R.J.K.
QUERIES.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUERIES.
(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
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."