324 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 51. 



4. Has any discovery been made as to the author 

 of the extraordinary 4to. tract, Oracio querulosa 

 contra Inuasores Sacerdotum f According to the 

 Crevenna Catalogue (i. 85.), the work is " inconnu 

 "k tous les bibliographes." Compare Seemiller, ii. 

 162. ; but the copy before me is not of the impres- 

 sion described by him. It is worthy of notice, that 

 at signature A iiiij the writer decLires, " nostris 

 jam temporibus calchographiam, hoc est impres- 

 sioram artem, in nobilissima Vrbanie germe 

 Maguncia fuisse repertam." 



5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or 

 a love of conjectures was the source of Chevillier's 

 mistake, not corrected by Greswell {Annals of 

 Paris. Typog., p. 6.), that signatures were first 

 introduced, anno 1476, by Zarotus, the printer, at 

 Mihan ? They may doubtless be seen in the Opus 

 Alexaiidride Ales snper tertium Sententiarum, Venet. 

 1475, a book which supplies also the most ancient 

 instance I have met with of a " Registrum Char- 

 tarum." Signatures, however, had a prior exist- 

 ence ; for they appear in the Mammetractus printed 

 at Bcron Minster in 1470 (Meerman, ii. 28.; 

 Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the im- 

 pression of 1476. Dr. Cotton {Ti/p. Gaz., p. 66.), 

 Mr. Home (Introd. to Bibliog., i. 187. 317), and 

 many others, wrongly delay the invention or adop- 

 tion of them till the year 1472. 



6. Is the edition of the Fasciculus Temponim, 

 set forth at Cologne by Nicolaus de Schlettstadt 

 in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is con- 

 fessedly " omnium prima," and which was issued 

 by Arnoldus Ther Huernen in the same year? 

 If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing 

 date 1476, and entered in pp. 1 , 2. of Dr. Maitland'"s 

 very valuable and accurate List, must appertain to 

 the third, not the second, impression. To the 

 latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in 

 the catalogue of the books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), 

 but there is an error in the remark that the " Ta- 

 bula" prefixed to the editio princeps is comprised 

 in eight leaves, for it certainly consists of nine. 



7. Where was what is probably a copy of the 

 second edition of the Catena Aurea of Aquinas 

 printed ? The folio in question, which consists of 

 417 unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, 

 and I should say that it is certainly of German 

 origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingeii, 

 and perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks 

 would afford some assistance in tracing it. Of 

 these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis 

 may be seen on folio 61. It would be difBcutt to 

 persuade the proprietor of this volume that it is 

 of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which 

 what is generally called the second impression of 

 this work appeared. 



8. How can we best account for the mistake 

 relative to the imaginary Bologna edition of 

 Ptolemy's Cosmography in 1462, a copy of which 

 was in the Colbert library ? (Lenglet du Fresnoy, 



Meth. pour etiid. VHist., iii. 8., h. Paris, 1735.) 

 That it was published previously to the fiimous 

 Mentz Bible of this date is altogether impossible ; 

 and was the figure 6 a misprint foi' 8 ? or should 

 we attempt to subvert it into 9 ? The editio 

 princeps of the l^atin version by Angelus is in 

 Roman letter, and is a very handsome specimen of 

 Vieenza typography in 1475, when it was set forth 

 "ab Hermano Leuilapide," alias Hermann Lich- 

 tenstein. 



9. If it be true, as Dr. Cotton remarks in his 

 excellent Typographical Gazetteer, p. 22., that a 

 press was erected at Augsburg, in the monastery of 

 SS. Ulric and Afra, in the year 1472, and that 

 Anthony Sorg is believed to have been the printer', 

 why should we be induced to assent to the validity 

 of Panzer's supposition that Nider's Formicarius 

 did not make its appearance there until 1480 ? It 

 would seem to be more than doubtful that Cologne 

 can boast of having produced the first edition, 

 A. D. 147f ; and it may be reasonably asserted, 

 and an examination of the book will abundantly 

 strengthen the idea, that the earliest impression 

 is that which contains this colophon, in which I 

 would dwell upon the word " editionem " (well 

 known to the initiated): "Explicit quintus ac 

 totus formicarii liber uxta editionem fratris 

 lohannis Nider," &c., " Impressum Auguste per 

 Anthonium Soi-g." 



10. In what place and year was Wilkelmi Sum- 

 ma Viciorum first printed ? Fabricius and Cave 

 are certainly mistaken when they say Colon. 1479. 

 In the volitme, which I maintain to be of greater 

 antiquity, the letters c atrd t, s aird t, are curiously 

 united, and the commencement of it is : " Incipit 

 summa viciorum seu tractatus moral' edita [ifc] a 

 fratre vilhelmo episcopo lugdunes. ordinsq. fratrii 

 predicator." The description given by Quetif and 

 Echard (i. 132.) of the primary impression of 

 Perault's book only makes a bibliomaniac more 

 anxious for information about it : '• in Inc. typ. 

 absque loco anno et nomine typographi, sine 

 numeris reclamat. et majusculis." 



11. Was Panormitau's Lectura super prima 

 DecretaliKm indirbitably issued at Venice, prior to 

 the 1st of April, 1473 ? and if so, does it contain 

 in the colophon these lines by Zovenzonius, which 

 I transcribe from a noble copy bearing this date ? 



" Abbatis pars prima notis que fiilget ahemis 

 Est vindelini pressa labore mei : 

 Cuiu.s ego ingonium de vertice palladis ortum 

 Crediderim. veiiiam tu mihi spira dabis." 



12. Is it not unquestionable that Heroldt's 

 Promptuarium Exemplm-um was pirblished at least 

 as early as his Sermones ? The type in both works 

 is clearly identical, and the imprint in the latter, 

 at the end of Serm. cxxxvi., vol. ii., is Colon. 

 1474, an edition unknown to very nearly all 

 bibliographers. For instance. Panzer and Denis 

 commence with that of Rostock, in 1476 ; Laire 



