BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUERIES.
(Continued from page 421.)
(18.) What could have induced the accurate and learned Saxius (Catal. Lib. Mediol., edit. p. DXC.) to give the name Elucidarium to the first part of the Mariale of Bernardinus de Bustis? This writer, who has sometimes erroneously been reputed a Dominican, and who is commemorated in the Franciscan Martyrology on the 8th of May (p. 178.), derived his denomination from his family, and not "from a place in the country of Milan," as Mr. Tyler has supposed. (Worship of the Virgin, p. 41. Lond. 1846.) Elsewhere Saxius had said (Hist. Typog.-Liter. Mediol., col. ccclii.) that the Mariale was printed for the first time in 1493, and dedicated to Pope Alexander VI.; and Argelati was led by him to consider the Elucidarium to be a distinct performance; and he speaks of the Mariale as having been published in 1494. (Biblioth. Scriptor. Med., tom. i. p. ii. 245.) Unquestionably the real title assigned by the author to the first part of his Sermonarium or Mariale was "PERPETUUM SILENTIUM," and it was inscribed to Alexander's predecessor, Pope Innocent VIII.; and, in conjunction with De Bustis's Office of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (sanctioned by a Brief of Pope Sixtus IV., who in 1476 had issued the earliest pontifical decree in favour of an innovation now predominant in the Church of Rome), was primarily printed "Mli," that is, Mediolani, "per Uldericum scinzenzeler, Anno dni M.cccc.lxxxxij" (1492). Wharton, Olearius, Clement, and Maittaire knew nothing of this edition; and it must take precedence of that of Strasburg named by Panzer (i. 47.).
(19.) Can any particulars be easily ascertained relative to reprints of the acts of the canonisation of the Seraphic Doctor in their original small quarto shape?
(20.) To whom should we attribute the rare tract entitled Lauacrum conscientie omnium sacerdotum, which consists of fifty-eight leaves, and was printed in Gothic letter at Cologne, "Anno post Jubileum quarto?"
(21.) Where can information be met with as to the authorship of the Dialogus super Libertate Ecclesiastica, between Hugo, Cato, and Oliver? Fischer (Essai sur Gutenberg, 79.) traces back the first edition to the year 1463; but I know the treatise only in the form in which it was republished at Oppenheim in 1516.
(22.) Who was the compiler or curator of the Viola Sanctorum? and can the slightest attempt be made at verifying the signatures and numbers inserted in the margin, and apparently relating to the MSS. from which the work was taken? One of two copies before me was printed at Nuremberg in 1486, but the other I believe to belong to the earliest impression. It is of small folio size, in very Gothic type, perhaps of the year 1472, without date, place, or name of printer, and is destitute of cyphers, catchwords, and signatures. There are ninety-two leaves in the volume, and in each page generally thirty-three (sometimes thirty-four, rarely thirty-five) lines. (See Brunet, iii. 547.; Kloss, 280.; Panzer, i. 193.)
(23.) By what means can intelligence be procured respecting "Doctor Ulricus," the author of Fraternitas Cleri? A satisfactory reply to this inquiry might probably be found in the Bibl. Spenceriana; but I have not now an opportunity of determining this point.
(24.) A question has been raised by Dr Maitland, from whose admirable criticism nothing connected with literature is likely to escape, as to the meaning of the letters "P.V." placed over a sudarium held by St. Peter and St. Paul. (Early printed Books in the Lambeth Library, pp. 115. 368.) Any person who has happened to obtain the Vitas Patrum, decorated with the curious little woodcuts of which Dr. Maitland has carefully represented two, will cheerfully agree with him in maintaining the excellence of the acquisition. In a copy of this work bearing date 1520, eleven years later than the Lambeth volume (List, p. 85.), the reverse of the leaf which contains the colophon exhibits the same sudarium, in company with the words "Salve sancta Facies." This circumstance inclines me to venture to ask whether my much-valued friend will concur with me in the conjecture that Pictura Veronicæ may be the interpretation of "P.V.?" Though the pseudo-Archbishop of Westminster declared, in the simplicity of his heart (Letters to John Poynder, Esq., p. 6.), that he had "never met" with the sequence "quæ dicitur in Missa Votiva de Vultu Sancto," doubtless some of his newly-arrested subjects are
well aware that it exists, and that its commencement (see Bona, iii. 144.) is,—
"Salve sancta Facies nostri Redemptoris,
In qua nitet species divini splendoris,
Impressa panniculo nivei candoris,
Dataque Veronicæ signum ob amoris."
R.G.