422 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 56. 



volumes, "magnifiee, ac perelegantcr, perque ac- 

 curate impressis," as Fabricius speaks ? {Bibl. 

 Grcp.c. xii. 363.) This statement, which may be 

 but a libel, is found in Tilgner {Nov. lib. rm\ Col- 

 lect. Fascic. iv. 710.), Schelhorn (Amceii. Lit. iii. 

 428.), Vogt {Catal. p. 562. Hamb. 1738), and 

 Solger (Bibliutk. i 163.). According to the last 

 ■writer, the edition in question, Florent. 1553, (for 

 a fac-simile of the letters of the original IMS. see 

 IMabillon's Iter Italicum, p. 183.) is, — " splendi- 

 dissima, et stupcndae raritatis, quce in tanta est 

 apud Erudites astimatione lit pro 100 laqieriali- 

 bus ssepius 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. Miluian), there are two mistakes. 

 He calls the editor "Taurellus" instead of 2\m- 

 rellius ; and makes the date " 1551," when it should 

 have been 1553. These errors, however, are 

 scarcely surprising in a sentence in which Anto- 

 nius 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 Ascensiamim used for the first time? 

 And has it been observed that the small and sepa- 

 rated figures incised on the legs of this insigne of 

 Jodocus Eadius may sometimes be taken as a safe 

 guide with reference to the exact date of the 

 works in Avhich this mark appears ? As an argu- 

 ment serving to justify the occasional adoption 

 of this criterion I would adduce the fact, that the 

 earliest edition of Eudceus De Coiitemptu Itcruin 

 fortuitarum is believed to have been printed in 

 1520 (GreswelFs Pariainn Greek Press., i. 39.), 

 and this year is accordingly visible in the title- 

 page on the print of the Prelum Ascensiauum. 

 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 theBadian 

 Device in the third impression of the same trea- 

 tise (the second with the exposi(io), though it was 

 set forth "posU-idle Cal. April 1528." 



(15.) Is it owing to the extreme rarity of copies 

 of the first edition of the Paguinian 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 re- 

 spects 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 hal- 

 lucination is perceptible in the JElcnchus Scrip- 

 to)-um by Crowe (p. 4.) It is certain that Pope 

 Leo X. directed that Fagnini'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 emi- 



nent Dominican were not put forth until the 29th 

 of January, 1527. This is the date in the colo- 

 phon ; and though " 1528" is obvious on the title- 

 page, the apparent variation may be accounted for 

 by I'emembering the several ways of marking the 

 commencement of the year. (Ze Long., by ]\Iasch, 

 ii. 475. ; Clwonol. of Hist., by Sir H. Nicolas, 

 p. 40.) Chevillier informs us {Orig. de Vlmp. 

 p. 143.) that the earliest Latin Bible, in which he 

 had seen the verses distinguisiied by ciphers, was 

 that of Ivobert Stephens in 1557. Clement {Bib- 

 liotli. 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 iniacquainted 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 Turo- 

 nensis and Ado Vicnnensis, comprised in the same 

 small folio volume, was 1516? (Greswell, i. 35.) 

 If he had said 1522, he might liave had the assist- 

 ance 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 iourde mars Ian milcinqcens et onze," awA 

 the dedication of the works by Badius to Guil. 

 Parvus ends with " Ad. XII. Kalendas Decemb. 

 Anni huius m.d.xii." 



(17.) Who was the author of Penileas cite ? And 

 is it not evident that the impression at Cologne by 

 Martinus de AVerdena, in 1511, is considerably 

 later than that which is adorned on the title-page 

 with a different woodcut, and which exhibits the 

 following words proceeding from the teacher : " Ac- 

 cipies tauti doctoris dogmata sancta ?" R. G. 



naVDEN S " ESSAY UPON SATIRE. 



On wliat evidence does the statement rest, that 

 the Earl of JMidgrave was the author of the Essay 

 upon Satire, and that Dryden merely corrected and 

 j)olishedit? As at present advised, I have con- 

 siderable doubt upon the point : and aUhough, in 

 modern editions of Dry den's Works, I find it 

 headed An E.^satj 7ipon S'ltii'c, ivritten by Mr. 

 Dri/den and the Earl of Midgrave, yet in the State 

 Poems, vol. i. p. 179., originally printed in the life- 

 time of Dryden, it is attributed solely to him — 

 ".4« Essay upon Satyr. By J. Dryden, Es(}." 

 This gets rid of the assertion in the note of "D.," 

 in the Aldine edition of Dryden (i. 105.), that 

 " the Earl of ilulgrave's name has been always 

 joined with Dryden's, as concerned in the com- 

 I^osition." Was it not first published without 

 notice that any other person was concerned in it 

 but Dryden ? 



The internal evidence, too, is strong that Dryden 

 was the author of it. I do not here refer to the 



