EDITIONS OF BARTHOLOMAEUS 285 
tinus Africanus, but citing over 100 other authors; * especially 
Pliny, Aristotle and Dioscorides, through Latin translations ; 
together with a great number of almost unknown mediaeval 
writers. His great work has been 12 times translated ; first 
into English + at Berkeley Castle, at command of “ Syre Thomas 
Lorde of Berkeleye that made me to make this translation,’’ 1st Feb., 
1398. The Latin original was often printed before 1500; first 
by Caxton { (fide Lowndes; and so Wynkyn de Worde, Caxton’s 
pupil and associate, expressly states), at Cologne, about 1470, 55 
lines § to the page. 
* Especially from the Norman Alfred [de Sarchel, a translator of Pseud-Aristotle], 
from ‘‘ Aristotle de plantis,’’ Pliny, Dyascorides, Isaac [Ben Honein, especially his 
In diaetis}, Huguitio Pisanus [a jurist and grammarian], Papias [his Vocadudist], etc., 
with Oribasius, Aegidius ae Stephanus, Strabus, spo emia and Rabanus,—to 
use Bartholomaeus’ s spelli uotes from a number of previous English writers, 
as Robertus Lincol’, Gilbertus ‘ss Michael aha Algo s (Alcuin), and Simon 
Cozfi; and from the lost De naturis rerum of Alfred Anglicus, i. ¢., Alfred bishop 
Cridiensis in Devon, of the roth c von aa pens of English names to be 
coupled with nature, unless 1 d the Great, of the translator of 
Apuleius into Anglo-Saxon, and of the Soak writers ‘ie the early medical formulae 
which became incorporated in the Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms of uncertain date. 
wndes (accepted by Proctor, 1898) states that this translation was made 
John of eal agent in his Bibliotheca Britannica, in 1824, said that the translator 
was Thomas Berthlet ; apparently a false reading for Thomas Bercklei, 7. ¢., Berkeley, 
by whose command the translation was ide 2ak new English translation appeared in 
1582, ‘‘ Batmann upon Bartholome his book the Propr. Rerum, newly corrected, en- 
larged and amended, with such additions as are requisite unto Seis several booke 
Lon, 1582, folio. 
t Hain, as ascribed this, his No, 2498, to Cologne, without printer; Johnson, 
Typographia, Lo n. 1824, deemed it the work of Caxton. Sotheby, 1858, y cateied 
Lowndes, 1859, considered the question settled in favor of Caxton, after compariso 
of fac-similes of type, and accepted in full the reference to it by Caxton’s disciple, ap- 
Prentice and successor, Wynkyn de Worde, who wrote, 1495, 
‘* And also of your charyte call to remembraun 
The soul of William ae ae the first prynter ‘of this boke, 
In laten tongue at Coley ES 
Recent biographers of Caxton reject or ignore this explicit evidence. The latest 
to pronounce on the matter, Proctor, 1898, indexing two copies of this in the British 
Museum (and one in the Bodleian Libr.) leaves it uncertain, classing it by its type as 
by his 8th printer of Nf is the unknown printer of the ores Sancti Augustin 
§ My citations are from copy of the so-called second Latin edition, the te line 
edition, printed 1468-70 to Berthold Ruppel of Hanau, first printer of Basle, who was 
Printer’s assistant to Gutenberg in 1455 (See ‘‘ Zarly Printed Books,’ by E. —— 
Duff, Lon, -» 1893; and ‘* /wdex to Early Printed Books in the British Museum,’’ by 
Robt, Proctor, Lon, 1 898). The last Latin edition appeared 1619 at Frankfort. The 
