Third Series, No. 5, Vor. Il. January, IQII. THE LIBRARY. THE LIBRARY OF PRINTED BOOKS IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL. i) at present in the triforium of the seven 5 p24! EXW eastern bays of the south aisle of the CH oO ‘nave. It is approached by a circular pei Zee stone staircase in the south-west turret of the south aisle of the nave. The original entrance to this staircase is from the cathedral itself. This is now blocked by a gas-meter. The present entrance was made, at some date not as yet ascertained, from the passage which leads from the north-west corner of the cloister towards the west end of the cathedral. This staircase leads by forty steps to the triforium of the two western, or late Norman, bays of the nave: this now serves as an ante-chamber to the library proper. It contains many carved stones removed in the recent restoration of the cathedral, and a few drawings and prints and plans relating to the history of the cathedral, which were placed here by the present librarian. The library itself is 121 ft. long, and 19 ft. 2in. wide. It is lit by twelve square-headed windows in its south wall, II, B Ne ee ee ee ee eee Oe Tet —- 2 THE LIBRARY OF PRINTED BOOKS looking over the cloisters. Of these the western- most has one light, the easternmost has three lights ; the remaining ten windows, lighting the five central bays of the library, have two lights each. The room had its roof raised in the last century, and it also shows traces of a partition which screened off 37 ft. at its western end. This is said to have been removed about the year 1866. The room has recently been partially lighted by electricity. The book-cases containing the older books cover the north, east, and west walls, and all the available space of the south wall in the easternmost and westernmost bays. They are roughly backed with oak or deal. There are also book-cases, containing modern books, standing out into the room from the spaces between the windows of the south wall; and four cases of shelves with locked doors, contain- ing muniments and the incunabula and a few selected books, occupying a similar position. THE THREE COLLECTIONS IN THE LIBRARY. The library now contains three distinét collec- tions : 1. The valuable medieval MS. library of 277 volumes, dating from the eleventh to the sixteenth century. These are in locked cupboards below the shelves against the north wall. 2. The colleétion of printed books, numbering about 4,350, on the old shelves, catalogued A to Z, and about 1,200 in the shelves IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL. 3 subsequently added. This does not include some series of journals, quarterlies, etc. 3. The muniments spoken of above, consisting of volumes of manuscripts, historical or financial; charters and indentures; rolls and accounts of officers of the convent, or bailiffs; correspondence; and manor or court rolls. These last are the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as they refer to property transferred to them in 1859. The muniments were removed to the library from the Edgar ‘Tower, and for the first time were arranged and catalogued, in 1907. The first of these collections has been most care- fully catalogued and described by the Rev. J. K. Floyer, formerly a minor canon and librarian (1898- 1903), in conjunétion with Mr. S. G. Hamilton, librarian of Hertford College, Oxford. This cata- logue was printed in 1903 as part of the Transa¢tions of the Worcestershire Historical Society. Mr. Floyer has given in the preface all the early history of the library, so far as it is known. The remaining copies of this valuable catalogue are deposited in the library on sale, the proceeds to be given from time to time to the treasurer of the Historical Society. The third of these collections has been very briefly described in the introduction to a paper on ‘The Accounts of the Priory of Worcester,’ by the present librarian, printed in 1907 as part of the Transactions of the same Society. Parts of the 4 THE LIBRARY OF PRINTED BOOKS catalogue also are printed in the Transa¢tions for 1907 and 1909. It is the second of these colleétions alone, that ot the printed books, of which I propose to give a brief history. But a few words may be said of the earlier history of the library. ORIGIN OF THE LIBRARY. It is commonly said (Green, ‘ History of Wor- cester,’ vol. i., p. 79) that the first mention of the Worcester Cathedral Library is in Heming’s ‘Chartulary,’ vol. i., pages 261-2. From this it is contended that “‘ Godiva, the wife of Leofric, Duke of Mercia, upon the death of her husband in 1057, among other presents which she made to the Church of Worcester to obtain their consent that she should hold certain possessions during her life, which Leofric had promised to restore to the monks at his decease, gave them a library »—*‘ pro remedio anime ipsius et sue Bibliothecam in duabus partibus divisam.’ But the word ‘ Bibliotheca’ had become the common name for a Bible. (See Ducange ‘in Voc.’). Jerome, for example, says ‘sacris Bibliothece codicibusabundamus.’ Maitland (‘ Dark Ages,’ p. 194) quotes from catalogues such entries as ‘Bibliotheca integra ubi continentur XXXII libri in uno volumine,’ and ‘ Bibliotheca dispersa in voluminibus XIV.’ Dugdale’s ‘ Monas- ticon’ tells us that in a.p. 780 King Offa gave to our Church certain manors ‘et bibliothecam optimam cum duabus armillis ex auro purissimo fabricatis.’ IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL. 5 Godiva, therefore, gave the monks, not a library, but a Bible in two volumes. That there was a library long before 1057 is made probable by the fragments of writings of Gregory, Jerome, Isidore and others, of the seventh, eighth, and ninth cen- turies, recently collected from the bindings of books of the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries in the library, and placed in a case in the cathedral. THE EARLY MIGRATIONS OF THE LIBRARY. It is not, I think, now possible to trace all the removals of the books. Mr. Floyer, as the result of a careful examination of the earlier evidence, concludes that ‘the library from the twelfth to the end of the fourteenth century was housed chiefly in a room on an upper floor over the south aisle at the extreme west, and partly in aumbries in the cloisters’ (Introduction to Catalogue, p. xi.). This room is, of course, the triforium of the two western bays, now the ante-chamber of the library. In the last quarter of the fourteenth century the old Norman south side of the nave, with the exception of the two western bays, was pulled down, and replaced by the present perpendicular arcade and aisle and triforium. This probably necessitated a removal of the books. In the ‘Chronologia Aédificiorum’ (A. XII. f. 77. b), under date 1377, we read, ‘ Hoc anno sacrista qui supra (Joh. Lyndsey) fecit voltam in navi ecclesie. Eodem anno mense Augusti novum dormitorium cum leétis, thesauraria ac libraria sub fratre Willelmo Power consummatum.’ oe ee : 6 THE LIBRARY OF PRINTED BOOKS What and where was this library? Noake (‘Cath. and Mon.,’ p. 410) thinks that this old library was either a building over the cloister passage, or against the outside of the west cloister. There are, however, no traces of a room over the cloister passage, such as might be expected in the outer wall of the triforium had a room been built against it. There may have been a room against the wall of the west cloister; but there is no clear proof of it. It seems, however, to be implied that there was a library other than the triforium of the nave. In the volume of Compotus Rolls of our Priory, printed by Mr. S. G. Hamilton in the Transaétions of the Worcestershire Historical Society for 1909, p. 18, we have, in the accounts of William Power, Cellerarius, 1376-7 (C. 69), some entries that may help to throw light on this question. For example, under the heading ‘ Custus domorum intra foras et extra,’ we have the items: ‘In 2000 tegulis emptis pro domo librarii. In emendatione fenestrarum vitrearum in refe¢toria et misericordia. 6s. 8d.’; and on p. 21, ‘In repagulis factis pro fenestris librarie et thesaurarie ac verti- vellis et hamis pro eisdem. 11d.’ An examination of the rest of the twenty-three cellarers’ rolls of the fourteenth century, which still survive in our col- lection, may bring further facts to light. They are very difficult to read, and the parts of the roll which contain the ‘Custus domorum’ have suffered specially. In the account, for example, of Robert Stanes, precentor, 1384-5 (C. 364), published in the same volume, we have the entry: IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL. 7 ‘Item in diversis libris de novo ligandis et emend- andis viz. albo et rubro coriis—pro prediétis libris 3s. 4d.” And in his inventory there is an item: ‘1 cultellum ad planandos libros ligatos cum aliis diversis parvis instrumentis.’ But this entry pro- bably refers only to service books, which would be in the care of the precentor. As far as I can see, the position of the library at the end of the fourteenth century must be regarded as not known. The tradition in Noake’s time is per- haps worth recording, that ‘ the doorway which led up tothis library is said to be that in the west cloister, near the large door of the dormitory, and north of it.” See Plan in Thomas’s ‘ Worcester Cathedral.’ Green tells us (vol. i., p. 79) that ‘it was not till the prelacy of Bishop Carpenter that a regular establishment of a library appears to have taken place for the use of the convent. In 1461, June 24, that prelate erected a library in the charnel house adjoining to his cathedral; and Jan. 24 following endowed it to the value of ten pounds per annum for a library keeper. This event in the Register of that Bishop is dated as above; see vol. i., p. 175. But in Abingdon’s account of the charnel house he has placed the same occurrence A.D. 1459, 37 Hen. VI.’! * Mr. Floyer, to whom I sent this paper in MS., wrote me the following cepa | and suggestive note: ‘I came decidedly to the conclusion that Bishop Carpenter’s foundation of a library was quite distinét from the monastic library, and that they were never fused. Carpenter’s was a public library; and the books were always chained in public libraries, but, I think, never in a monastic library. Then, I think I remember some evidence that this library, in spite of its fine inception, never came into proper working. r Xxvjs. viijd. Norr.—From Prior Moore’s Diary it appears that the books marked * were bought in London about Christmas, 1526. eee ye ‘Ss. d. s. Ss. d. Boo. O fw P 3 IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL. Item Angeloni in regum_=- - Item Philippus presbiter in Job Item opera brunonis 1 volume Item opera Cipriani 1 vol- Item opera Senece 1 volume Item opuscula divi thome in Job Item opera fulgencij 1 volume Item philo Judeie - . - Item 1j litle boks of the statutes of yngland - Item ae super Epistolas pauli et cantica canticorum - - - - Item Haymo super xij“ prophetas - - Item Haymo super Apocalypsis - . - Item iij boks of Seynt benetts rewle in Englisshe - - - ~ Item to the parson of Seynt Andros in Wor- cetur for ij the furst boks of Abbot - Item delyvered to the aye aman ipa lum spiritualium- Item Ludulphus de vita cristi - - ijs. vjs. From Prior Moore’s Diary (A xi. fol. 148, b.) Item a greate bucke of Statutes of England from the furst yere of Edward the thyrd till the parliament holden after cristmas in the xxv yere of kyng Henry the eyght - Xs. Item natura brev. et magna Carta - - ijs. Item a bucke of the passion - - ij S. Item a greate bucke of councells - - viS. Viljs. JAMES AMPHLETT AND SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. ~)HE memorial volume, as we may call ty it, of James Amphlett of Shrewsbury Ss) f) is a curious assemblage of odds and i ends. Dying in 1860, he had been WZe for more than sixty years a journalist, but his 149 pages of reminiscences are eked out with indifferent verses and other matter, poor and extrane- ous to his subject. The title-page is promising: ‘The Newspaper Press, in part of the last century and up to the present period of 1860. The recollections of James Amphlett, who has been styled the Father of the Press, extending over a period of sixty years in connexion with newspapers, London and the country... London: Whittaker & Co. and W. Wardle, Shrewsbury. 1860.’ The book has now become rare, and does not appear in the British Museum catalogue. The Dedica- tion ‘To the Editor of “The Times”’ is dated ‘Severn Cottage, Shrewsbury, February 1860,’ and a notice of Amphlett’s death at the age of eighty- four on 19th July of that year shows that it occurred before the book was in the hands of the public. He was the son of a Baptist pastor, and was intended for a ministerial career, but a debate in which he took part at school convinced him of the JAMES AMPHLETT. 35 error of dissent, and he became a staunch church- man and conservative. As a boy he witnessed the ‘Church and King’ riots at Birmingham, when the laboratory of Joseph Priestly was destroyed by the ignorant mob, who regarded his tubes and retorts as conclusive evidence of his ‘dealings with the devil’! He mentions that visitors to Birmingham who wore shoestrings instead of buckles were often pelted in the streets by the native sticklers for propriety in costume. Mr. Amphlett was editor of the ‘ Staffordshire Advertiser’ and afterwards of the ‘Lincoln News’ and of the ‘Shrewsbury Journal,’ but contributed to various other papers in London and in the provinces. In 1802 he was writing for the ‘Monthly Mirror’ over the signature of ‘Civis.’ His ‘ Idle Hours’ were appearing at the same time as Kirk White’s ‘ Melancholy Hours,’ and the two writers had some allusions to each other. He was mixed up with several libel actions, and in relation to one of them had an interview with the first Sir Robert Peel, who observed, ‘ You will live to see Birmingham and all the large towns return Members to Parliament.’ This was said in 1820, when the party to which Peel belonged was bitterly opposed to Parliamentary Reform. Amphlett had some acquaintance with William Godwin and Thomas Holcroft. His reporting experiences in- clude the description of prize-fights and, what is even more curious, of a ‘hawking match’ of the Duke and Duchess of St. Albans in 1829. Judged by its title and by the opportunities of its writer, the book is a very disappointing per- 36 JAMES AMPHLETT AND formance, but there are some interesting references to Coleridge. From 1811 to 1813 Amphlett was in London, and had a sister whose husband was a friend of the poet, who resided with them for a short time. He writes: ‘I frequently met Mr. Coleridge there and Charles Lamb, a kind of Lion’s provider. In the midst of the profound thought and mystic lore, Lamb, who [sic] would often break in with what his hostess called a skit, shewing the proximity of the great and the little, testing the sublime by the ridiculous. One night I chanced to have a Leicester newspaper in my pocket, containing a speech made by the celebrated Robert Hall, at a platform meeting of the advocates of the Bible Society; Coleridge read it with great interest, and remarked, how ingeniously Hall dealt with the argument in a circle. He afterwards said, “These platform meetings, where clergymen and dissenting ministers come into competition as to which should bid the highest for support in religious zealots, and puritanical enthusiasts ; these circumstances, he said, would lead to a low church, and a high church wider apart, than ever yet was known,—one leaning to the lati- tudinarian services of the dissenters, and the other, to the ceremonials of the Roman Catholics.” This was the effect of what he said in general language and the predi¢tion has been verified.’ There is also a curious anecdote about Street, at one time editor of the ‘ Courier.’ ‘One of his brightest days,’ Mr. Amphlett observes, ‘ was that on which he gave a splendid SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. 37 dinner to Madame Catalini, when he sported the elegant service presented to him by the Prince Regent. Coleridge was there and he told me that there was “ nothing in his wines so humble as port and he called for a bottle to shame him.”’ Perhaps the most interesting passage in Amphlett’s olla podrida is the following account of Coleridge’s Shakesperian lectures. : ‘ While editing the “ Rifleman,” a folio Sunday paper, selling at eightpence halfpenny, I attended a lecture given by Mr. Coleridge at a room in Fetter Lane, and I now copy from the above paper in the year 1812, the following sketch of the address. * This gentleman’s course of lectures on Shakes- peare is drawing towards a close, and the town will be speedily deprived of one of the most intelle€tual treats which it has experienced for a number of years. These le€tures, though in a select circle, well supported, have not been attended with that degree of success which ought, perhaps, to have been expected from so enlightened a city as the capital of Great Britain. But there are some considerations which will qualify any charge of apparent deficiency of the public taste. The present course is given in the city, and in the winter; a time when snow, and rain, and dirt, and fogs, muster such an advanced guard of uncomfortable enemies to London life, that the citizen is content to encounter the privations of mind, with the fireside weapons of cards and tobacco. “Fetter Lane,” where, 38 JAMES AMPHLETT AND during the winter months, the sun is “ invisible, or dimly seen,” has no inviting sound to the delicate ears of the west end of the town. The /iterati there, considered, perhaps, that the lecturer ought to have come “betwixt the smoke and their nobility.” ‘We have always been aware that a man of Mr. Coleridge’s powers of mind, could never in a le¢éture, do himself anything like justice. So refining and multifarious are his habits of thought, that he cannot subject even his pen to any order or arrangement in his subject. In his writings we find him continually changing his course, to catch the interesting impulse of some new thought, elicited from, or crossing his subject. There is only one thing in him that is certain, and that is, though his subject should be physics, a metaphysical conclusion. It is his governing tendency, and beats him out of that which is simple intothat which is complex ; from individu- alities to generalities, in defiance of himself. ‘There is another peculiarity in him which ought to be particularised, and which seems to be an illustration of the affinity that is said to exist in extremes. If he begins on any particular passion or principle, he commonly works about it, from some strange and incomprehensible impetus, till he involves himself in a mass ot nebulous matter, that is as remote from the nature of his text as possible! A great portion of one of his leétures, on the passion of love (as exemplified in Juliet) consisted in a decomposi- tion of the characteristics of garrulous age; and SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. 39 of contrasted powers and habits of memory, in educated and uneducated minds. He pursued this mining' enquiry till love was lost in the boundless wilds of thought; and ‘Shakespeare himself disappeared in the ocean of human nature. But all these things are rather a proof of Mr. Coleridge’s powers of mind than anything else. If the female part of his audience be sometimes disappointed they are sometimes as agreeably surprised. For a cross wind and current of feeling, will frequently drive the lecturer from the most rugged and masculine philosophy, into the calm and captivating con- fines of the circle of the affections, and influences of the heart.’ This may take its place by the side of Crabb Robinson’s description of these lectures, which were marvels of intellectual power—and irrelevance. WitiaM E, A. Axon. * Perhaps a mistake for ‘minor’; the book swarms with errata, TWO BOOK BILLS OF KATHERINE } N search of information concerning a 4, certain William Harper, Clerk of the Closet to Queen Katherine Parr, I By © hold accounts as are Pisneach in the Public Record Office. Among these papers I found two bills from the King’s Printer, which are worth transcribing at length. They are entirely in the exquisite handwriting of Thomas Berthelet, and in that respect differ from the longer bill pre- sented to Henry VIII. in 1544, now in the British Museum,' for the latter is written by a clerk, with Berthelet’s receipt added to the King’s warrant attached to the bill. The date of the first of the Queen’s bills is not given, but it is filed with accounts for 35 Henry VIII. and a few stray ones of the following year, and there is no reason to doubt that it belongs to that period.* It runs as follows: * Add. MSS. 28,196. * The quarterly account of the Clerk of the Closet, No. 42 or the same file, j is dated 13th May, 36 Henry VIII. (1544), and it is probable that this account, beginning 1st May, is of the same year. Katherine Parr was married on 12th July, 1543. TWO BOOK BILLS. 41 Delyuered to my lord of chichester’ for the Quenis grace, the first day of May, vj, bokes of the psalme prayers, gorgiously boiid and gilt on the leather, at xvj* the pece Ité delyuered to the clerke of the Q ueenis Closet, for her grace, ij of the said bokes of Psalme prayers, lik- wise gorgiously bound and gilt on the leather, at xvj* the pece Ité delyu'ed to my lorde of Chichestre for the Quenes grace, the 4 of May, vj, of the foresayd bokes likewyse bound, and gylt on the Lether, at xvj* the pece suitia to" xviij® viij* d Tuomas BertTHELert.? At the top has been written by another hand “by M' Bartylet,’ and near the figures of the sum total is ‘allo.’ Close to Berthelet’s signature is ‘W p hurton ’"—that is, William Parr, Lord Parr of Horton, the Queen’s uncle, who was Lord Cham- berlain of her household, and therefore counter- signed the account. There can be little doubt as to the book referred to in this bill as ‘Psalme prayers,’ of which the Queen bought fourteen copies. Berthelet had printed in 1544 ‘ Psalmi seu precationes,’3 and in 1545 ‘Psalms or Prayers.’ A copy of a later edition of the latter (1548) at the British Museum* has this title: ‘ Psalmes or Prayers taken out of holye Scripture. Londini. mpxtviu.’ This is commonly known as the ‘King’s Prayers.’ The contents * George Day, Bishop of Chichester, 1543-51. Cooper (* Ath. Cantab.,’ p. 157) says he was almoner to the Queen in 1545, an office he also held under Queen Mary. 2 Augmentation Office Misc. Bk. 161. art. 46. 3 *Handlist of English Printers,’ III., p. 10. C. 51.4. 7. 42 TWO BOOK BILLS OF might be better described as ‘ Psalms and Prayers,’ as it contains the first fifteen psalms, followed by the twenty-first Psalm, and one headed ‘a psalme of thankesgeuyng,’ beginning, ‘ Reioyce and syng in the honour of the lord.’ After these are two prayers, one for the King and the other ‘for men to say entryng into battaile.’ It is possible that there was an English edition of 1544 as well as a Latin one. The second bill is much longer, and is clearly dated : To the Queenes grace a° rr Ed. VI p'mo. Imprimis deliuered to master Harper for the Queenes grace, a boke of psalme praiers couered in white and gilt on the leather, price xvj* Item a boke of the .x. comaundements, couered in white, and gilt on the Leather, the price xij* Item Enchiridion of Erasmus in englishe, and the boke called the preparacion to dethe, the price xvj* Ité delyuered to my lord of Chichester for hir grace, imp'mis, ij praier bokes, couered in white satin, the pice ij® Item .x. bokes printed in Velim of the same praiers, whiche are viij*, a pece, sm* vj; viij® Item p* for the byndyng of .ix. of those bokes in white and gilt on the leather, for a pece, vj’, the sume iiij® vj* Item foe. sii of the saied praiers bound in white, and gilt on the leather, at vj* the pece sum? vj* Item a boke printed in fine velim of a great lettre the price of the same————ij* Item .v. of the same bokes printed in fine velim, at ij* the pece, the suitie———-x** sum* to“ xxxvj* x* t Exch. Q. R. Accounts, 424. 12. KATHERINE PARR. 43 This is not signed by Berthelet, though in his handwriting. It is allowed by Anthony Cooper, and has a note as follows: paid iiij Junijy AY RR E vj pmo. The first item seems to be identical with the books of the previous account. The second is, no doubt, ‘A Declaration of the Ten Commandments,’ by Bishop Hooper, of which an edition without name of printer was published in 1548. John Byddell issued the Enchiridion of Erasmus in English, ‘Cum priuiegio ad imprimendum solum,’ in 1533, 1534, 1538, and 1544, the last edition having on the colophon, ‘ Newly correéted and amended in the yere of oure lorde god. M V C xliiii the xix of Nouembre.’ Berthelet published Erasmus’ ‘ Pre- paration to Death’ as early as 1543. From the above account it would seem that the two books were bound together: there are three copies of ‘The Preparation to Death’ of this edition of Berthelet’s in the British Museum.'| Two are bound up with Byddell’s Enchiridion, and the third with the ‘ Preparation’ in Latin by Berthelet. The remaining books appear to be copies of the two editions of Katherine Parr’s own ‘ Prayers or Meditations,’ commonly called the‘ Queen’s Prayers,’ to distinguish them from the other volume already mentioned, ‘ The King’s Prayers.’ The first edition of her book which I can find mentioned was printed by Berthelet in 1543, and others were issued in 1545, 1546, and 1547. These were all small books * B.M. 696 a. 43, C. 37 a. 31, and 11982. 44 TWO BOOK BILLS OF in 16mo or 32mo, and even when ‘ printed in velim’ eightpence a piece would be a very probable price for them, although the idea of Berthelet bindings ‘in white and gilt on the leather’ at an additional sixpence may well make modern colleéctors sigh. Besides these tiny editions there is also an undated one in o¢tavo, which by comparison may fairly be called ‘ of a great lettre’—z.e., printed in large type —and for these on vellum two shillings each would be a reasonable price. Copies of any ordinary primer or prayer-book (the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. is also ruled out of consideration by its date) would have cost as much or more than this on paper, besides not having the personal touch which accounts for the Queen purchas- ing so many, obviously for presentation to her friends. Yet another bill of the Queen’s is of interest to the bibliographer. It is filed with the first of these accounts of Berthelet, and is as follows: xij? April A° rr. H. viij xxxv° Wittm Harper clerke of the closett to the queyns grace Askethe alowance as money by hym layed owt Inp'mis payd for a prymar for her grace in laten and englyshe w' epistyles and gospeles vnbounden ij‘ iiij* Itm for Rewlyng and Coleryng of the letteres of the seyd p'mar And of her graces testement in frenche v° Itm payd for gyldyng coveryng and byndyng of the two seyd bokes v* Itm payd to the launder for washyng of the closett clothes for one quarter of the yere endyd at the Afttyacon of o' Lady last past v’ Itm payd for Syngyng breades this quarter xij* Itm payd for flowers to the closett KATHERINE PARR. 45 the xvj day the xxiij" day and the xxx" day of Marche vj*_ Itm p* for flowers the vj day And the xij day of Aprell iiij* Su™a xix® ij*! The Primers in Latin and English printed before this date are usually rubricated, but he may have made a copy more elaborate for the Queen’s own use. Grafton, with Whitchurch, printed the Primer in Latin and English with ‘ Pystels and Gospels’ in 1540, 1542, 1543, and 1545. An effort has been made to discover what were the duties of the Clerk of the Closet at this period. As no printed account of his office has been found among the Ordinances and Regulations of the Royal Household or elsewhere, or even a descrip- tion in manuscript, it is as well to put together such information on the subject as can be gleaned or inferred from the documents examined. The position of Clerk of the Closet to the King was one of honour. In 1542 it was held by Dr. Edward Leighton, Archdeacon of Salisbury and Prebend of Westminster. The same official in the Queen’s household was of less rank, but was also a clerk in Holy Orders. William Harper, who held the position under Katherine Parr, is probably the one of that name described by Foster} as ‘secular chaplain, fellow of New College 1503-27, from Axbridge, Somerset, B.C.L. * Aug. Off. Misc. Bk. 161. No. 69. * The Clerk of the Closet to the late King Edward was the Bishop of Ripon. 3 Alum, Oxon. 46 TWO BOOK BILLS OF (disp. 6 July) 1521, B.Can.L. (disp. 9 Apr.) 1522,’ and who was from 1526 to 1553 Vicar of Writtle, Essex, where he was prosecuted for popish practices. We know he was the William Harper who was instituted to Sampford Courteney, Devon, 18th Oétober, 1546, on the presentation of Queen Katherine Parr. It was during his incumbency of that place that the Book of Common Prayer was first used there on Whitsunday, 1549, with the result that the inhabitants of that parish on Whit- monday obliged the priest to revest himself in his ‘ popish attire’ and read Mass; this was the beginning of the Western Rebellion in Devonshire. As Clerk of the Queen’s Closet Harper received as wages £6 16s. 1o$d. per annum, the same sum being paid to the King’s Clerk of the Closet. He sat at table with the chief officers of the Queen’s household, next after the chaplains." Among the duties of the Clerk of the Closet appear to have been not only the care of the Closet and its appurtenances, and the supply of books, as we see above, but acting as confidential messenger and as personal attendant upon his mistress upon her journeys. There are entries of charges for half a cart at a penny a mile between different royal residences, giving the order of journeys coinciding with the Queen’s movements. The cart was * The Clerk of the Closet to Charles II. and the principal physician were the only persons under the degree of a baron or privy councillor permitted to approach the King’s chair or stand under the cloth of State. (‘Ordinances and Regulations of Royal Household,’ p. 371.) This privilege had probably been granted at an earlier period also. KATHERINE PARR. 47 required particularly for the furniture of the Closet." It does not appear exactly of what that furniture consisted, but on one occasion at least it was insufhi- cient, as he asks allowance for 4d. ‘gyven in rewarde to the clerke and sexton at buckyngham for bryngyng of theyr church stuffe to serue the quene.” On another occasion—and only this once —there is a charge for ‘caryage of the plate for the closet.’ Besides this there was the linen, for which he paid the ‘launder’ five shillings quarterly for washing, and which he describes as ‘albes, awter clothes and other lynnen appertayning to the closset.’ We presume there were also altar frontals and vestments of tissue or velvet with traverses and ‘balkyns’ or canopies, such as a King’s Clerk of the Closet enumerates as pertaining to the great and the privy closet.* He also supplied herbs and flowers as well as ‘Syngyng breads.’3 He asks allowance for the following curious items: a perfuming panne to the closett, iiij yardes whyte caddas* for gyrdles, a basket lyned w' ledd' to cary coles to the grett closett, a fyer sufill (elsewhere called a showyll) iiij yard¥ of silke lace for hangyng the pycks, a skeyne of whyte thrydde, iiij* teynter hokes, a hamer, two great halfe portuas for the queyns * If the custom followed in later reigns then obtained, the Clerk of the Closet himself would have shared the conveyance occupied by the Dean of the Chapel and the Chaplains. 2 See ‘ Lisle Papers,’ 8. 3 Explained by Halliwell as denoting sacramental wafers, but much more probably the pain dénit distributed on high festivals during a sung mass. 4 Caddas == worsted ribbon. See Halliwell. 48 TWO BOOK BILLS. Closett, sylke laces for regesters for the portuas occupied in the quene ys closet,’ and thryd for Reparyng vestments and Removyng Albes.? On the whole, one is led to conclude that the Clerk of the Closet was a private Chaplain who was particularly employed about the person of his master or mistress, and accompanied them upon their ordinary journeys.3 F. Rose-Trovp. * Evidently markers. * This was 20th Oétober, 38 Henry VIII., just about three months before the King’s death. 3 In the Ordinances of 17 Henry VIII. arrangements are made for divine service daily ‘when his Grace keepeth not his haule, & specially in rideing Journeys & Progresses’; the master of the King’s chapel, six children and six men, with some officers of the vestry, were to be continually in attendance, but no reference is made to the presence of a chaplain then. See T. R. Misc. Bk. 231, f. 46. This is quoted in ‘Ordinances and Regulations of the Royal Household’ (Soc. Antiq., 1790). RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. PNY ERTAIN French scholars and _pro- ae fessors taking Taine and Jusserand for ~ leaders, men like Angellier, Ay Legouis, Léon Morel, and Huchon, ; 2) have devoted themselves to the stud of English Literature, and have produced books that are valuable contributions to the subject. They have thus set a fashion in France, and many of the younger men, with insufficient equipment and too little sympathy, have taken the same province. In Raymond Laurent, the author of ‘ Etudes Anglaises,’ who died at the age of twenty-one, Mr. R. J. E. Tiddy—he introduces the book by a preface—considers France has been deprived of one more critic of the right sort. It seems to me that the work before us is of too slight a nature to warrant such a statement. But one of the essays deals with Walter Pater, and contains an exceed- ingly interesting comparison between his work and that of Maurice Barrés. Laurent, with the assur- ance, and the fondness for phrase-making charac¢ter- istic of ‘les jeunes,’ declares that both Pater and Barres possessed ‘ creative impotence’ allied with a marvellous gift of analysis. ‘L’un [i.e. Pater] cherche dans les religions antiques, dans le symbolisme des mythologies, dans les ébauches de II. E 50 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. histoire de l’art, dans les systémes philosophiques, les étapes par lesquelles nous nous acheminons 2 la libération définitive ... ‘L’autre en deca de la mort, relit nos sensibilités aux sensibilités anciennes, marque aussi nos attaches profondes avec le sol, étudie comment s’élabore dans l’ombre notre personnalité.’ A more important book is ‘George Meredith: Sa vie, son imagination, son art, sa doétrine,’ by Constantin Photiades. It is based on English biographies and criticisms, and the views of the author are supported by voluminous quotations (in French translation) chiefly from ‘ Harry Richmond.’ The French critic is bold enough to compare Mere- dith with Shakespeare. He regards the novelist’s characters as neither individuals nor types, but rather as ‘résumés de types’ of some wholly ideal life which we find in characters like Alceste, Jaques, Harpagon or Shylock. ‘ Nous ne les avons jamais vu, nous n’avons aucune chance de les approcher,—bien que notre esprit les fréquente assidiment.’ But they have the permanent truth which only a Shake- speare or a Molicere can give them. Like the characters of Shakespeare, they dwell beyond time and space. It is all a little involved and bewilder- ing. Meredith’s genius is summed up thus: ‘La magie, le vrai miracle, ou, si l’on aime mieux, le génie de Meredith consiste 4 considérer la Terre, et toutes les choses de la Terre, non du dehors mais du dedans. C’est la son originalité.’ He goes to the earth, not as to an idyll or eclogue, not as a Wordsworth or a Rousseau went to it, nor does Meredith seek to replace God by Nature; he goes to the earth, or as we are more accus- RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 1 tomed to say, to Nature, ‘nous rappeler notre extraction, indiquer notre égotsme, le canaliser et lui creuser un lit profond.’ The author of ‘Les sceurs Bronté,’ M. Ernest Dimnet, claims to have written the first book on the subject that has appeared in France. So far there have only been essays or magazine articles, or introductions to translations. Although Dimnet declares he has written the book with ‘un plaisir constant,’ and that the Brontés, ‘malgré leurs défauts,’ are ‘des amies,’ there is much fault-finding in the book, chiefly demonstrating that the critic is dissatisfied because his author is not exa¢tly what the critic thinks he ought to be. In referring to the various biographies of the Brontés—he finds Mr. Shorter’s the best—Dimnet makes the sur- prising statement that our literature lacks good biographies. I had thought we could point to some triumphs in that literary art, and that a nation which had produced, let us say, Boswell’s ‘ Johnson,’ Lockhart’s ‘Scott,’ Carlyle’s ‘John Sterling,’ and Trevelyan’s ‘Macaulay,’ might even be allowed pre-eminence in the art. Charlotte Bronté herself he finds ‘ provinciale, malheureuse, inhabile a vivre, parfois méme amére, faible, malchanceuse.’ He allows, however, that she is always simple and natural, always ‘femme,’ and not (these are Dimnet’s words, not mine) that monstrous produét of modern artificiality—the woman of letters. Emily Bronté’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ is ‘un livre prodigieux,’ and of a ‘ puissance que, seul, le plus rare genie atteint.’ But even here the critic | | | | 52 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. does not find all well: there is ‘un manque d’équi- libre et d’harmonie, un je ne sais quoi de troublant qui tient du réve et, trop souvent, du cauchemar.’ Indeed, throughout, the French critic is scarcely in sympathy with his subject. The English novelist takes a very different view of life from that taken by the French novelist, and it is not only useless but misleading to judge the great English novelists by the standard that would be applied to French novelists of similar rank. It is with some relief that I turn to a remarkable little book of essays by Marcel Coulon dealing with French life and literature. He calls it *‘ Témoig- nages, with thesub-title ‘essays in positive criticism,’ and it is throughout most suggestive. Coulon draws a parallel between the critic and magistrate, in as far as each must perforce find a difficulty in being just. The most impartial witness, he declares, testifies according to his temperament; the critic, who is likewise a kind of witness, has no easy task to perform. For he must remember that criticism is made for the work, the work is not made for the criticism. A book or a picture or a statue is a definite thing, a fact. It must be seen as it is, and not as the critic might have wished to see it. If the critic does not agree with the fact, it would be well for him to begin by thinking that the fault probably lies in himself, and he should be sparing of his remonstrances to genius and even to talent. Let him ask of author, painter or sculptor what game he is playing, and if it is bridge, the critic must not behave as if it were poker. Coulon does not, of course, mean that the critic must always be RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 53 a witness for the prisoner. He means that when an observer has determined a bird’s speed, he may say that it flies heavily and does not cover much ground; but he must not reproach the bird that it cannot live in the water, nor regret too poignantly that fish have no wings. In conclusion, Coulon advises the critic to remember that the poet under- stands versification better than he does, and that the novelist knows better than he does how to construct a novel, or at least Azs novel. The book is dedicated to Taine, ‘au génie . . . vide de parti pris . . . a Timaginatif puissant de qui amour de lexactitude fit le plus objectif des psychologues.” The three writers dealt with are Jean Moréas, Anatole France, and Remy de Gourmont. The essay on Moréas, while it is the very best criticism on that poet I have ever read, contains some admirable pages on the classical and the romantic in literature. It is needless here to go into the details of the discussion, but in showing that Moréas owed not a little to Victor Hugo— ‘ puisqu’il est vrai, méme en poésie, qu’on est tou- jours un peu fils de quelqu’un ’—Coulon declares : ‘C’est qu’a une certaine hauteur d’art les petits mots du langage critique ne signifie rien. Pour exprimer leur désolation, pour dialoguer avec eux-mémes, pour jouer leur personnage sans costume, sans décor, sans rien autre qu’une lyre toute nue, le classique et le romantique ont trouvé des accents semblables.’ Moréas himself, in his finest poem, ‘ Les Stances,’ is the veritable peacemaker between the two great literary principles, classicism and romanticism. 54 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. Henry Bordeaux’s new book, ‘La robe de laine,’ is disappointing. It is scarcely a novel; it is rather a sort of fairy tale, a blending of the themes of Tennyson’s ‘ Lord of Burleigh’ and Chaucer’s ‘Patient Griselda.’ The hero is an aviator, for no reason except to get killed in way just now in vogue when he is no longer wanted; but no one in the story is alive or real, and it is all so shadowy, so vague, that our sympathies are never really awakened. The gaiety of nations will indeed be eclipsed if ‘ post-impressionism’ is to invade the French novel. According to Bordeaux, the book is ‘lhistoire d’une petite fille toute simple que broie la cruelle vie moderne.’ The writing is, as always with this author, full of charm, and the forest scenes are delightfully described. It is perhaps the lyric intensity of the style that gives the book any slight attraction it may have. ‘Un conte bleu,’ by Pierre Grasset, is a pleasantly written story on a tragic theme. A girl marries the man she loves, and he dies on the honey- moon suddenly of heart failure, four days after the wedding. The young widow’s grief is poignantly depicted. She returns to her parents’ house, and for many months is sunk in deepest melancholy ; but by degrees healing comes, and we leave her quite sure that she will before long be again a happy wife. ‘Le passé est bien mort—sans cela notre 4me serait un grenier encombré de manne- quins pendants et de meubles hors de service—a la louange de l’oubli.’ | In ‘ Le maitre d’ecole,’ Georges Beaune tells the story of a schoolmaster, himself a patriot in the best RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 55 sense of the word, and his struggles and difficulties with the radicals and socialists of his village. The author well shows the harm the irresponsible agitator may do among the ignorant inhabitants of a rural distriét. But Potter, the hero, wins in the end. The book has, moreover, another purpose: it shows up what evil effects may come of stamping out religion in these outlying country villages. The back- ground of vineculture—the scene is Languedoc—and of the simple village life is full of charm and interest. Oétave Uzanne has produced a book that is both entertaining, and instructive in ‘Parisiennes de ce temps’ (Etudes de sociologie féminine), but one that, unfortunately, cannot be put into the hands of all and sundry. I say unfortunately, because apart from the chapters to which I refer, and which deal with ‘la galanterie frangaise’ in all its forms, an: admirable picture is drawn of the Parisian woman of every rank and condition. ‘La vierge modeste, l’épouse raisonnable, la mére prudente se rencontrent a Paris autant et plus que partout ailleurs, parceque Paris est 4 la fois l’enfer et le paradis des femmes. Les démons qui s’y agitent avec véhémence empéchent souvent d’y decouvrir les anges. Les anges y dominent cependant, mais sans jamais attirer l’attention.’ The pages deal with ‘menagéres, ouvriétres et courtesanes, bourgeoises et mondaines, artistes et comédiennes,’ and ‘l’égoisme masculin’ is not ignored. I know that students in training colleges for teachers are often lectured on methods of dealing with the natural curiosity of their pupils. They 56 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. would do well to read Frédéric Queyrat’s ‘La curiosité. Etude de psychologie appliquce.’ He sets himself to discover what curiosity is, what forms it takes, and which of them are valuable for the educator of children, so that the teacher may know which to suppress or to encourage. Gerhart Hauptmann’s new novel, ‘Der Narr in Christo Emanuel Quint,’ is another of those attempts, of which the modern German novelist is so fond, to tell over again, either direétly or indireétly, the story of Christ. Emanuel Quint is a man of our time, who seems to be not so much a follower of Christ as a repetition of him. He is a carpen- ter’s son; he preaches in the market-place; he is followed by disciples; he does things that are regarded as miracles. Hauptmann shows the psychological aspect of the matter, how Quint is first taken by his neighbours to be Christ, and then how he comes to hold that belief himself, at first in symbol and then in reality; indeed, how a subjective truth becomes an objective untruth. The book is very long—s4o large o€tavo pages ot small type—and although the simple style appar- ently expresses simple thought, the arguments are not always easy to follow, and it lacks the poetry and charm and directness that appeal to all, to learned and unlearned, to believer and unbeliever, in ‘ Hannele’s Himmelfahrt.’ Needless to say, the scene of Quint’s exploits is Silesia, Hauptmann’s native province, and so incidentally there are interesting studies of peasant life and thought. ‘Der junge Medardus,’ a dramatic history, by Arthur Schnitzler, in a prologue and five aéts, is a RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 57 Napoleonic drama, in spite of the faét that the great man only passes across the stage as a super- numerary, the usual tribute of course being paid to his wonderful eyes—a tribute that no German writer since Heine ever forgets. The scene is laid in Vienna in 1809, and there are more than seventy speaking parts. I confess I find the play difficult to follow in the book, but that may not be the case on the stage. Indeed, a German friend, whose critical judgment I respeét, assures me that it would be exceedingly popular in the smaller towns of Austria and Germany, if only the personnel ot the theatre were sufficiently numerous! However that may be, the impression left on me after read- ing the drama is that the Viennese in 1809 did not much care who was ruling them, and that they were really only making believe to defend their city. I do not say that this is what Schnitzler intends. The play provides an admirable picture of middle-class life and thought in the Vienna or 1809, and probably the ordinary middle-class view of war and politics in all ages since the Renaissance. Herr Paul Wislicenus deserves the thanks of all students of Shakespeare for bringing together in his beautiful little volume, entitled ‘ Shakespeares Totenmaske,’ the various portraits of Shakespeare, all at the low price of four shillings. The three photographs of the Darmstadt death-mask are particularly fine from an artistic point of view. The accompanying letterpress, which is full of interest, is a general attack on the Baconians. Wislicenus has no doubt of the authenticity of the 58 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. death-mask, and considers it a proof that only the soul of the greatest of all poets and dramatists— Shakespeare himself—could have dwelt in such a body. He argues that although the portraits do not exa¢tly resemble the mask, they are all based on its lineaments. Hans Thoma, one of the most distinguished of contemporary German portrait- painters, writes to Wislicenus: ‘ However bad the portraits of Shakespeare are, one thing is clear, they are all of the same person, and of the person whose - death-mask lies before me: behind thesuperficiality, the unskilfulness, of the portraits, is the man of the death-mask. . .. 1am reminded of the many pictures of Christ, some good, some bad, but Christ is to be recognized in them all.’ Wislicenus has no doubt that the Stratford bust arose from the mask, and gives in full detail the technical arguments, and declares that one reason of the disappointing effect made on us by the bust is that the sculptor did not know Shakespeare personally. * * * * * The following recently published books deserve attention :— Quatre généraux de la Revolution. Hoche et Desaix Kléber et Marceau. Lettres et notes inédites. Suivies d’annexes historiques et bio- graphiques. Par Arthur Chuquet. A detailed study of the lives and careers of great soldiers. L’insurreétion de 1832. En Bretagne et dans le Bas-Maine d’apres des documents inédits. Material useful for the writing of history on a large scale. RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 59 L’Impératrice Joséphine d’aprés le témoignage de ses principaux historiens. Par le Baron de Méneval. A number of letters never before published appear in this volume. It is interesting to find what an admirable mother Josephine was. Paris au temps de Saint-Louis. D’apres les docu- ments contemporains et le travaux les plus récents. An attempt to reproduce Paris at a time when it was really the most beautiful expression of Christian civilization at its zenith. Jean Jacques Rousseau. Le Protestantisme et la Revolution frangaise. Par Auguste Dide. An attack on Rousseau, who, according to Dide, interrupted the national tradition in literature, popularized the abuse of moi, and despised humanity. La Légende des ‘ Philosophes.’ Voltaire, Rous- seau, Diderot peints par eux-mémes. Par A. Tornezy. An account of the three great figures who dominated the eighteenth century—a period, as Chateaubriand puts it, of ‘action intelleétuelle, non d’action matérielle.? The last chapter deals with the influence of the ideas of these philosophers on modern society. Anthologie du Theatre Frangais contemporain. Prose et vers (1850 a nos jours). Par Georges Pellissier. An admirable anthology of modern French drama. The scenes are so skilfully chosen that those who do not know the plays can read them with interest, and those familiar with them are delighted to have at hand in this convenient form the most striking portions of them, 60 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. Deutsche Geschichte. Von Dietrich Schifer. Band I. Mittelalter. This volume extends from the earliest times to the end of the fifteenth century. The book is written for the purpose of demonstrating that from the very beginnings of her history Germany has been growing towards the great united empire she is to-day. Schopenhauers Leben. Von Wilhelm von Gwinner. The third revised and newly arranged edition of this straight- forward biography and excellent account of the work of the great apostle of pessimism. Graf Julius Andrassy. Sein Leben und seine Zeit. Nach ungedruckten Quellen. Von Eduard von Wertheimer. Band I. Bis zur Ernennung zum Minister des Aussern. The book is commissioned by the Hungarian Academy. No biography of the statesman has yet appeared. Fiinf Biicher Geschichte Wallensteins. Von Hermann Hallwich. 3 vols. A monumental work on Wallenstein, based on his letters and on contemporary documents. ELIzABETH LEE. THEAUTOGRAPHSOF PETRARCH’S ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAG- MENTA.’' Swe ROFESSOR MARSAND, in the pre- es) Iz face to his celebrated edition of the Ce rn) Italian verse of Petrarch, issued ‘ nella AN LIiy Tipografia del Seminario,’ Padova, sa 1819-20, after reminding the reader that it is the duty of the classical editor to give, not the reading which in his judgment is the most beautiful, but that which the author left written, describes how, in the manifest impossibility or obtaining the autograph, or manuscripts immedi- ately and faithfully copied from the autograph, he had turned to the editions which had been made in conformity to such manuscripts. Having thus examined one by one the editions of the Canzoniere, not those of his own colleétion alone, but others most rare which were placed at his disposal, he was able to recognize among them not a few which bore indication of having been based upon manu- scripts immediately copied from the autograph, and further to be certain that among them three ' In large part a story retold from such sources as De Nolhac: ‘Le canzioniere autographe de Pétrarque,’ the introduction to the edition of the ‘Rime’ by Carducci and Ferrari, and especially that of Mgr. Vattasso in the facsimile reproduction of cod. Vat. 3195. 62 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S alone were prepared and published from the auto- graph, or from copies revised by the Poet himself. Between two and three hundred editions the patient editor may have taken account of at this time. The three bearing the hall-mark were: 1. ‘Francisci petrarcae laureati poetae recnon secretarii apostolici benemeriti. Rerum uulgaria Fragméta ex originali libro extracta In urbe patauina liber absolutus est foeliciter. Bar. de Valde. patauus. F. F. Martinus de Septem Arboribus Prutenus .M.CCCC.LXXII.’ 2. ‘Le cose volgari di Messer Francesco Petrar- cha.’ At end: ‘Impresso in Vinegia nelle case d’Aldo Romano nel anno .MDI. del mese di Luglio, et tolto con sommissima diligenza dallo scritto di mano medesima del Poeta hauuto da M. Piero Bembo .. .’ . * Li sonetti canzone e triumphi del Petrarcha’ . . . Atend: ‘I Triomphi moralissimi del Petrar- cha cd ogni diligentia transunti da lexépio di quel che scritto di mano propria del poeta per tutto esser se afferma in Venegia impressi nel anno .M.D.XIII. del mese di Maggio per opera de Meser Bernardino stagnino.’ The great value of these three editions, Marsand repeats, rests in the certainty that their text is from the autograph of the Poet, or from a copy revised by him, in their fidelity to the original, and in their conformity to one another. One could not have been copied from another, for the Aldine makes no mention of that of Martino, and in the Stagnino the abbé Marsilio does not note either of the two earlier. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 63 Some fifty years later, Giosue Carducci, in his ‘Rime di Francesco Petrarca sopra argomenti storici, morali e diversi: saggio di un testo col raffronto dei migliori testi. Livorno, Vigo, 1876,’ recalling Marsand’s judgment, affirms that having examined a good number of manuscripts and many, if not all, of the best known editions of the Can- zoniere, he is persuaded that he must go back to Marsand, who had constructed so good a text that a new critical edition could not be other than an accurate revision of the Marsand, compared with the three early ones (citing the editions of 1472, 1501, 1513) and with the original Fragments of the Poet : 4. ‘Le rime di m. Francesco Petrarca estratte da un suo originale . .. Roma, Grignani, MDCXLII. Le pubblico Federigo Ubaldini dall’ originale con- servato nella Vaticano.’ In the phrases (1) ex originali libro extraéta, (2) Tolto con sommissima diligenza dallo scritto di mano medesima del poeta havutv da M. Piero Bembo, (3) Co ogni diligentia transunti da lexepio di quel che scritto di mano propria del poeta, (4) estratte da un suo originale, are references to treasures of extraordinary interest, one of which had in Marsand’s time, at least, hopelessly disappeared. It is the purpose of this article to bring together the scraps of allusion and information concerning these autograph sources of the ‘ Rerum vulgarium fragmenta’ of Petrarch. Let us examine first the case of the so-called Fragments (4) edited in 1642. Though Marsand makes no note of this edition of Ubaldini in his 64 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S preface, it was in his colleétion, and is entered in his ‘ Biblioteca Petrarchesca,’' with the note, ‘ The original from which the verses found in this volume are taken is preserved in the Vatican Library. Although it forms but a portion of the Canzoniere, yet being the only original left to us of the Rime of Petrarca, I have given it place among the editions of the Canzoniere, considering the value and undoubted purity of the text.’ Of this frag- mentary collection, consisting of certain sonnets, a ballata, sketch of the Latin epistle ‘ Vir fortis,’ the ‘Triumph of Eternity,’ and incomplete verses of Petrarch, together with sonnets by various authors addressed to Petrarch, the editor, Ubaldini, says: It is found among the books of Fulvio Orsini preserved in the Vatican Library, and is part of the Canzoniere of the poet put together after the death of Petrarca by his friends—for the sheets containing the passage from the Trionfi have a different pagination from the others, and the leaves are not arranged chronologically. That they were written by the hand of Messer Francesco is most clear, for none but the author could have had the audacity to put a hand to the writings, and much less to note the year, the month, the day, and the hour of their composi- tion or revision. Where one is written by his copyists, that is retouched, erased, changed or supplemented by him. I cannot be persuaded, however, that this is the last copy which he made, for the contrary is proved when one reads repeatedly, Transcriptum per me in alia papyro. In truth, there has never been a question of the authenticity of the manuscript thus reproduced by Ubaldini in 1642, originally twenty loose sheets of * Milano, P. E. Giusti, 1826, | f J t ; ~~ ws | ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 65 paper (ff. 17, 18 included in Ubaldini’s reproduc- tion have long since disappeared), of writing much varied, its postil/ae dating from 1336 to 1374. In the beginning of the sixteenth century the manu- script was employed in the collation of cod. Casa- natense 924; later it passed into the hands of Pietro Bembo, then to his son Torquato, who, in 1581, sold it to Fulvio Orsini, who, in 1600, bequeathed it to the Vatican, where it has since been preserved and shown as Codex Vaticanus latinus 3196. In the Inventory of Orsini it is numbered 2, and is thus described: ‘ Petrarca li sonetti, canzone et capitoli scritti di mano sua in papiro con molte mutationi in foglio et ligato in velluto rosino.’ It has been twice reproduced in facsimile—by E. Monaci, in his series ‘L’ Archivio paleografico italiano,’ vol. 1., tav. 52-71, and, in 1895, by the Vatican Library. A precious human document indeed is this bundle of script, with its erasures, alterations, repetitions—in which one seems to see photographed the Fashioner of the Rime, intent with mind and hand, tracing, line upon line, the immortal lyrics. Interesting as it is, however, it leaves still to seek the (1) originalem librum of Bar- tolomeo Valdezocco' (1472), and the scritto di mano medesima del poeta of Bembo (1501), which call for a manuscript entire of the Canzoniere.* * The abbreviated ‘ Bar. de Valde.’ is thus expanded by Morelli in his edition of the Rime, 1799. 2 With regard to the Stagnino edition of 1513, it is the judgment of Carducci that it may be neglected as having no bearing. on the quest, for its claim of an autograph source is made at the end for the ‘ Triomphi,’ and not for the ‘Canzoniere.” Mention should II. F 66 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S Going back to the Poet himself, it is well known that he affected to hold in slight estimation his compositions in the vulgar tongue. The verses had a wide circulation and much vogue in his day. To Boccaccio, who had burned his own verses in despair because of their inferiority to the sonnets in praise of Laura, Petrarch wrote that he himself had often thought of doing the same thing, and probably would have done so had they not become so widely circulated as to be beyond his control.' To one Giovanni of Arezzo (Giovanni di Matteo Feo?), who had expressed the wish to colleét all or his Italian compositions, he writes? acknowledging the honour, and suggesting the need of correéting what would be found here and there—often in the hands of people of little intelligence. A year or two before his death he sends to Pandolfo Mala- testa’ a copy of the ‘Cose volgari,’ with many apologies for their extravagancies of sentiment and excuses for the indifferent writing, because of the be made also of the edition of Hieronymo Soncino, the Hebrew printer of Fano, who issued in 1503 ‘Opere volgari di Messer Francesco Petrarca.’ In the letter ‘a gli le€tori,’ defending his introduction of the passage beginning ‘ Nel cor pien d’amarissima dolceza’ (rejected by Aldo), as ‘capitolo I. del Triompho della Fama,’ he says, ‘ Having in certain places deviated from the order followed by him who before me printed these works of Petrarca in cursive letters, and especially in the “Triumphs,” I state as the reason which has chiefly persuaded me to do this the fact that the copy was taken from the original by the hand of the author him- self.” Soncino here apparently claims an autograph source for the Triomphi only. It is interesting to note that the Stagnino (1513) edition has Soncino’s arrangement of the capitoli of the ‘Triumph of Fame.’ * Senili,’ v.2. 7? Ibid. xiii. 4. 3 Ibid. xiii, 10, Varia 9. *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 67 scarcity of good copyists. He mentions in the accompanying letter other pieces he has, so worn and torn that one can scarcely read them, for which he has left space in the copy sent—these he will send later if he can get them in shape. From the time of this letter, written 4th January, 1373, to 6th November, 1472, the date of Valdezocco’s printing,’ the history of the autograph is a matter of conjecture only. In Padua, 4th April, 1370, Petrarch, then a resident canon of the Church, made his will, naming as his second heir in case of the death of his son-in-law, Francesco da Brossano, Lombardo della Seta, a friend and literary comrade. It is known that Lombardo had in his possession many of the Poet’s works, transcribing them for the use of scholars. It is narrated by Jacopo Morelli, for example,* that Niccolo Niccoli, a Florentine man of letters, and Fra Tebaldo della Casa, a Benedictine monk, repaired to Padua not many years after the death of Petrarch to make copies of his works. Morelli continues ‘at that time remained [in Padua] likewise the original of the “Canzoniere” of Petrarca from which was prepared the edition of Padua, 1472, the same perhaps which Cardinal Bembo had and used for the edition of 1501 made by Aldo, which after- wards passed to Fulvio Orsini, and by him was ' It is not to be forgotten that two editions of the Rime were printed before Valdezocco’s—that of Vindelinus de Spira [Venice], 1470, and that of Georg Lauer (as it is supposed), Roma, 14 71. 2 Della pubblica libreria di S. Marco in Venezia,’ in his ‘Operette,’ Venice, 1820. Tom. i. pp. 9-10. 68 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S donated to the Libreria Vaticana, and served for the edition of Rome 1642, edited by F. Ubaldini.’* Among the works thus left in the possession of Lombardo della Seta was very probably the Poet’s revision of his ‘ Rerum vulgarium fragmenta.’ In Padua it seems to have remained, and there it was used by Valdezocco for the edition of 1472. In the thirty years that follow are produced as many editions, from presses of Venice, Bologna, Milan, generally with the commentary of Francesco Filelfo, none of them naming manuscript sources except the one bearing the imprint of Leonardus Achates in 1474, which was a reprint of the Val- dezocco edition. In 1501, Aldo Manuzio, a scholar who had learned Latin at Rome, Greek at Verona, and had taught them to a prince, established in Venice, the metropolis of Italian printing, a press devoted to the publication of classical literature—its fame, already illustrious, destined to endure while the knowledge of books remains. Cunning workmen he attached to the enterprise—designers, engravers, type-cutters—among them, one Francesco da Bologna for a year and a day cast his fortunes with * Morelli was not the first to contribute to this confusion of the Vatican cod. Lat. 3196 with the original of the Aldine edition. Apostolo Zeno, in notes on the life of Bembo by Giovanni Casa (‘ Deg!’ istorici delle cose Veneziane tomo ii. ; Le istorie Veneziane latinamente scritte da Pietro cardinale Bembo,’ 1718, p. xv.), has, Italica Petrarchae carmina priusquam tanta cura tantaque cum sua laude ederet idem Aldus anno M.D.1. cum eo codice contulit scripte, qui tum Bembi erat, nunc in Vaticana bibliotheca servatur, atque autographum opus creditur, unde variantes illas lectiones exscripsit, quae editae sunt, Federicus Ubaldinus. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 69 the scholar-printer, and designed for the Latin texts a new sort of type called the cursive, or chancelleresque, ‘and it was he who cut all the fonts of letters from which Aldo ever printed, as well as the present font, with a grace and beauty that speak for themselves,’ says Soncino in the Fano edition. Having launched the new types in the Aldine Virgil of 1501, Aldo, thinking no doubt how prettily they would dress Italian words, determined to try them on the beloved Rime of Petrarca.' The novelty and beauty of the printing excited the admiration of book-lovers, and other printers, quick to profit by the new fancy of their patrons, imitated these types, and even sought to have Francesco cut them similar fonts, whereupon Aldo petitioned the Signoria of Venice not to ' A lingering tradition started by A. Firmin Didot (Alde Manuce & Venise, Paris, 1872, p. 163) from the passage in Aldo a gli lettori (Le cose volgari di F. Petrarca, f. 191a): et dal quale [scritto di sua mano] questa forma a lettra per lettra ¢ levata . . . is pleasingly rehearsed by D. W. Amram (‘The makers of Hebrew books in Italy,’ Philadelphia, 1909, pp. 99-100): ‘ There was a famous en- graver of Bologna, Francesco Griffo, who had cut many types for Aldo, and to whom Aldo showed one of his most precious posses- sions, acquired from a Paduan scholar—a copy of the poems of Messer Francesco Petrarca, written in Petrarca’s own beautiful hand. “ Make me types even like these letters of our divine poet!” and forthwith Francesco cut the counterfeit of the beautiful letters which enshrined the still more beautiful thought of the poet. Thereupon young Pietro Bembo, not yet the cardinal-poet sought in all the courts of Italy, edited the text, and there appeared in July, 1501, “ Le cose volgari di Messer Francesco Petrarca,” first of all Italian “ Aldine” books.’ Messer Francesco did indeed write in beautiful charaéters, but the types cut by Francesco da Bologna bear a far closer resemblance to the early sixteenth century hand of Bembo, as it appears in his transcript of the Canzoniere (cod. Vat. 3197), than to that of Petrarch. 70 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S permit any other to make or imitate the Greek or the cursive Latin letters for ten years. This little book of 192 leaves, four by six inches, entered upon an interesting existence, exciting admiration, not only, but its full share of contro- versy, as well. There were critics on the earth in those days of July, 1501, who, at the first look, before the book was fairly on sale, lifted the brow a little. ‘Why did the printer give volgare and not vulgare, why canzoni and not canzone what, indeed, about the scritto di mano medesima del poeta’—and Aldo held back his stock,’ until he could prepare and insert an explanatory and reafirming statement under the caption ‘ Aldo a gli lettori,’ in which he gave reasons for his ortho- graphy, and said that if they found in this text differences from that with which they were acquainted, they would still do well to accept it and thus get at the true sense of the author—for it was taken from the text most carefully written by himself on parchment, which he had left to those who should come after him, ‘ which I have seen in the hands of the aforesaid M. Piero Bembo, who has other autograph writings of our poet, and this text formed from it is prepared letter by letter in such wise that, with all respeét to my censors, it is without errors.’ * * A. Hortis, ‘Catalogo delle opere di F. Petrarca esistenti nella Petrarchesea Rossettiana di Trieste,’ 1874, p. 24. ? An interesting document (published by Ferrazzi—‘ Enciclo- pedia dantesca,’ Bassano, 1871, vol. iv., p. 304) is the Privilege granted, 26th June, 1501, by the Collegio di Rialto della Republica di Venezia for the printing of the Petrarca: Intesa la dimanda del ee *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 71 Aldo, thus doing his best to establish the authen- ticity of his edition, did indeed, as M. de Nolhac has said, lay the foundation of a persistent tradition to the effect that Bembo had in his possession the original manuscript of the Canzoniere. The Paduan editor of 1472 made his statement to a public not sufficiently curious to challenge its veracity. Neither Aldo nor Bembo seem to have been acquainted with it. Literary progress is manifest in the curiosity and scepticism met by the Aldine. Confirmation of the genuineness of Aldo’s claim appears in a document found in the archives of Mantua, first published by Armand Baschet. ' This is a letter of Lorenzo da Pavia, writing as the agent of Isabella Gonzaga, the 26th of July, rs5o1. The princess having asked him to procure for her copies ‘in carta bona’ of the Virgil, Petrarch and Ovid printed by Manuzio, he says in reply, ‘ The Petrarca is not yet finished, but will be in about ten days. Only fifteen copies are done on fine paper, because of scarcity of the paper. Your Highness shall, nevertheless, have one of the Petrarcas, outside of the fifteen, and they have promised that your copy shall be selected leaf by leaf, in order that your Highness may have the most beautiful one, which is the more easily effected nobil huomo Sier Carlo Bembo de Sier Bernardo doctor et cavalier, quale havendo cum summa sua diligentia et cura trovato uno Petrarcha et uno Dante, scripti de mano propria de ipsi Petrarcha et Dante, de- sideraria per essere correttissimi quelli far imprimere et stampare in questa citta . . . (with exclusive right for ten years). Why the ‘Privilege’ is taken out by the brother of Bembo is not quite evident. t ‘Aldo Manuzio,’ Venice, 1867. 72 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S since this publication is made by [Aldo] in con- junction with M. Piero Bembo, who is most devoted to your Highness. He it was who pro- cured the manuscript, which Petrarca wrote with his own hand, to use. This manuscript I too have had in my hands. It belongs to a Paduan, who valued it so highly that he has had it printed thus, letter by letter, with the utmost care.’ Counter testimony appears in the statement of Alessandro Vellutello of Lucca in the preface of his edition, ‘ Le volgari opere del Petrarcha.’' He justifies a change in the order of the poems of the ‘Canzoniere’ by assuming that the Poet did not leave them arranged, but upon separate leaves, one editor after another having followed the arrange- ment of the first. Quoting Aldo’s claim as to the original, he says: ‘Messer Pietro Bembo, with whom I have spoken of this matter, says that this work was prepared, not from the original of the Poet, as Aldo would have it, but from certain early texts, and especially the sonetti and canzoni from one which we have seen, and which is to-day in Padua in the possession of Messer Danielle da Santa Sophia.’ This statement seems never to have been contradicted by Bembo, who the same year, in his ‘Prose nelle quali si ragiona della volgar lingua,’ cites? from some sheets he has seen scritte di mano medesima del poeta, ‘in which were certain passages of his verse which in those leaves showed that he had revised them after he had composed them: some were entire, some clipped off, others cancelled ' Vinegia, Fratelli da Sabbio, 1525. 2 f, xxiiii. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 73 in many places and changed many times ’—words which describe the actual appearance of the frag- mentary collection (cod. 3196) as we know it to-day. Lodovico Beccadelli, archbishop of Ragusa (1502-72), wrote a life of Petrarch. First pub- lished in Tomasini’s ‘ Petrarcha redivivus’ (Patavii, 1650), it was largely added to by Morelli in his edition of the ‘Rime di Francesco Petrarca,’' from the manuscript of Fontanini. In this edition occurs the following passage relating to manuscripts of Petrarch : The folios written by his hand I have seen. They are of two sorts. The first were the ones which Mon- signor Bembo showed me in Padua in 1530, when I was staying there, which he kept with great care among many other treasures in his study. They were in greater part sonetti and canzoni. The others, in the same hand, I saw ten years later in the possession of Monsignor M. Baldassare da Pescia, clerk of the Chamber, who had them, I know not whence, to send to King Francis of France. They were almost all the Trionfi, hes that of Death to that of Time. These writings were certainly by his hand, for not only were the letters formed as in other things which he had left written, the lines were corrected and erased as no one but the author himself could have done. And I noticed that the writings were of two kinds. The one more confused and in separate leaves, the other in miglor carta and arranged, without interlines and glosses, whence it is clearly seen that the one was the first sketch, so to speak, of his composition, the other was arranged after the index (registro) with accurate references. * Verona, Giuliari, 1799. 74 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’'S These manuscripts, as Monsignor Bembo told me, were at the death of Petrarca left in the hands of his heirs, or of some friend, who he thought was Lombardo della Seta of Padua, the friend so dear to whom are many allusions in the Latin writings. These or others preserved them and left them to others still, who held them in great care, and we have seen that the first im- pression was made of the Rime in Padua, ninety-eight years after the death of Petrarca, in 1472 . . . in which the printers said that they had taken it from the original. This is easy to believe, since the spelling is the same which he left, and the printers were not careless as to what makes a good text... . Thus in Padua was first printed the ‘Canzoniere’ of Petrarca, and afterwards in many other places, and it was prepared from the same manuscript which, as Bembo says, was kept, as he thinks, to the time when Padua was sacked by the Germans in 1509, since which time the same folios have been seen. Some soldier may have taken those books and scattered them, and the leaves coming to the hands of a discerning person, were preserved as holy relics—those which I have mentioned, and perhaps others of which I have no knowledge. Bernardino Daniello da Lucca, in 1541, dedicat- ing an edition of the ‘ Sonetti Canzoni e Triomphi di Messer Francesco Petrarcha’ to the Bishop of Brescia, writes: ‘Your Reverence will thus have many things omitted by the other expositors— things concerning the sense, as well as the style, not to mention different readings in many places, taken from g/i scritti di man propria del Petrarcha.’ In 1549 this is republished ‘ad instanza di Gioam- battista Pederzano,’ who addresses the reader: ‘ You have besides, a brief discourse upon divers readings *‘REROUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 75 taken from the manuscript di man propria di esso poeta.’ In 1544 Bembo, then cardinal and living at Rome, received from Girolamo Quirini, writing from Venice, information of an autograph of the Canzoniere found at Padua. Bembo urges Quirini to procure the book if possible. ‘It must be the one I have been seeking,’ he writes, and to make identification possible, he sends to Quirini his autograph manuscript of the Latin Eclogues of Petrarch, ‘ written in his hand also on parchment, as was that one. . . . That had only the sonnets and the canzoni—not the triumphs. . . . It was not written in finished form and beautiful letters throughout, as is this one of his Bucolica. The original Petrarca had nowhere any postillae, as you write. This makes me more certain that the one you describe may be the same that I have seen.’ That the testimony noted thus far is in certain points confusing is to be admitted. From the letter just cited it is evident that Bembo had never owned the manuscript, as might be inferred from Aldo’s expression havuto da M. Piero Bembo, but he had seen it and noted its pages. That he had used it to the extent implied in preparing an edition from it is certainly not suggested. Aldo’s subscrip- tion is made at the end of the ‘ Triomphi,’ whereas Bembo says explicitly that the ‘Triomphi’ were wanting in the manuscript with which he was acquainted. V. Cian, in a review of De Nolhac’s ‘La bibliotheque de Fulvio Orsini,’' cites from a t Giornale Storico,’ xi. 244. | ' | : i ee ee ee ee eee ee 76 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S letter of Bembo to his secretary Cola Bruno, dated 10th December, 1540: ‘Look at those folios written in Petrarca’s hand in the cypress box, where are some parts of chapters of the “Trionfi” ; if that of the Divinita is there, see the lines: Vedrassi quanto in van cura . . . See how these are written, and send meacopy.’ The unaccount- able statement in the ‘ Privilege’ of the autograph of Dante in the possession of Sier Carlo Bembo has, above all, a curious ring. These and other things lead one critic of to-day" to the firm con- clusion that the history of the autograph Canzoniere begins with Bembo’s acquisition of it in 1544. Lorenzo di Pavia no doubt, Salvo Cozzo thinks, wrote his letter in good faith, but he was not a palaeographer, and merely echoed reports which Aldo, in complicity with Bembo, took pains to spread to lay the foundation of a splendid falsehood which was to inaugurate the golden age of Pet- rarchism. ‘But why in his second edition of 1514 does he omit the statement of the autograph source? Aldo indeed, in petitioning the “ Privilege” for the two works, practised a double deception, but perceiving the distrust of his contemporaries he sought to repair the first, and he never carried out the second.” A number of years before Salvo Cosso, Adolfo Borgognoni took a good deal of pains to make out the case against Bembo’s owner- ship or handling of the autograph in 1501, con- tending that he had in the preparation of his text * G. Salvo Cozzo, ‘Il “codice Vaticano 3195,” e l’edizione aldina del 1501.’ *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 77 copied the Valdezocco, save for certain arbitrary variations. * In 1544, at any rate, Bembo did through Gir- olamo Quirini, aided by Benedetto Ramberti, librarian of Saint Mark’s, Venice, for the sum of 80 zecchini, become the owner of the autograph designated in the correspondence already quoted. He writes to Quirini, 20th September, 1544, expressing keen gratification over the acquisition : ‘I cannot say how greatly I prize it. If my friend were to give me five hundred zecchini I would not give it to him.’ Friends shared his pleasure and profited by his good fortune. Cod. Vat. 4787, the Canzoniere of Petrarch once in possession of Angelo Colocci (1467-1549), has various notes of Colocci made from collation with an autograph of Petrarch, as the following: ‘ita enim est ordo in libro digitis d. F. Petrarcae scripto, quem vidi’— ‘Hic ordo est in libro F. Petr’—the collation probably made from Bembo’s treasure. Lodovico Dolce? cites the Bembo manuscript: ‘I have seen in the collection of the Most Reverend Bembo, in a manuscript so early that it is afirmed to be by the Poet himself’—as authority for correétions made in the edition he prepared for the press of Gabriele Giolito. Dolce, however, in a letter to Benedetto Varchi, dated 17th June, 1553 (the ‘ Osservazioni’ were first published in 1 550), replying * Se Monsignor Pietro Bembo abbia mai avuto un codice auto- grafo del canzoniere del Petrarca; lettera a T. L.’ Ravenna, 1877. 2 “Osservazioni nella volgar lingua,’ 6* ed., Vinegia, 1560, P- 43. 78 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S to Varchi’s criticism of a certain reading based upon the Aldine text, writes: ‘You know well, Sr. Varchi, that Aldo, in the first Petrarca which he printed, says that the copy was taken from the manuscript in the handwriting of the Poet pos- sessed by Bembo. But you know also that Bembo had no other autograph than a few fragments. Aldo then, to meet the charge of temerity from the unintelligent, resorted to a falsehood for the good of all concerned.’ Bembo dying in 1547, left to his son Torquato his libraries of Padua and of Rome, with other art collections. Duly prized by Torquato was the original of the ‘Canzoniere,’ and scholars were permitted by him to examine it. Girolamo Rus- celli judged it not by the hand of Petrarch. In the preface to his edition of ‘Il Petrarca’' he says he has collated his text with the manuscript of Monsignor Bembo, now possessed by Monsignor Torquato Bembo, and ‘for many reasons it is believed by many to be in the hand of Petrarca himself, nevertheless, I (to maintain in literary matters the sincerity due to my readers) am for many other reasons in doubt about it.’ Vincenzo Borghini, writing to Filippo Giunti in 1562, dwells upon the imperfect orthography of the old writers, all of whom were bad spellers, ‘even to the autograph of Petrarca.’? Basilio Zanchi made a collation of the manuscript in January, 1546, and * Venetia, Pietrasanta, 1554. **Raccolti di prose fiorentine’ [by C. R. Dati]. Venezia, 1751, pfe. 4 vol. iv., pp. 80-1. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 79 wrote in his copy of the Aldine edition printed in 1546 (now in the Vatican Library), ‘Ex Basilij Zanchij exemplari cum archetypo manu Petrarchae (ut creditur) scripto, collato 1557 mens. Jan. Die Divi Antonii.’ Antonio Maria Amadi, in ‘ Anno- tazioni sopra una canzone morale,’ Padova, 1565, pp: 51-52, referring to the line ‘ Senno a non comin- clare tropp’alte imprese,’ says to the suggestion that Petrarch may have written, not cominciare, but cominciar: ‘It is so in the original and authentic [MS.] by the hand of Petrarca himself, which is kept as a holy relic to-day by Monsignor Bembo, in whose hands I have seen it—cominciare, not cominciar.’ On the 4th December, 1574, Fulvio Orsini, the most accomplished bibliophile of his time, wrote to his friend Gianvincenzo Pinelli, a man of similar tastes and pursuits, then associated with Torquato Bembo, asking his aid in negotiating with Bembo for certain precious manuscripts included in the legacy from the cardinal. He held himself ready to exchange certain statues and curios for the books. In August of the following — Pinelli sends to Orsini a list of the treasures of the library at Padua, ending with the autograph ‘Carmen bucolicum’ and ‘Canzoniere’ of Petrarch. Bembo seems to have been a difficult man to drive a trade with, and the negotiation proceeds slowly. In the spring of 1581 Torquato makes a journey to Rome, where a personal interview results in the long desired possession by Orsini of the Petrarch auto- graphs, the ‘Carmen bucolicum,’ the folios of 3196, the ‘ Canzoniere,’ for which a marble bust of 80 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S Hadrian is given in exchange. Felicitations were forthcoming. Cardinal de Granvelle writes from Madrid: Gran tesoro ha havuto V. S. dal nepote del Bembo havendo |’aftographo del Petrarca di quelle sue opere che V. S. dice, tesoro nuovo accresciuto alla sua libreria. ‘Teobaldi, canon of San Giovanni in Laterano, writes to Ferdinand, Grand Duke of Tuscany, of the event (2nd April, 1581), suggest- ing that the manuscript would be the most fitly owned by his highness, and expressing the hope that Signor Fulvio Orsini would some day see fit to bestow it upon the Grand Duke. Angelo Rocca, in 1591, describing libraries of Rome,' devotes a paragraph to that of Orsini, with especial mention of the Petrarch “ber ipsius auétoris manu conscriptus. Literary criticism of the period gives now and then a glimpse of the treasure. The comment of Girolamo Fracchetta on Guido Cavalcanti’s canzone ‘Donna me prega,’* cites a passage from Petrarch, ‘The Canzoniere which is believed to be in his own hand, formerly possessed by Cardinal Bembo, and now by Fulvio Orsini,’ and Girolamo Muzio, alluding to the old controversy in his ‘ Battaglie,’3 under the caption ‘Che nelle stampe del Petrarca sono pochi errori,’ says: ‘Although it is indeed believed that the editions of Aldo came from the originals of Petrarca, this does not prove that they contain no errors.’ Fulvio Orsini is the possessor of the manuscript from 1581 until his death in 1600. His rich col- ' ©Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,’ p. 401. 2 Venezia, 1585, f. 122. 3 Vinegia, 1582. *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 81 lection of books he bequeathed to the Vatican Library, preparing with his own hands a list of them, and requesting that each book and manu- script should for ever bear note of its source. In a number of instances this note either was neglected or was lost, and thus it came about that the auto- graph Canzoniere bore no mark of its source or its character as an original. First in Orsini’s list, it was thus described: ‘1. Petrarca le canzone et sonetti scritti di mano sua in carta pergamena in foglio et ligato di velluto paonazo,’ followed by ‘2. Petrarca li sonetti, canzone et capitoli scritti di mano sua in papiro con molte mutationi in foglio et ligato in velluto rosino.’” De Nolhac' says that in the inventory of Orsini’s books prepared by Rainaldi in 1602, numbers 1 and 2 are wanting. Tomasini’s ‘ Petrarcha redivivus,’ published 1630, 1635, 1650, 1735, in successive editions, with its variety of interesting material, has a chapter ‘Francisci Petrarchae Opera MS. quae asseruantur in Bibliotheca Vaticana,’ prepared by Leone Allacci, in which one finds (pp. 39-40 of the two earlier editions): ‘Carmina Italica. Voi che ascoltate .. . scriptum autographum Petrarche 3195 ex perg. in fol.’; and in the manuscript catalogue of the Vatican Library, prepared by the brothers Rainaldi early in the seventeenth century, and still in use, is the entry: ‘3195. Francisci Petrarchae rerum vul- garium opera... Ex pergameno c. s. no. 72, Antigq. manu propria Auctoris’—a remarkable, if not a solitary, instance of the futility of the library 1 € Le canzoniere autographe,’ p. 25. Il. G 82 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S catalogue as a means of enlightenment concerning library contents. Notwithstanding the faét that this catalogue has always been accessible, Narducci, in his ‘Catalogo dei codici petrarcheschi delle biblioteche Barberina, Chigiana, Corsiniana, Valli- celliana e Vaticana,’ Roma, 1874, makes the entry: ‘Vat. 3195. Rime. Codice membranaceo del secolo xiv. A car. 1, Francisci Petrarche lJaureati poete Rerum vulgarium fragmenta. . . . with no note of its reputed source. It was not, however, entirely unknown in succeed- ing years. The ‘ Mescolanze’' of Gilles Ménage contains a letter of the Accademia della Crusca to Menage and G. Cappellano on a disputed reading of the verse Forse, o che spero! . . . in which is cited ‘ The original manuscript by the hand of the author which is preserved in the Libreria Vaticana, no. 3195. The letter is dated 8th October, 1654, and is signed ‘ Lo Smarrito,’ theacademic pseudonym of Carlo Roberto Dati. Crescimbene’s ‘ Istoria della volgar poesia,’ published in 1698, 1714, 1730-31, has,” ‘As to manuscripts, we have seen two in the Vatican, one by the hand of the author himself, which is cod. 3195, the other in the hand of Bembo.’ With the imprint ‘ Berlino e Stral- sunda presso Amadeo Augusto Lange’ was published in 1785, ‘Le rime italiane del Petrarca . . . edi- zione di Giuseppe Valenti’—reprinted in 1799. The preface (1799) has (p. xvii.) : ‘In the Vatican Library are preserved two manuscripts of the * 2* ed. Rotterdamo, 1692, p. 40. ? Vol. ii., p. 302 (1731). ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 83 poetic works of Petrarca, one in his own hand (codice 3195), the other written by Bembo (codice 3197). It is added that in the ‘Biblioteca di Firenze’ are shown two manuscripts which the Accademia della Crusca prefers to those of the Vatican. Baldelli’s ‘ Del Petrarca e delle sue opere libri quattro,’ 1797, mentions p. 225, ‘ The famous autograph manuscript of the Canzoniere possessed by the Vatican Library, and formerly owned by the celebrated Cardinal Bembo, from which was made by Aldo the edition of 1501.’ During this period cod. Vat. 3195 seems indeed to have been known rather generally as a reputed autograph, while the testimony of palaeographers is against its authenticity. Thus Pierantonio Serassi, editor of the Petrarch Rime,' writes from Rome to P. Antonio Evangelii, rst February, 1777,? a letter concerning a manuscript of Petrarch’s poetical epistle to Giovanni di Dondi, in which he says: ‘I had examined many years ago all the manuscripts of Petrarca found in the Vatican, and particularly the two believed to be autographs. At the first glance I saw that this one sent by you was more like the writing of codex 3195, thought by some to be the original, than that of the Frag- ments, which are undoubtedly by the hand of Petrarca, and which form the codex Vaticanus 3196. Examining again the manuscripts and comparing them with the sheet sent, I can say assuredly that its characters have very little likeness * Bergamo, Lancellotti, 1746, 1752. 2 De Nolhac; ‘ De patrum et medii aevi scriptorum codicibus in bibliotheca Petrarcae,’ Paris, 1892, pp. 45-6. 84 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S to those of the manuscript of the Fragments. . . while the writing of 3195 is certainly very similar to this epistle to Dondi ; but I do not believe that this codex (3195) is by the hand of Petrarca, although I think it may have been written for the Poet by a careful copyist, and may thus be called original because it came by direétion from the hands of the author. . . . The letter to Giovanni Dondi may then be regarded as original, written by an amanuensis of the author, perhaps the same one who wrote Codex 3195.’ And in 1799 Jacopo Morelli, librarian of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, preparing his edition of the Rime’, engaged his friend Gaetano Marini, custodian of archives in the Vatican, to examine ‘il codice Vaticano marcato col numero 3185’ [sic] which he had seen listed as an autograph by Tomasini, referred to by Menagio, and which he suspeéts may be the manuscript scritto di mano medesima del Poeta hauuto da Messer Piero Bembo. ‘The report is* ‘ The codex 3195 is on parchment and is beautiful and clear, is certainly not by the hand of the author, though of his time, and written in a hand resembling the Petrarch, which was also beautiful, as I have been convinced by the comparison with the Frammenti originali. It has no postillae, nor the Trionfi, but the Sonetti and the Canzoni. The Fragments are numbered 3196, are on paper, the same which were published by Federigo Ubaldini.’ This report Morelli accepts as final. * Verona, Stamperia Guiliari. 2 Morelli’s Preface, pp. x.-xi. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 85 In this judgment the editors of the nineteenth century rested. So zealous a student of Petrarch as Meneghelli in 1809 has nothing to say of auto- graphs except as the source of Ubaldini’s edition, and as described by Beccadelli.. We have seen how Marsand in 1820 had no dream of an existing autograph, and it is scarcely mentioned by his successors. In 1825 a stir was made among Petrarch scholars by the report, first published in the ‘Giornale arcadico’ of Rome, that an Italian, Luigi Arrighi, had discovered in St. Petersburg the veritable autograph used by Bembo. A mono- graph by Arrighi was published by the Department of Public Instruction of St. Petersburg, and re- printed by G. Silvestri in Milan in 1826, with the title: ‘ Illustrazioni e dichiarazioni intorno ad un codice autografo delle poesie volgari di Francesco Petrarca, scoperto e posseduto dal Signor Cavaliere Luigi Arrighi in Pietroburgo.’ Of its claim to authenticity Marsand says* that the annotations of the editor of the monograph (signing himself A. M. F. I.) sufficiently disprove it, and show that the text was not only unauthentic but bad. Friedrich Blume, in his ‘ Iter Italicum3,’ discussing the disposition of Bembo’s manuscript, says that the Petrarch autograph is sought in vain in the Vatican. He then cites the claim of Arrighi, with the observation that no credence is given it by Italian scholars. In 1867 Cristoforo Pasqualigo * *Saggio sopra il canzoniere del Petrarca.’ Venezia, 1812, p. 12. 2 «Bibliotheca petrarchesca,’ p. 209. 3 Halle, 1824-36, vol. iii., p. 183. 86 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S essays certain ‘ Varianti e correzioni ai Trionfi di Francesca Petrarca tratte dai migliori codici a penna e dalle piu antiche stampe.’ On the subject of the Aldine of 1501 and its source, he says: ‘If the manuscript was indeed an autograph it is difficult to understand how during the whole six- teenth century it should have been counted as lost, no one mentioning it any more, unless we accept as faét the hypothesis that it was destroyed by German soldiers in the sack of Padua. In 1876 Carducci, as we have seen, considers the text established by Marsand. The Aldine tradition he accepts, citing Beccadelli’s account of the matter, with no suggestion as to the fate of the precious source. A year later Borgognoni published the conclusions already summarized. Twice during the century was Vellutello’s experiment of changing the order of the poems of the ‘Canzoniere’ re- peated, by Meneghelli in his edition of Padova, V. Crescini, 1819, and by Luigi Domenico Spadi in ‘ I] Canzoniere di Francesco Petrarca riordinato,’ Firenze, A. Bettini, 1858. (Spadi places the sonnet, Voi ch’ascoltate .. . at the end of the *Sonetti e canzoni in vita di Laura.’) Interest in the question of the Aldine and the autograph, and Bembo’s aétual use of it, did not, however, become extinét. Naturally, when a scholar such as Vittorio Cian comes to the study of the poet cardinal,’ he does not omit discussion of it. It is Cian who brings to bear upon it the letter of Lorenzo di ‘Un decennio della vita di M. Pietro Bembo,’ 1521-31. Torino, 1885. *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 87 Pavia, and, indeed, he reviews the whole matter most completely, maintaining that Bembo had and used the autograph in the Aldine. In a review of Cian’s study published in the ‘Revue Critique’ the 4th of January, 1886, M. Pierre de Nolhac concludes with the interesting words: ‘In order to reassure M. Cian as to Bembo’s literary veracity, I cannot resist the pleasure of informing him that the precious autograph is again come to light. One of my friends has confided to me that he has had his hand upon the manuscript ; his discovery—such it appears—will bear no resem- blance to the mystification of 1825. He cannot yet make public the result of his researches, but he has promised not to carry his secret with him to the grave. M. de Nolhac was at the time a student at the Ecole de Rome, and was delving among the Orsini treasures in the Vatican, in the preparation of his history of that famous colle¢tion. Associated with him was the ‘friend,’ M. Ernest Langlois. The full account of the discovery that cod. Vat. 3195 was indeed the manuscript finally authorized by the Poet, written in part by his own hand and wholly under his revision, and its identification with the original of the Aldine edition, was communicated by M. de Nolhac in a paper presented to the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 24th May, 1886, and was pub- lished in a brochure of 150 copies under the title ‘Le Canzoniere autographe de Pétrarque.’ At the same time that M. de Nolhac’s researches were going on, Dr. Arthur Pakscher, a young German scholar, was engaged in a study of the 88 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S Provencal Canzoniere contained in cod. Vat. 3208 —number 22 of the ‘ Nota di libri vulgari scritti in penna’ in the catalogue of Fulvio Orsini. Number 1 of the same list, then unidentified with any Vatican codex, was the already noted ‘ Petrarca le canzone et sonetti scrutti di mano sua... .’ Pakscher’s interest was aroused, with the result that on 16th May, 1886, he likewise submitted to a learned society a memoir setting forth the grounds of his conclusion that this number 1 was none other than cod. Vat. 3195, and at the session, 2oth June, of the Accademia dei Lincei of Rome, Professors d’Ancona and Monaci reported upon the Memoir.' In the ‘ Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie’ of the same year,’ Pakscher published ‘Aus einem Katalog des Fulvius Ursinus’ giving his account of the matter. In the ‘ Nachtrag’ he presses somewhat eagerly his claim to priority or publication, pointing out that his discovery was reported eight days earlier than De Nolhac’s. Mr. Willard Fiske, in a letter to the ‘ Nation’ of 18th August, 1886, observed: ‘ The controversy thereby initiated is not likely to be less bitter in that the two adversaries are of different nationalities.’ Happily, the learned world, accepting a conclusion thus reinforced, gave to each at once full credit for original discovery, and there was mutual recog- nition instead of a quarrel. Italians may have felt a certain chagrin at their own inertia—‘ Cosi noi Italiani mercé la sbadataggine e trascuranza nostra ' Pakscher’s Memoir was not published—see the Academy’s ‘Rendiconti,’ vol, ii., serie 4, seduta del 20 giugno 1886. 2 Bd. x., pp. 205-45. ‘“RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 89 dobbiamo chiamarci grati ai dotti stranieri che vengano a rimetterci in possesso di cid che noi avevamo abbandonato all’obblio, che vengano a restituirne la conoscenza di cid che noi ci eravamo indurati a ignorare.’* The importance of the discovery, or rediscovery, was thus commented on by Mr. Fiske, in the letter cited: ‘It naturally puts an end, so far as the whole of Petrarch’s Italian verse is concerned, to all discussion in regard to the text. It renders more doubtful than ever, even if it does not completely disprove, the genuineness of those innumerable sonnets and canzoni which the literati have exhumed from various repositories of manu- scripts and edited, per mozze or otherwise, as compositions of Petrarch, omitted from his printed works. It establishes the faét that the modest title bestowed by Petrarch upon his Italian lyrics was “Rerum vulgarium fragmenta ” —that is, “Fragments in the Italian Tongue.”’ It may be added that the knowledge of the author’s order of the verses, thus established, furnishes a valuable clue to the critic, as to the biographer. Says M. Henry Cochin, ‘ Hier il n’était pas possible de raisonner absolument, faute d’un texte i et bien assuré. Les critiques méme de la pure esthétique et qui dédaignent le modeste travail de l’érudit, * Carducci e Ferrari, ‘ Le rime di F. Petrarca,’ Pref., p. xvii. 2 Much has of course been done since these words were written, notably by Angelo Solerti in his ‘Rime disperse di Francesco Petrarca o a lui attribuite, per la prima volta raccolte. Ed. pos- tuma, con prefazione, introduzione e bibliografia,’ by V. Cian. Firenze, 1909. 3 Giornale storico,’ lv. 140, 1910. go THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S sont bien obligés de reconnaitre que quelque chose est changé depuis que nous possédons ce texte.’ One very happy result, which in our larger libraries must be admired by a large number of people, both lay and learned, is the publication by the Vatican Library (1905) of a beautiful photo- graphic facsimile of the precious codex, with a comprehensive introduction by Mgr. Marco Vattasso. In this introduction is given a minute description of the manuscript, which consists of 72. leaves of parchment arranged in two fascicules, containing the two parts of the Canzoniere, written in beautiful Gothic minuscule charaéters, partly by Petrarch, partly by a copyist named Giovanni, and all revised and correéted by the Poet. Ff. 1-38", 53-62 are (except a few passages) in the hand of the copyist, and were written, Mgr. Vattasso believes, in the years 1366-1368; the autograph portion, ff. 38°-49' 63-72, (ff. 49-52 are blank), and the revision were begun a little later by Petrarch, and carried on up to the end of his life. An index of three pages prepared by a later hand precedes the text." It remains to indicate some conclusions of critics as to the early editions—that of Padua, 1472, and the Aldine of 1501. Of those who have prepared editions from the autograph, Mestica agrees with M. de Nolhac that Valdezocco’s statement is verified by the correspondence of the edition of ' Fora description quite as minute and more generally accessible than this one, the reader is referred to Vattasso’s admirable ‘I codici petrarcheschi della Biblioteca Vaticana,’ Roma, Tip. Vaticana, 1908. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ g1 1472 with the rediscovered autograph, which they regard as its source, notwithstanding many in- accuracies of printing. Ferrari inclines to this belief, but suspends judgment. Salvo Cozzo dis- credits it. Vattasso, from an examination of the 1474 reprint, finds satisfactory evidence that its original was cod. 3195. The Aldine is in even more uncertain case. M. de Nolhac, certain in 1886 that he had dis- covered Bembo’s original, retreats from this position before the arguments presented by Salvo Cozzo to the effect that Bembo first knew the autograph in 1544, and that the Aldine was printed from cod. Vat. 3197, Bembo’s autograph copy of the Can- zoniere, which shows many variants from 3195. In the new edition of his ‘ Pétrarque et ’humanisme,’' 1907, he admits that his first conclusion is dis- proved by Salvo Cozzo. Carl Appel (1891), as well as Dr. Pakscher (1886), were in agreement with De Nolhac—Pakscher, however, regarding Bembo’s manuscript 3197 as copied from 3195 and itself used in the printing. Mestica believes that Bembo’s copy 3197 was the manuscript used, but thinks that before giving it to the press Bembo collated it with the Petrarch autograph, which thus served as the text of the Canzoniere in the Aldine, though incompletely, and with the arbi- trary variations of Bembo. Modigliani, who traces Bembo’s hand here and there in 3195, believes, nevertheless, that Bembo never touched it until 1544. Sfudicibus dissentientibus quis dijudicet? * 1907, tom. i., p. 109. g2 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S BIBLIOGRAPHY. I. EDITIONS OF THE CANZONIERE BASED ON THE AUTOGRAPHS. 1. Francisci petrarcae laureati poetae/nec non secretarii apostolici/benemeriti. Rerum /uulgariu fragmé-/ta ex originali/libro extraéta/In urbe pa/tauina li/ber abso/ lutus est /foelici/ter./ BAR. de Valde. patauus. F. F./ Martinus de septem arboribus Prutenus./MCCCCLXXII./ DIE VI. NO/VEN/BIRS. f°. ff. (188). Reprinted with the imprint : 2. Vrbs Basilea mihi nome é Leoardus achates:/Anno christi humanati .Mcccc.lxxiiii./ Venet. Duce. Nicol. Marcel. f°. ff. (174). 3. LE COSE VOLGARI/DI MESSER/FRANCESCO PETRARCHA. At end: Impresso in Vinegia nelle case d’ Aldo Romano,/ nel anno .MDI. del mese di Luglio, et tolto con/som- missima diligenza dallo scritto di mano me/desima del Poeta, hauuto da M. Piero Bembo/Con la concessione della Illustrissima si/gnoria nostra, che per.x.anni/nessuno possa stampare il/Petrarcha sotto le/pene, che in lei/si conten/gono. sm. 8°. ff. (192). 4. Le/rime di M. Francesco Petrarca/estratte da un suo originale./I] trattato/delle virtu morali/di Roberto re di gerusalemme./II tesoretto/di Ser Brvnetto Latini./Con quattro canzoni /di Bindo Bonichi/da Siena. /In Roma,/ nella stamperia del Grignani. MDCXLII. 4°. pp. (9), xxxx. 48. ‘All’ illvstriss.""° . . . Taddeo Barberino . . . Federico Vbaldini.’ Reprinted with a dedication to Conte M. F. G. Turinetti, by Santi Bruscoli, In Torino, MDCCL. Nella Stamperia Reale. *‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 93 5. G. Salvo-Cozzo. Il sonetto del Petrarca, la gola el somno et I’ otiose piume, secondo il codice Vaticano 3195. Al prof. Giosué Carducci. (La Cultura. 1888. An VII. v. 9, no. 15-16.) 6. Dieci sonettidi Francesco Petrarca pubblicati secondo la lezione del codice Vaticano 3195 da G. Salvo Cozzo. —Estratto dallo Spicilegio Vaticano, fasc II. Roma, E. Loescher & Co., 1890. 8°. pp. 16. 7. Il manoscritto Vaticano latino 3196, autografo di Francesco Petrarca, riprodotto in eliotipia a cura della Biblioteca Vaticana. Roma, Stab. Eliotipico Martelli, 1895. f°. pp. (3), plates 1-16, 19, 20, pp. Xxxill-xxxvi. The pp. xxxiii-xxxvi, reproduced in facsimile from the edition of 1642, supply the lost folios 17,18. In 1898 the editors, G. Salvo Cozzo and G. Cozza Luzi, completed the edition by adding eight pages of ‘Appendici.’ Roma, Tipografia Sociale. 8. Le rime di Francesco Petrarca restituite nell’ ordine e nella lezione del testo originario sugli autografi col sussidio di altri codici e di stampe, e corredate di varianti e note da G. Mestica. Ed. critica. Firenze, G. Barbéra, 1896. 8°. pp. xxiv. 697. g. Lerime di Francesco Petrar¢a di su gli originali com- mentate da G. Carducci e S. Ferrari. Firenze, G. C. Sansoni, 1899. 8°. pp. xlv. 548. 10. Societa Filologica Romana. II canzoniere di Fran- cesco Petrarca riprodotto letteralmente dal cod. Vat. lat. 3195, con tre fotoincisioni,a cura di E. Modigliani. Roma, presso la Societa, 1904. 4°. pp. xxxi. 165, (1). 11. Le rime di Francesco Petrarca secondo la revisione ultima del poeta, a cura di G. Salvo Cozzo con un ritratto e una tavola in fototipia. Firenze, G. C. Sansoni, 1904. 8°. pp. xxi. 2, 358. Issued also in a miniature edition from the same press in 1905. i t 94 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S 12. L’ originale del canzoniere di Francesco Petrarca, codice Vaticano latino 3195, riprodotto in fototipia a cura della Biblioteca Vaticana. Milano, U. Hoepli, 1905. f°. pp- xliii. plates (4), 1-72. (Codices e Vaticanis seledcti phototypice expressi. 6.) Edited by Marco Vattasso. 13. Il canzoniere di Francesco Petrarca secondo I’ auto- fo, con le note di G. Rigutini, rifuse e accresciute per Costes célte e per le scuole, da M. Scherillo. 2* ed., interamente rinnovata. U. Hoepli, Milano, 1908. 8°. pp- Xcii. 474. 14. Francesco Petrarca. II canzoniere e i trionfi, con introduzione, notizie bio-bibliografiche e commenti di A. Moschetti. F. Vallardi, Milano, 1908. 8°. pp. lxvi. 517, (1). II. Tue AUTOGRAPH AND ITs RE-DISCOVERY IN 1886. 15. Arrighi, L. Illustrazioni e dichiarazioni intorno ad un codice autografo delle poesie volgari di Francesco Petrarca scopertoe posseduto dal signorcavaliere L. Arrighi in Pietroburgo. Milano, G. Silvestri, 1826. 8°. pp. 27. 16. Borgognoni, A. Excursus petrarchesco. Ravenna, E. Lavagna, 1876. 8°. pp. 16. ‘Nozze del Vecchio- Cavalieri, Bologna, maggio 1876.’ On the ‘rime disperse’ of Petrarch, their relation to the authorized canzoniere and the Aldine impressions. 17. Se Monsignor Pietro Bembo abbia mai avuto un codice autografo del canzoniere del Petrarca; lettera a T. L. Ravenna, E. Lavagna, 1877. 8°. pp. 19. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 95 18. Manzoni, G. Annali tipografici dei Soncino. Bologna, G. Romagnoli, 1883. 3 vols. 8°. Vol. iii., pp. 24-38: ‘ Opere volgari di M. Francesco Petrarcha.’ 19. Cian, V. Un decennio della vita di M. Pietro Bembo (1521-1531). Torino, E. Loescher, 1885. 8°. pp- xvi, 240. Reviewed by P. de Nolhac in ‘ La Revue critique,’ 1886. Nouv. ser. Vol, xxi., pp. 11-14. 20. Monaci, E., and A. d’ Ancona. Relazione sulla memoria del Sig. A. Pakscher intitolata: Sull’ originale del canzoniere del Petrarca. (Reale Accad. dei Lincei. Atti. Ser. 4*. Rendiconti, 1886. Vol. ii., pp. 648- 652.) 21. Nolhac, P. de. Le Canzoniere autographe de Pétrarque; communication faite 4 Académie des In- scriptions & Belles-lettres. Paris, C. Klincksieck, 1886. 12°. pp. 30. 22. Renier, R. L’ autografo del canzoniere petrarch- esco. (Giornale storico della letteratura italiana. 1886. Vol. vii., pp. 463-467.) Includes a letter from P. de Nolhac. 23. Pakscher, A. Aus einem Katalog des Fulvius Ursinus. (Zeitschrift far romanische Philologie. 1886. Bd. x., pp. 205-245.) 24. Morpurgo, S. [Reviews] P. de Nolhac: ‘Le Canzoniere autographe de Pétrarque.’—A. Pakscher : ‘ Aus einem Katalog des Fulvius Ursinus.’ (Rivista critica. 1886. Anno iii., col. 161-170.) 25. Fiske,W. The rediscovered Petrarch autographs. (‘The Nation,’ 1886. Vol. xliii., pp. 156-157.) 96 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S 26. Nolhac, P. de. Fac-similes de Tlécriture de Pétrarque et appendices au ‘Canzoniere autographe,’ avec notes sur la bibliothé¢que de Pétrarque. (Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire publiés par I’Ecole frangaise de Rome. 1887. Tom. vii. pp. 38. 3 plates.) Also printed separately, Rome, P. Cuggiani, 1887. Reviewed by V. Cian in ‘Giornale storico della letteratura italiana,’ 1887, vol. ix., pp- 441-448; by W. Fiske in ‘The Nation,’ 1887. Vol. xlv., P- 393- 37. La biblioth¢que de Fulvio Orsini; contribu- tion a l’histoire des collections d’Italie et 4 l’étude de la Renaissance. Paris, F. Vieweg, 1887. 8°. pp. xvili., 489. 28. Zardo, A. Il Petrarca e i Carraresi. Milano, U. Hoepli, 1887. 8°. pp. 322. Ppp. 125-150, discussion of the autographs. 29. Geiger,L. Petrarca. [Review of the publications of De Nolhac and Pakscher relating to the autographs. ] (Zeitschrift far vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte. 1888. N.F. pp. 476-500.) 30. Mazzoni, G. Noterelle petrarchesche. (Il Pro- pugnatore. 1888. N.S. vol. i., parte I]. pp. 152-162.) pp- 156-159, a discussion as to whether the Giovanni (‘Io’) of the Petrarch manuscript may be Giovanni da Ravenna, the ‘ giovane ravennate, concerning whom Petrarch writes to Boccaccio (De reb. fam. xxiii., 19). pp. 161-162, a document from G. Guastivini: ‘Discorso sopra la Gierusalemme liberata,’ citing a sonnet of Petrarch scritto di sua man propria . . . 31. Ferrari, L. Questioni e notizie petrarchesche. [Bologna, Fava e Garagnani, 1893.] 8°. pp. 12. Estratto dal Propugnatore. N. S. vol. vi., parte L., Pp. 425-436. On the correspondence of various editions of the Rime with the autograph. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 97 32. Salvo Cozzo, G. Il ‘codice Vaticano 3195,’ e I edizione aldina del 1501. Roma, Tipografia Vaticana, 1893. 8°. 33- Sensi, F, [Reviews.] G. Salvo-Cozzo—lIl codice Vaticana 3195; G. Mestica—Il ‘ canzoniere’ del Petrarca nel codice originale a riscontro col ms. del Bembo e con I’ edizione aldina; S. Ferrari—Questioni e notizie pet- rarchesche. (Giornale storico della letteratura italiana. 1894. Vol. xxili., pp. 256-260.) 34. Bouchaud, P. de. Pierre de Nolhac et ses travaux. Paris, E. Bouillon, 1896. 8°. pp. 324. pp- 50-57: ‘Le canzoniere autographe de Pétrarque.” 35. Tenneroni, A. Gli abbozzi autografi di rime del Petrarca. (La Vita italiana. 1896. N.S. fasc. I. pp. 32-36.) 36. Ewald, F. Die Schreibweise in der autographischen Handschrift des ‘Canzoniere’ Petrarcas (cod. Vat. lat. 3195). Halle a.S. M. Niemeyer, 1907. 8°. Viii., 67. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift far romanische Pitlolopic, 13.) 37. Rossi, V. [Review.] L’ originale del canzoniere di Francesco Petrarca, codice Vaticano latino 3196. (Archivio storico italiano. 1907. Vol. xxxix., pp. 467- 471.) 38. Vattasso, M. Codici 9 stemageen della Biblioteca Vaticana. Roma, Tipografia Vaticana, 1908. 8°. pp. x., (1), 250, (1) 2 plates. pp- 9-11: ‘ Vat. 3195"; pp. 11-15: ‘ Vat. 3196’; pp. 193-195: ‘Di un presunto autografo delle rime di Francesco Petrarca.’ (The manuscript published by Arrighi.) 39. Autografi del Petrarca. (Nuova Antologia. 1908. Vol. ccxvii., pp. 351-352.) II, H 98 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH’S III. CriTICAL STUDIES BASED UPON THE AUTOGRAPHS, 1887-1910. 40. Pakscher, A. Die Chronologie der Gedichte Petrarcas. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1887. 8°. pp- (3), 139: Reviewed by N. Zingarelli in ‘ La Biblioteca delle scuole italiane.’ 1887. Vol. i., pp. 102-103, 118-121. 41. Cesareo, G. A. Su I’ ordinamento delle poesie volgari di Francesco Petrarca. (Giornale storico della letteratura italiana. 1892. Vol. xix., pp. 229-303; xx., Pp. 91-124.) Also printed separately, Torino, 1892, and included in his ‘Su le poesie volgari del Petrarca,’ 1898. 42. Mestica, G. Il ‘canzoniere’ del Petrarca nel codice originale a riscontro col ms. del Bembo e con l eédizione aldina del 1501. (Giornale storico della letteratura italiana. 1893. Vol. xxi., pp. 300-334.) 43. Cesareo, G. A. Le ‘poesie volgari’ del Petrarca. (Nuova Antologia, 1895. Vol. lvii., pp. 615-650.) Included in his ‘ Su le poesie volgari del Petrarca,’ 1898. 44. La nuova critica del Petrarca. (Same. 1897. Vol. Ixviii., pp. 258-291.) A review of Mestica’s edition of the Rime of Petrarch, 45. Salvo Cozzo,G. Le ‘rime sparse’ e il trionfo dell’ eternita di Francesco Petrarca nei codici Vaticani latini 3195 e 3196. (Giornale storico della letteratura italiana. 1897. Vol. xxx., pp. 369-413.) 46. Cesareo,G. A. Su le ‘poesie volgari’ del Petrarca; nuove ricerche. Rocca S. Casciano, L. Capelli, 1898. 8°. pp. 314. ‘RERUM VULGARIUM FRAGMENTA.’ 99 47. Cochin, H. La chronologie du canzoniere de Pétrarque. Paris, E. Bouillon, 1898. Sm. 8°. pp. x. 160. (1). (Bibliothéque littéraire de la Renaissance.) 48. Mussaffia, A. Dei codici Vaticani latini 3195 e 3196 delle rime del Petrarca. (Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Denkschriften der philosoph- isch-historischen Classe. 1900. Bd. xlvi.) 49. Wullff, F. A. Petrarca’s férsta redaktion af canz. Che debb’ io far? (Uppsatser i romansck tillagnade P. A. Geiger. 1901. pp. 141-150.) 50. —— Lacanzone Che debb’ io far? selon les manu- scrits autographes de Pétrarque (Vat. lat. 3126 & 3195). (Lunds Universitets-Arsskrift. 1901. Bd. xxxviii.) 51. Quarta, N. Studi sul testo delle rime del Pétrarca. Napoli, E. M* Muca, 1902. 8° pp. 156. (1). 52. Wullff, F. A. Trois sonnets de Pétrarque selon le Ms. sur papier Vat. 3196 (et une re¢tification). (Fran filologiska féreninger i Lund. Sprakliga uppsatser. II. 1902.) Pon freno al gran dolor che ti trasporta ; une strophe travaillée de Pétrarque dans le ms. Vat. 3196, fol. 13 et 12. Upsala, 1905, Almqvist & Wiksells Bok- tryckerei. 8°. pp. 70. ‘Studier i modern sprakve- tenskap. III. 2.’ 54. Giorgi, I., and E. Sicardi. Abozzi di rime edite e inedite di Francesco Petrarca. (Societa Filologica Romana. Bullettino. 1905. No. 7, pp. 27-46.) Reviewed by F. Pellegrini in ‘Giornale storico della letteratura italiana,’ 1905. Vol. xlvi., pp. 359-375. 55. Wullff, F. A. En svensk Petrarca-Bok. Stock- holm, P. A. Norstedt & Séners Forlag, 1905. 8°. pp. 587. Map and plates. 100 THE AUTOGRAPHS OF PETRARCH. 56. Préoccupations de Pétrarque, 1359-1369, attestées par Vat. lat. 3196 fol. 1 & 2. Lund, 1907, H. Ohlsson. 8° pp. 78. Facsim. (Lunds Universi- tets Arsskrift. N.F. Afd. 1, Bd. 2, Nr. 4.) 57. Sicardi, E. Per un’ abrasione del Vat. lat. 3195 € r la giusta collocazione di due sonetti del Petrarca. Torino. C. Clausen, 1908. 8° pp. 18. 58. Per il testo del ‘canzoniere’ del Petrarca. (Giornale storico. 1908. Vol. 1. pp. 1-33, and later numbers. ) Mary Fow er, Cornell University. FALSE DATES QUARTOS. IN SHAKESPEARE I. The Shakespeare Quartos of 1619. By William J. Neidig. Modern Philology. Chicago, O€tober, 1910. pp. I-19. False Dates on Shakspere Quartos: a new method of proof applied to a controversy of scholars. By William J. Neidig, Instructor at the University of Wisconsin. te Century Magazine, O&ober, 1910. pp. 912-19. “(ae T is a great pleasure to ‘Tue Lrerary,’ & in which the false dates on the ‘ Roberts’ $7 editions of the ‘Merchant of Venice’ msyand ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream,’ = the ‘T.P.’ ‘Sir John Oldcastle,’ the . Nathaniel Butter’ edition of ‘ King Lear,’ and the ‘T.P.’ ‘Henry V.’ were first exposed by Dr. Greg, to acknowledge the very pretty contribution to the subject made by Mr. Neidig in two magazine articles in the ‘Century’ and ‘ Modern Philology.’ Dr. Greg proved his case up to the hilt by the argument from the identity of the watermarks in the quartos falsely dated 1600 and 1608 with those found in the plays of 1619, which I had discovered bound up with them; but this proof could not be 102 FALSE DATES IN tested without an investigation of a kind from which literary scholars unanimously shrank. I think I may claim that I proved the case over again in my ‘ Shakespeare Folios and Quartos,’ by a series of independent arguments from the types, imprints, and number of surviving copies. But neither Dr. Greg nor I could adduce an argument which could be trusted quickly to carry conviction to an untrained observer, and it is one of this crushing kind that Mr. Neidig has been clever enough to develop. He and Dr. Manly of Chicago had been thinking out a method of applying photography to the settlement of such mixed bibliographical and typographical problems. Thus, these Shakespeare title-pages offered just such an opportunity as he desired, and he has used it with great success. Shakespeare title-pages being too precious to be played with, his first need was to procure abso- lutely exact photographic facsimiles of all the title- pages in question, and this exactitude he obtained by the ingenious plan of photographing a milli- metre rule along with each. He then plotted out each title-page into little squares, and by this means convinced himself that the words ‘ Written by W. Shakespeare,’ the ‘Heb Ddim, Heb Ddieu’ device, and the word ‘ Printed’ in the title-page of ‘Pericles’ dated 1619, and of the ‘Merchant of Venice’ dated 1600, come in precisely the same places, and demonstrated this beyond possibility of cavil by a composite photograph in which the ‘Merchant of Venice’ is superimposed on ‘ Pericles,’ and the words in question come out quite sharply, and the device with only the very slightest blur, SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS. 103 showing that the block may have been shifted a fraction of a millimetre. The occurrence in both title-pages of an identical flaw of one kind in the W of ‘ Written,’ and of another kind in the W of Shakespeare’s initial, completes the proof that this portion of the title-page of ‘Pericles’ had been used again in the title-page of the ‘ Merchant of Venice,’ and thus offered a pretty demonstration of the impossibility of their having been separated by an interval of nineteen years. Mr. Neidig thinks that the trouble-saving printer ‘lifted off the lower por- tion’ of one title-page for use in another. It seems to me more probable that he picked out all the rest of the contents of the forme, and put his new matter into the old forme, rather than risked dropping out letters by transferring the old matter to a new one; but that the same type-letters in the same setting- up were used in the ‘ Yorkshire Tragedy’ of 1619, ‘Pericles’ of 1619, ‘Merchant of Venice’ of ‘ 1600,’ and ‘ Merry Wives’ of 1619, he has proved up to the hilt ; and I think that henceforth any bookseller who sells the ‘1600’ ‘Merchant of Venice’ as printed in that year will be liable to have it re- turned tohim. For the rest of Mr. Neidig’s argu- ment readers must consult one of his two articles, that in ‘Modern Philology’ being the more de- tailed. Here, asa pleasing proof that bibliography can tag | itself by various ways, I will only com- pare his footnote to p. 12 of that article with that on p. 93 of ‘Shakespeare Folios and Quartos.’ Mr. Neidig writes: The order of the printing of these plays was this: Whole Contention (text and title-page), Pericles (text only), 104 FALSE DATES IN Yorkshire Tragedy (text only), Yorkshire Tragedy (title-page), Pericles (title-page), Merchant of Venice (text and title-page), Merry Wives (text and title-page), Lear (text and title- page), Henry V. (text and title-page), Sir John Oldcastle (text and title-page). .4 Midsummer Nighi’s Dream was printed independently. On the basis of Dr. Greg’s table of watermarks, the order proposed for the plays in the note in my book was: Group 1: Whole Contention, Pericles, Yorkshire Tragedy. Group 2: Merry Wives, Merchant of Venice, Midsummer Night's Dream, Lear. Group 3: Henry V., Sir John Oldcastle. The title-page of the ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ having been deliberately made to imitate that of the real 1600 edition (printed for Fisher), was thus taken out of Mr. Neidig’s province. It seems not improbable that the ‘Merchant of Venice, the type of which agrees with that of ‘ Pericles,’ was in progress simultaneously with the ‘Merry Wives,’ which is in the same large type as the ‘ Yorkshire Tragedy.’ In any case that, save for this single transposition, two entirely different arguments should lead to identical results is surely very satisfactory, and gives one hope that the value of bibliography for the service of literary criticism may gradually be recognized. II. Mr. Neidig having produced a knock-down argument, which enables one to treat the falseness of the dates in question as established beyond the SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS. 105 possibility of dispute it is easy now to touch on a side issue without fear of causing confusion. Soon after my book was published I received an inter- esting letter from Mr. E. H. Dring, whose long connection with the firm of Quaritch has given him an enviable width of experience, asking me if I had ever noticed that copies of the T. P. and James Roberts issues are sometimes found with the dates torn away in a manner which suggests deliberate intent. Mr. Dring himself had been struck with this fact as many as five and twenty years ago, and on mentioning it to Mr. Kerney found that that keen judge of books had not missed the point. He could assign no reason for it, but he was sure that it had been done inten- tionally, and most probably when the copies were issued. Mr. Dring himself was sure that he had seen at least three copies of the ‘ Roberts’ issue of the ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ with the date thus torn out and subsequently added in facsimile, and also the ‘King Lear’ and ‘Oldcastle.’ The mutilation of the copies was the more noticeable because they were invariably large ones, the peculiarity, it may be remembered, which was found so useful in picking out the Garrick copies of these plays at the British Museum. He subse- quently furnished me with a note of two copies, formerly in the possession of Mr. Quaritch, a ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ described as having ‘the bottom corner of the title mended, so that it has been necessary to supply the numeral of the date, large and very fine copy,’ and a ‘Lear’ with the note ‘the title mended so that the numeral ot 106 FALSE DATES IN the date has been necessarily supplied ; a very fine and large copy.’ After hearing from Mr. Dring I had an op- portunity of inspecting the Gott copy of the * Merchant of Venice,’ described in Sotheby’s cata- logue as having ‘the bottom corner of the title’ in facsimile, otherwise ‘in faultless condition, clean, and with very good margins, measuring 7; by 5z« inches,’ the usual size. On examining this I found a very careful tear beginning about an inch and a half up the page, carrying away the date 1600 and the preceding comma and ending rather less than an inch and a half along the lower margin. Both hands must have been used to make such a tear, and it could not have been done accidentally. It had already been suggested both by Dr. Greg and myself that the theory that Jaggard had been wronging the heirs of Thomas Hayes by reprinting a book which belonged to them threw a new light on the otherwise inexplicable entry in the Stationers’ Register under date 8th July, 1619. Laurence Hayes, Entred for his copies by Consent of a full Court these two Copies following which were the Copies of Thomas Haies his fathers, viz. A play called ‘The Marchant of Venice’ And the Ethiopian History. As regards the Ethopian History, over which Laurence Hayes was in controversy with William Barrett, I have nothing new to suggest. But in the case of the ‘ Merchant of Venice,’ Mr. Dring’s point may well make us wonder whether before this entry was placed on the Register there had SHAKESPEARE QUARTOS. 107 not been a painful scene, in which William Jaggard, who, two days later, was to take up the responsible post of a warden of the Company, was obliged to confess his misdoing and to hush up the matter by promising to tear off the untrue dates from any copies which remained in stock. If any owners of copies of the plays in question who, on holding them to the light, discover signs that the corner containing the date is on different paper from the rest of the title-page will communi- cate with me I shall be much obliged. It is certainly to their advantage, it may be remarked, to help to prove that what has hitherto seemed a mere regrettable mutilation, really possesses no little historic interest. A. W. Po tiarp. 108 REVIEWS. The Romance of Bookselling: a history from the earliest times to the twentieth century. By Frank A. Mumby. With a biblography by W. H. Peet. Chapman & Hall. pp. xviit., 491. eR. MUMBY’S book is not quite so @ ambitious as his title suggests, as (save /p§ Qin his first few pages) it is only Eng- ¢ p lish bookselling that he takes for his §province. His account of the infancy of the English trade in printed books in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries might here and there have been improved by a more diligent study of our own pages; but thanks, no doubt, to the bibliography by Mr. Peet, which he prints as an appendix, he has read more widely than any of his predecessors, and his book, if it be no more than a compilation, is skilfully put together, and steadily improves as it comes down to later times. The author is at his very best in his last chapter, entitled, ‘ Publishers of To-day,’ which fills some eighty pages, and gives in these an excellent historical account of the Uni- versity Presses at Oxford and Cambridge, and most interesting notes on the chief publishing firms of London and Edinburgh. The book is illustrated REVIEWS. 109 with numerous portraits of publishers, and fac- similes of stamps and devices, and well indexed. It deserves a place in every public library in England. Book-Prices Current. Vol. XXIV. pp. x., 825. Elliot Stock. {1 55. 6d. Mr. Slater, in his introduétion to the new volume, not only notes that ‘the average sum realised per “lot” of books sold during the season 1909-10 amounts to {2 9s. 1d., as against £3 11s. 10d. for the season 1908-9,’ but makes the sweeping state- ment that ‘ the commercial value of books of almost all classes has very materially declined during the past few years, and that just lately this decline has become more than ever accentuated.’ The evi- dence for this statement is hardly conclusive, and ‘the number of extremely important books’ which Mr. Slater cites as having been bought in at the Gott sale, and subsequently sold again, last March, at much smaller prices, does not seem to us as striking as Mr. Slater considers it. It is never wise to buy in books at a great sale like Dr. Gott’s. A great sale generates enthusiasm, and if a book does not fetch a high price then, it is very unlikely to do so when offered again at a miscellaneous one. It is the absence of anything approaching a great sale in 1910 that brought down the average price some 33 per cent.; but as soon as first-class books are brought into the market, we shall be very sur- prised if high water is not again touched. Mean- 110 REVIEWS. while it is pleasant to have to note that ‘ Book- Prices Current’ continues to improve, more espe- cially in its index, much of which is now admirably arranged. It is a special pleasure to us to see that under ‘ Bindings’ there are now references not merely to books about binding, but to those which owe the prices they have fetched to the beauty or interest of their covers. When the same system is extended to books sought after for their typography or illustrations, a long-standing grievance, to which we have repeatedly drawn attention, will at last be removed. The paper of lending library books, with some remarks on their bindings, illustrated by diagrams and photo- micographs. By Cedric Chivers. Truslove and Hanson. pp. 34. By means of numerous diagrams Mr. Chivers makes out a very good case for his contention that it is of immense importance to the life of a book that it should be printed with the grain of the paper across the page, instead of up and down it. It is unsatisfa€tory to know that of 3,717 English books examined by Mr. Chivers, 34 per cent. have the grain the wrong way, thus making the book weak in its sewings. In America, however, matters are still worse, of 981 books tested no less than 86 per cent. having their grain the weaker way. Mr. Chivers also shows that as compared with books printed before 1890 those of the present day have an average tensile strength of 6 1b. instead of REVIEWS. III 10, and lose 50 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. of it in folding and sewing. The varieties in thick- ness are also much greater than twenty years ago, and these also cause trouble. The moral which Mr. Chivers draws is that while these evils are rampant it is impossible for a bookbinder to give good results if his method of binding is prescribed for him. If this is so, the specifications in which we were learning to trust are a good deal dis- counted. Bibligrafia grafica: reproduccion en facsimil de por- tadas, retratos, colofones y otras curiosidades utiles d los biblidfilos, que se hallan en obras unicas y libros preciosos ¢ raros. Reunida y publicada por Pedro Vindel. Madrid, 1910. 2 tom. This is a colleétion of no fewer than 1,224 fac- similes of title-pages, illustrations, colophons, devices, portraits of authors, and bookplates of notable col- leétors taken from rare books printed in Spain or the Spanish dominions, with a few from Spanish books printed in other countries. Such a book cannot help being useful, but in the present in- stance perfunctory editing and supervision have reduced the usefulness to a minimum. In the numerous cases where title-pages, etc., have been reduced, no notes are given of the sizes of the originals, the ‘ facsimiles’ are often bad, and (worst fault of all) they are thrown together in haphazard order, with careless underlines and imperfeétly in- dexed. The haphazardness of the arrangement seems to have extended also to the selection of 222 et Se Lae ee Y Ree NE Es wie rex G4