276 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 102. 



The -words Prodromus PhilosophicB Instaiirandce, 

 ivliich appear only on the tit.le-pajie, are of Adami 

 himself, not of Campanella. The work of the 

 latter is called Compendium de lierum Naturd, 

 and is printed, after the preface, with this running 

 title. The error into which I ie'H was to refer the 

 words Prodromus Phdosophlce Insfauranda to the 

 preface of Adami, and not to the entire work. It 

 may be satisfactory to give the title-page, and one 

 or two extracts from the preface : — 



" Prodromus Pliilosopliisc Instauranda;, id est, Dis- 

 sertationis do Natura reriun Compendium, secundum 

 vera principia, ex scriptis Thoma; CainpanclIoD pra?inis- 

 sum, cum pra;fatione ad philosophos Germanioj. Franco- 

 furt. 1617." 



Prodromus, of course, means the avant-courier of 

 a new ])hilosophy ; and this, I might think, was 

 intended for Adami himself. But, on looking 

 again at the preface, I perceive that it refers to 

 tiie Compendium, which was to lead the way to 

 ulterior publications. 



" Prffiinittere autem hoc saltern opusculum visum 

 nobis est, quo brevis avaicf<pa\aiw(ns physicorum plil- 

 losophematum conjecta est, ut judicia doctorum ex eo 

 in Gcrmania experiremur, exercitaremusque. Cui si 

 oper.x pretium videbitur, subjungemus posthac autoris 

 pleniorem et concinniorem Epilogismum PhilosopbiEe 

 Naturalis, INIoralls et PoHticEe, addito opusculo Civita- 

 tis Solis, quo idea ingeiiiosissima reipul>rica; philoso- 

 phise secundum naturam instituendas proponitur." 



I had at one time a doubt, suggested by the 

 lano-uage of the title-page, whether the Compen- 

 dium- de Rerum Natura were not an abridgment 

 of CampanelJa, by Adami himself But the style 

 has too much vigour and terseness to warrant this 

 supi«)sition. And the following passage in the 

 preface leads us to a different conclusion : 



" De stylo, si tam delicatse, ut nostratium nonnullas 

 sunt, aures reperiantur, quibus non ubique ita accura- 

 tus, et ex scrijitis mendosis interdum depravatus videatiir, 

 supervacuum puto excusare, cum philosophus non lo- 

 quatur, ut loquatur, sed ut intelligi velit." 



Your correspondent observes also : " What 

 ]\Ir. Hallam calls an ' edition,' was the first pub- 

 lication." Is not this rather hyper-ciitical ? 

 " First edition " is a i'amiliar jihrase, and Adam 

 was surely an editor. 



In Vol. iii., p. 241., it is said that "in 1811 

 these MSS. (viz. of Wilkes) were, I presume, in 

 the possession of Peter Elmsley, Principal of 

 St. Alban's Hall, as he submitted the Junius 

 Correspondence, through ]\Ir. Hallam, to Serjeant 

 Rough, who returned the letters to Mr. Hallam." 

 And it is asked, " Where now ore the original 

 Junius letters, and where the other MSS. ? " 



I have to answer to this, that I returned the 

 Junius letters (I never had any others of Wilkes) 

 to Mr. Elmsley some years before his death in 

 1825. They are, in all probability, in the posses- 

 sion of his representatives. Henry Hallam. 



PRINTING. 



(Vol. iv., p. 148.) 



]\Iore than a few of your contributors have, I 

 trust, concurred with me in hoping, if not expect- 

 ing, that something will be done to eifect the object 

 presented to oiu- notice through M.'s most judi- 

 cious suggestion. It will be admitted that now, 

 for about thirty years, the study of the history of 

 early printing has been commonly neglected, fre- 

 quently despised. The e-xtent of the advance or 

 decline of any science in general estimation can 

 always be accurately computed by means of a 

 comparative view of the prices demanded at dif- 

 ferent periods for the works which treat of it ; and 

 it is unquestionable, that books on bibliography, 

 which once were highly rated, have latterly be- 

 come (at least to those who have them already) 

 provokingly cheap. In fact, unless some measures 

 be adopted to revive a taste for this important 

 branch of learning, the next generation will be 

 involved in decrepitude and darkness with respect 

 to typographical antiquities. 



M. has incidentally asked, " Do different hooks 

 circulate under the title o^ Fasciculus Temporum? " 

 I should say, strictly speaking. Certainly not. But 

 there is a sense in which the supposition is per- 

 fectly true ; for we not only meet with the genuine 

 Fasciculus of 1474, by Wcrnerus Rolevinck de 

 Laer, but have also to encounter the same work 

 as it was interpolated by Heinricus Wirczburg de 

 Vach, and published for the first time in 1481. 

 Ratdolt's edition of 1484, which M. used, does not 

 contain the remarkable substituted passage in 

 which the author was compelled to record the 

 invention, instead of the propagation, of printing ; 

 and it would appear, therefore, that that impression 

 does not belong to the Wirczburgian class. I 

 have been surprised at finding that Pistorius and 

 Struvius have reprinted the sophisticated, and not 

 the authentic, book ; and it is curious to see the 

 introduction of an "&c." along with other altera- 

 tions in the account given of the death of 

 Henry VII. from the reception of a poisoned 

 Host. 



M. will instantly perceive that we cannot safely 

 trust in a Fasciculus Temporum of, or after, the 

 date 1481 ; but I can answer for the agreement 

 of the impression of Colon. 1479 with the editio 

 princeps. The citations respecting the Gutenberg 

 Bible are not from the Fasciculus Temporum, but 

 from Die Cronica van der hilliger Stadt van Coellen, 

 A.D. 1499; the testimony of which (or rather of 

 Ulric Zell related therein) as to the origin of 

 printing is very well known through the Latin 

 translation of it supplied by B. de Mallinckrot. 

 (Clement, vii. 221.; Meerman, ii. 105.; Marchand, 

 Hist.de VImp., ii. 4. 104.; Lambinet, 132.) 



R. G. 



