation, and without any reference
to the _figures_ in the frontispiece, which are plainly not the same
impression, in both copies, the last line, SVPERIORVM PERMISSV, which,
in the _genuine_ book measures 2-1/2 inches, in the counterfeit measures
2-1/5; therefore, shorter by 3/10. In the _body_ of the work, in the
counterfeit the letter-press occupies more space than the genuine. Taken
at a venture (and a right-hand page is preferred, because the _number_
of the page, and the _catchword_, come in one perpendicular line), I
examined p. 163. The _height_ in the genuine is 5-1/5 inches; in the
counterfeit 5-4/5; the increase, 3/5. The _width_ of the page appears to
be in proportion. In the _preliminary matter_ of the genuine copy the
_De Correctione_ ends with the line, "eos corrigere, atque purgare." The
counterfeit varies. The last unnumbered page, indeed, the terminating
line, of what is prefatory, is, "Palatio Apostolico anno salutis 1607."
The counterfeit here likewise varies.
I have another volume closely identical; of which, because it is far
from common, I will give the title entire. It is well known, but not
easily detected:
"INDEX
LIBRORUM
EXPURGANDORUM,
_In quo_
Quinquaginta Authorum Libri præ
cæteris desiderati emendantur.
Per
FRANC. JO. MARIAM
BRASICHELLEN,
Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum Corpus
redactus,
& publicæ Commoditati
æditus
EDITIO SECUNDA,
Multorum desideriô juxta Exemplare
Romanum Typis mandata.
_SUPERIORUM PERMISSU._
Pedeponti
vulgo
STADT AM HOF
Sumptibus JOANNIS GLASTL, Bibliopolæ
Anno 1745."
Previously it may be as well to observe, that Stadt am Hof is a town
bordering on the imperial city of Ratisbon, at or near _the court_, and
Latinized Pedepons as being at the foot of the bridge over the Danube at
that part. This book is evidently the identical counterfeit before
described, with the _mask cast aside_ by a _new title-page_, and _newly
printed_ prefatory matter, in consequence of a proposal fairly and
literally to _reprint_ the first genuine Roman edition. I will just
mention one proof of the identity of this and the previous copy in the
_body_ of the book. It occurs in the last line of p. 239., where the
word Iunij has a stroke, _by fault of the type_, immediately after the
word, thus Iunij[|]; and this is found in both. This is an accidental
coincidence, not to be classed with the purposed retention of false
spelling.
The Bergomi edition of 1608 is not in my possession; but I am well
acquainted with it by actual inspection. My first sight of it was
afforded by my friend the Rev. Richard Gibbings, who has published a new
edition of it, with an elaborate and very finished preface, in 1837.[4]
I have likewise seen it at Mr. Pickering's, a copy which I presume came
from the dispersed library of the late Rev. H. F. Lyte. _That_ in the
Bodleian I did not feel it necessary to examine. I do, however, possess,
though not the original, a very correct, as appears, _fac-simile_ of
that volume, whether it was intended as a counterfeit or not. The title,
without any addition, agrees _exactly_ with that of the original, as
given by your Oxford correspondent. I conclude it to be not the
original, from a distinct recollection that the engraving on the
title-page there is more rude and broken than in my copy; and, in the
body of the work, some parts do not perfectly agree with Mr. Gibbings's
reprint, not in the contents of the _pages_, in some instances in the
middle portion, and in the frequent substitution of the _m_ and _n_ for
the superscript bar, signifying one or other of those letters. My copy
likewise is bound together in vellum, with the _Notitia Ind. Lib.
Expurg. of Zobelius, Altorfii_, 1745. And, by the bye, I should like to
know whether, and where, there is another copy of that treatise of
eighty pages in England?
[Footnote 4: Copies may be had at Mr. Petheram's, 94. High
Holborn, London.]
I am happy in the present opportunity of recommending to the attention
of such students as U. U. in the New World, a work of so much real value
and interest as Mr. Gibbings's edition of the Bergomi edition of the
_Brasichellian Index_; and flatter myself that, by their aid and
example, an end will be put in the mother country to the incorrigible
though simple practice of calling every catalogue of condemned books
_expurgatory_, when the accuracy of the title, as far as Rome is
concerned, hangs upon the single thread of one imperfect and withdrawn
instance; the not easily numbered remainder being exclusively and
expressly _prohibitory_.
The reason for the _suppression_ of the work here examined is, in part
at least, correctly expressed by Papebrochius:
"Nec _porro processum in opere reliquo_, quod mox apparuit futurum
seminarium litium infinitarum, quibus sustinendis nec unus, nec
plures forent pares, quantavis auctoritate subnixi."