2n'>S. VI.135.,Je;i,Y31.'58.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 



93 



On this note and the references I have some 

 observations to make. 



1. The article in Ames, 1133, is the title-page 

 of the very book, an inspection of which occa- 

 sioned my query, and I had already consulted it. 

 The title is as follows : — 



" Gravi.ssirace, atque exactissittue illustrissimarum 

 totius Italia3 et Gallite Academiaruin censui'iB, efftcacis- 

 simis et'iam qunrundam doctissimorum uirnrum argumen- 

 tationibus eTp!icaf(B, de ueritate illiiis propositionis, 

 Videlicet quod ducere relictam fratris mortui sine liberis 

 ita sit de iure diuino et naturali prohibitum: ut nullus 

 Pontifex super huiusmodi raatrimoniis coiUractis siue 

 contrahendis dispensare possit." 



The words in Italics seem to indicate something 

 following and commenting on the ceiisurce, and 

 this is confirmed by the verso of the title, which 

 begins thus : — 



" Elenchus sacroruin conciliorum, et doctorura eccle- 

 siasticorum, quorum autoritate sequentes Academiaruin 

 censurs pariter et libellus ipse potissimum innituntur." 



Accordingly, on the verso of b 3, we have 

 " Praefatio ad Lectorem," and on A. begins the 

 libellus ipse, " Postquam deus opt. max., etc." The 

 book goes on to Q 4, consisting thus of seventy- 

 two leaves altogether, and concludes : — 



" Impress. Londini in officina Thomje Berthlseti regii im- 

 press, mense April. An. Dni m.d.xxx." 



Of this book there is a copy in the British Mu- 

 seum, though from the words " efficacissimis . . . 

 explicatm" being omitted without indication in the 

 catalogue [AcADEMiA],andin Lowndes [Divoece], 

 I infer that their edition has the Censura alone, and 

 not the treatise which is described in these words. 

 The CensurcB were printed in English in Novem- 

 ber next year (Maitland's List of Early Boolis at 

 Lambeth, p. 193.), whether with or without the 

 treatise I cannot say ; though I suspect without 

 it, as there is nothing in the English title corre- 

 sponding to the words noted above. In 1532, the 

 CensurcB were reprinted in Latin with the treatise, 

 so far as I can find. Now I think if IMr. Jenkyns 

 had seen the book, he would not have described it 

 as a Summary of the reasons for divorce, the parti- 

 lar case being nowhere stated in it, nor alluded to. 

 Such a Summari/ may be seen in Burnet, " Records 

 to Book IL," No. 36., consisting of twelve articles ; 

 eight of which apply to the particular case as dis- 

 tinguished from the general question. Mr. Jen- 

 kyns having apparently conceived the idea that 

 the book printed with the CeiisUrce was such a 

 summary as this, extended and argued, naturally 

 inferred that it was something more and something 

 different from Cranmer's book, though Cranmer's 

 arguments might be compressed in it, and applied ; 

 that it contained a statement of facts, &c. J3ut it 

 does not ; it is simply such a treatise as Cranmer's 

 is described to have been, — an abstract legal dis- 

 cussion of the question stated in the title, and 

 nothing more. 



2. It is difficult to determine whether Burnet 

 saw the book in question. The Censurce which 

 he gives (" Records to Book IL" No. 34.) are 

 taken from the edition of 1532, so that he may 

 not have seen that of 1530. But that he perused 

 the treatise is evident, for he gives a long abstract 

 of its arguments, mixing them up with those of 

 other documents printed and MS. in his hands 

 (vol. i. Part i. p. 177. ed. 1816, Oxford). At all 

 events the question whether the book he was 

 using was Cranmer's or not is not alluded to by 

 him, so that it would seem the possibility of its 

 being Cranmer's never occurred to him. And 

 why should it not have occurred to him, if he had 

 had the edition of 1530 under his eye ? However, 

 he had a great deal of work to do without 

 watering down all the literary dust that rose about 

 him in the course of it. 



3. Strype {Memor. vol. i. p. 141. ed. 1711), 

 after giving the title verbatim as above, and a list 

 of the Universities, thus proceeds : — 



" Next after these censures of the Universities fol- 

 lowed in this book the judgments of divers learned men : 

 for abundance of learned men had now employed tiieir 

 pens in this argument, to the number of above an hun- 

 dred, whereof Dr. Cranmer was one." 



From this sentence, which implies a total mis- 

 conception of the nature of the book, I infer that 

 Strype had not closely inspected it, but had been 

 led astray by the modesty of the title. The book 

 is by no means a series of opinions or testimonies 

 of learned men, as his words would lead the reader 

 to suppose ; but a doctrinal and legal treatise on 

 the question, in the course of which, as in any 

 other treatise, such opinions are adduced as the 

 .argument requires. In truth, it is much less of a 

 catena than a similar work of Pusey's or Keble's 

 at the present day would be. 



4. The conjecture of Mr. Jenkyns cited above, 

 which accounts for the loss of Cranmer's book by 

 supposing its main arguments incorporated in fcis 

 extant treatise, is a very ingenious and happy 

 conjecture, if it be first established that Craimier's 

 hook is lost; but what reason is there for sup- 

 posing that Cranmer's book was ever published or 

 even circulated in any other shape, — that Cran- 

 mer's book was different from this, larger or smaller 

 than this ? On the contrary, if it be considered 

 that this is the royal hook on the question printed 

 by the king's printer, at an early stage of the 

 business, and about the time when we knaw Cran- 

 mer had finished his work ; that there is no men- 

 tion made of any other person being employed or 

 authorised by the king to write such a work ; that 

 the purport of this work and that of Cranmer as 

 described to us are identical ; that it is extremely 

 improbable that Cranmer's was not printed, and 

 another printed instead of it of which we have 

 heard nothing ; or that being printed, it has not 

 been carefully preserved somewhere ; I think a 



