  (Continued from Vol. iii., p. 139.) (43.) Is there any valid reason for not dating the publication of some of Gerson's treatises at Cologne earlier than the year 1470? and if good cause cannot be shown for withholding from them so high a rank in the scale of typographic being, must we not instantly reject every effort to extenuate Marchand's obtuseness in asserting with reference to Ulric Zell, "On ne voit des Éditions de ce Zell qu'en 1494?" (Hist. de l'Imp., p. 56.) (44.) Wherein do the ordinary Hymni et SequentiÆ differ from those according to the use of Sarum? Whose is the oldest Expositio commonly attached to both? and respecting it did Badius, in 1502, accomplish much beyond a revision and an amendment of the style? Was not Pynson, in 1497, the printer of the folio edition of the Hymns and Sequences entered in Mr. Dickinson's valuable List of English Service-Books, p. 8.; or is there inaccuracy in the succeeding line? Lastly, was the titular woodcut in Julian Notary's impression, A.D. 1504 (Dibdin, ii. 580.), derived from the decoration of the Hymnarius, and the Textus Sequentiarum cum optimo commento, set forth at Delft by Christian Snellaert, in 1496? From the first page of the latter we receive the following accession to our philological knowledge:
(45.) (1.) In what edition of the Salisbury Missal did the amusing errors in the "Ordo Sponsalium" first occur; and how long were they continued? I allude to the husband's obligation, "to haue and to holde fro thys day wafor beter for wurs," &c., and to the wife's prudential promise, "to haue et to holde for thys day." (2.) Are there any vellum leaves in any copy in England of the folio impression very beautifully printed en rouge et noir "in alma Parisiorum academia," die x. Kal. April, 1510? (46.) On the 11th of last month (Jan.) somebody advertised in "Notes and Queries" for Foxes and Firebrands. In these days of trouble and rebuke, when (if we may judge from a recent article savouring of Neal's second volume) it seems to be expected that English gentlemen will, in a Magazine that bears their name, be pleased with a rÉchauffÉ of democratic obloquy upon the character of the great reformer of their church, and will look with favour upon Canterburies Doome, would it not be desirable that Robert Ware's (and Nalson's) curious and important work should be republished? If a reprint of it were to be undertaken, I would direct attention to a copy in my possession of "The Third and Last Part," Lond. 1689, which has many alterations marked in MS. for a new edition, and which exhibits the autograph of Henry Ware. (47.) Was Cohausen the composer of "Clericus Deperrucatus; sive, in fictitiis Clericorum Comis moderni seculi ostensa et explosa Vanitas: Cum Figuris: Autore Annoeo Rhisenno Vecchio, Doctore Romano-Catholico," printed at Amsterdam, and inscribed to Pope Benedict XIII.? One of the well-finished copperplates, page 12., represents "Monsieur l'AbbÉ prenant du Tabac." (48.) Where can a copy of the earliest edition of the Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum be found? for if one had been easily obtainable, Grabe, Cave, Oudin, and Wharton (Ang. Sac. ii. 345.) would not have treated the third impression as the first; and let it be noted by the way that "Clerico Elichero" in Wharton must be a mistake for "Clerico Nicolao." Moreover, how did the excellent Fabricius (Bibl. med. et inf. Latin., and also Cod. Pseudepig. V.T., i. 758.) happen to connect Menradus Moltherus with the editio princeps of 1483? It is certain that this writer's letter to Secerius, accompanying a transcript of Bishop GrossetÊte's version, which immediately came forth at Haguenau, was concluded "postridie Non. Januar. M.D.XXXII." (49.) (1.) Who was the bibliopolist with whom originated the pernicious scheme of adapting newly printed title-pages to books which had had a previous existence? Sometimes the deception may be discerned even at a glance: for example, without the loss of many seconds, and by the aspect of a single letter, (the long s,) we can perceive the falsehood of the imprint, "Parisiis, apud Paul Mellier, 1842," together with "S.-Clodoaldi, È typographeo Belin-Mandar," grafted upon tome i. (2.) We must admit that a bookseller gifted with mature sapience will very rarely, or never, be such an amateur in expensive methods of bamboozling, as to prefer having recourse to the title-page expedient, if he could flatter himself that his purpose would be likely to be effected simply by doctoring the date; and thus a question springs up, akin to the former one, How great is the antiquity of this timeserving device? At this moment, trusting only to memory, I am not able to adduce an instance of the depravation anterior to the year 1606, when Dr. James's Bellum Papale was put forth in London as a new book, though in reality there was no novelty connected with it, except that the last 0 in 1600 (the authentic date) had been compelled by penmanship to cease to be a dead letter, and to germinate into a 6. (3.) If neither the judicious naturalisation of a title-page, nor the dexterous corruption of the year in which a work was honestly produced, should avail to eliminate "the stock in hand," res ad Triarios rediit—there is but one contrivance left. This is, to give to the ill-fated hoard another name; in the hope that a proverb properly belonging to a rose may be superabundantly verified in the case of an old book. What Anglo-Saxon scholar has not studied "Divers Ancient Monuments," revived in 1638? and yet perhaps scarcely any one is aware that the appellation is entirely deceptive, and that no such collection was printed at that period. The inestimable remains of Ælfric, edited by L'Isle in 1623, and then entitled, "A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament," together with a reprint of the "Testimonie of Antiquitie," (sanctioned by Archbishop Parker in 1567,) had merely submitted to substitutes for the first two leaves with which they had been ushered into the world, and after fifteen years the unsuspecting public were beguiled. When was this system of misnomers introduced? and can a more signal specimen of this kind of shamelessness be mentioned than that which is afforded by the fate of Thorndike's De ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias EcclesiÆ Disputatio? So this small folio in fours was designated when it was published, Lond. 1670; but in 1674 it became Origines EcclesiasticÆ; and it was metamorphosed into Restauratio EcclesiÆ in 1677. (50.) Dr. Dibdin (Typ. Antiq. iii. 350.) has thus spoken of a quarto treatise, De autoritate, officio, et potestate Pastorum ecclesiasticorum:—
The argument and the language in this sentence are pretty nearly on a par; for as misery makes men acquainted with dissimilar companions, why may not parsimony conglutinate heterogeneous compositions? I venture to deny altogether that the engraved border on the title-page was executed by an English artist. It seems rather to be an original imitation of Holbein's design: and as regards the date, can we not perceive what was meant for a modest "1530" on a standard borne by one of the boys in procession? In Simler's Gesnerian Bibliotheca Simon Hess (let me reiterate the question, Who was he?) is registered as the author; and of his work we read, "Liber impressus in Germania." This observation will determine its locality to a certain extent; and the tractate may be instantly distinguished from all others on the same subject by the presence of the following alliterative frontispiece:— "Primus Papa, potens Pastor, pietate paterna, Petrus, perfectam plebem pascendo paravit. Posthabito plures populo, privata petentes, Pinguia Pontifices, perdunt proh pascua plebis." ENIGMATICAL EPITAPH.In the church of Middleton Tyas, in the North Riding of the county, there is the following extraordinary inscription on the monument of a learned incumbent of that parish:—
Whitaker, after giving the epitaph verbatim in his History of Richmondshire, vol. i. p. 234., says:
As I happen to feel an interest in the subject which disinclines me to rest satisfied with the foregoing hasty—not to say flippant explanation of the learned historian, I am anxious to inquire whether or not any reader of the "Notes and Queries" can throw light on the history, and especially the genealogy, of this worthy and amiable divine? While I have reason to believe that Dr. Mawer was about the last person in the world to have composed the foregoing eulogy on his own character, I cannot believe that the allusion to illustrious ancestors "is merely a joke," as Whitaker seems to imply; while it is quite certain that there is nothing in the inscription to justify the inference that the deceased had been "unaware that the Christian religion" had "long been professed in Abyssinia:" indeed, an inference quite the reverse would be quite as legitimate. Rotherfield, Feb. 23. 1851. SHAKSPEARE'S "MERCHANT OF VENICE"(Act IV. Sc. 1.). In the lines— "The quality of Mercy is not strained, It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven, Upon the place beneath." What is the meaning of the word "strained?" The verb to strain is susceptible of two essentially different interpretations; and the question is as to which of the two is here intended? On referring to Johnson's Dictionary, we find, amongst other synonymous terms, To squeeze through something; to purify by filtration; to weaken by too much violence; to push to its utmost strength. Now, if we substitute either of the two latter meanings, we shall have an assertion that "Mercy is not weakened by too much violence (or put to its utmost strength), but droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven," &c., where it would require a most discerning editor to explain the connexion between the two clauses. If, on the other hand, we take the first two meanings, the passage is capable of being understood, if nothing else. Beginning with to squeeze through something; what would present itself to our ideas would be, that "Mercy does not fall in one continuous stream (as would be the case, if strained) on one particular portion of the earth, but expands into a large and universal shower, so as to spread its influence over the entire globe." This, however, though not absurd, is, I fear, rather forced. To come to the second explanation of to purify, which in my opinion is the most apt, I take it that Shakspeare intended to say, that "Mercy is so pure and undefiled as to require no cleansing, but falls as gently and unsullied as the showers from heaven, ere soiled by the impurities of earth." With these few remarks, I shall leave the matter in the hands of those whose researches into the English language may have been deeper than my own, with a hope that they may possess time and inclination to promote the elucidation of a difficulty in one of the most beautiful passages of our great national bard; a difficulty, by the way, which seems to have escaped the notice of all the editors and commentators. |
|
