FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   >>  
are perplexed and ignorant concerning it? One might have expected that such a very remarkable impression in all respects 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 hallucination is perceptible in the _Elenchus Scriptorum_ by Crowe (p. 4.) It is certain that Pope Leo X. directed that Pagnini'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 eminent Dominican were not put forth until the 29th of January, 1527. This is the date in the colophon; and though "1528" is obvious on the title-page, the apparent variation may be accounted for by remembering the several ways of marking the commencement of the year. (_Le Long_, by Masch, ii. 475.; _Chronol. of Hist._, by Sir H. Nicolas, p. 40.) Chevillier informs us (_Orig. de l'Imp._ p. 143.) that the earliest Latin Bible, in which he had seen the verses distinguished by ciphers, was that of Robert Stephens in 1557. Clement (_Biblioth._ 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 unacquainted 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 Turonensis and Ado Viennensis, comprised in the same small folio volume, was 1516? (Greswell, i. 35.) If he had said 1522, he might have had the assistance 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 iour de mars lan _milcinqcens et onze_," and 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 _Peniteas cito_? And is it not evident that the impression at Cologne by Martinus de Werdena, 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: "Accipies tanti doctoris dogmata sancta?" R.G. * * * * * DRYDEN'S "ESSAY UPON SATIRE." On what evidence does the statement rest, that the Earl of Mulgrave was the author of the _Essay upon Satire_, and that Dry
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   >>  



Top keywords:

impression

 
Greswell
 

Pagnini

 
author
 

colophon

 

volume

 
douziesme
 

privilege

 

misprint

 

assistance


inserted

 
Pettigrew
 

Sussex

 

exertions

 

antecedent

 

unacquainted

 

Turonensis

 
Viennensis
 

comprised

 

Gregorius


princeps

 

Panzer

 

thought

 

editio

 

proceeding

 
teacher
 
Mulgrave
 

Accipies

 
adorned
 

woodcut


exhibits
 

doctoris

 

SATIRE

 

evidence

 
sancta
 

dogmata

 

DRYDEN

 

statement

 
Parvus
 

Kalendas


Decemb

 
Badius
 

milcinqcens

 

dedication

 

Satire

 
Martinus
 

Cologne

 
Werdena
 

considerably

 

evident