THE DATES OF ETTEEDE's ' IIOKTUS MALAliAEICUS ' 291 



BIBLIOGKAPHTCAL NOTES. 

 LXXXIl. The Dates of IIiieede's ' Hortus Malabaricus.' 



Errors in dates, like misspelled^names, once committed to print, 

 are ditiiciilt to get rid of. As a number of modern library catalogues 

 have stumbled over the dates of Ilheede's Hortus Indicus Mala- 

 baricus, it is apparent that some earlier records which explain the 

 discrepancies are in danger of being overlooked. 



Among a dozen catalogues examined, at least three uncritically 

 accept the misprinted date 1(373 for Pars iv. — nor can we assume that 

 in all cases where inclusive dates are stated correctly, the intervening 

 volumes have all been carefully scrutinized. While many cataloguers 

 place their chief reliance on Pritzel's Thesaurus, one would suppose 

 that their curiosity would be roused, at least, by finding the date for 

 this volume given as 1683 in the second edition of Pritzel (1872-77), 

 though the tirst (1851) gives it as " (errore) 1673 (1683)," an 

 explanation unhappily omitted in the revision of the bibliography. 

 S-guier (Bibl. Bot., mO) and Miltitz (Bibl. Bot., 1829) merely give 

 the correct date without comment. Dryander however (Cat. Bibl, 

 Banks, iii. 179, 1797) gives it as " 1673 (1683)," while Haller (Bibl. 

 Bot. i. 589 (1771), says: " Tonius iv. De arboribus fructiferis mala- 

 baricis . . . 1683 ("male 1673)." As definite proof that Pars iv. was 

 actually published in 1683, one may cite the review of this volume 

 in Acta Eruditorum anno mdclxxxiv. {i. e. for 1683), p. 159, Avhich 

 quotes the title quite fully, though it gives the date 1683 without 

 coinment. Every copy of the Hortus Malabaricus ought to have 

 this correction noted on the title of Pars iv. to avoid future confusion. 

 • Beside the date of Pars iv., the work offers another stumbling 

 block to the cataloguer in the title-page for the first volume. Althouo-h 

 published in 1678, many copies do not have the original title, but the 

 one dated 1686, which was reprinted verbatim from that of pars vi., 

 but with the sole change of the volume number; hence we frequently 

 find 1686-1703 carelessly given as inclusive dates for the entire 

 work. Dryander (/. c.) explains the dates of pars i. as follows: — 

 " Duae adsunt editiones Tomi Imi, quarum utraque in titulo impresso 

 habet annum 1678, sed in titulo sculpto, altera 1678, altera 1686." 

 I have not been able to confirm this distinction between the printed 

 and engraved titles; in copies I have seen both are alike, and 

 judging from information in various catalogues, copies with both 

 dates in the first volume cannot be common. Such a possibilitv, 

 however, is suggested by the copy in the John Crerar Library of 

 Chicago, with an engraved title dated 1682 in the first volume, 

 though its main title-page has the original date 1678, while Pars iii. 

 (1682) also has an engraved title of the same date, but not identical 

 with that in pars i. Again, the Gray Herbarium of Harvard 

 University has two sets of the first six volumes, with imprints vary- 

 ing considerably, though the dates are the same for the respective 

 volumes, and in one of them Pars i. (1678) even has a totally different 

 printer's device, a basket of flowers in place of the usual landsca23e 

 enclosed by the motto : " Non aestas est laeta Diu, componite nidos." 

 These examples indicate that almost any combination of dates mio-lit 

 have been possible in early volumes. 



