Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

an indignity to their sovereign to call him by their Hebrew name roh, more especially since it meant a Shepherd, which was an occupation of life apparently obnoxious to the Egyptians, even in lower ranks in life. But beside the improbability of such an incongruous medley of languages being made by Egyptian natives, there is also an impossibility arising from the fact of the title Ph'ouro having been current in Egypt for king, long before the Egyptians had obtained the least knowledge of the Israelites, or of their Hebrew language; for we read in Genesis that it was the usual name for king in Egypt as early as when Abraham went there. "The princes of Pharoah saw Sarah, and commended her before Pharoah, and the woman was taken into Pharoah's house," c. 12. 15. Again, in a century or two later, when Joseph's brethren went into Egypt, we again find the title Pharoah in common use; and it might have been still a century after this before the Egyptians knew enough of the Hebrew language to learn that roh meant Shepherd. I might then just as well suppose, that Ph'ouro was derived from Roi, the title of the late kings of France; and an anachronism of 200 years is just as objectionable as one of 3 or 4,000. It is such improbable and incongruous derivations as these, which bring discredit upon the otherwise valuable science of etymology, which sometimes assists in giving us a peep into antiquity, where all other methods fail; and notwithstanding that all records of such very early past events and connexions of nations have now perished irrecoverably. When kings and kingdoms have no memorials preserved, yet their languages have not altogether perished with them, but have generally preserved some degree of permanency long after those who formed them are forgotten; and by duly comparing these together, we may often recover the knowledge of facts and circumstances, concerning which no other traces whatever are now extant.

The quotation moreover now made by you, Sir, from the "Essay on a Punic Inscription," affords foundation for farther complaints concerning the derivation in question; for Sir W. says there, in order the better to support it," that this word Ph ouro is PPO in the Saidic, and it may be suspected that it was originally written PO, to which the indefinite article or was prefixed: this is indeed positively asserted by Woidé, and it

would be difficult to appeal to a better authority. The ancient Egyptians then pronounced Phi-ro, the king; the article is purely Egyptian, but the noun may be traced to the Hebrew." Now to what assertion do those words, this is positively asserted by Woidé, refer? one would naturally suppose, to the immediately preceding sentence, viz. ❝ to PO the indefinite article or was prefixed." But no such assertion is to be found in Woide's lexicon; and only that ouro with Phi, or Pi, prefixed means the king, p. 70. 185. That the Or of ouro is the indefinite article ou, is Sir W's. own presumption and without any authority from Woidé to support it. In truth, this would form a very incoherent confusion of articles, for it would express the a king. Besides this unauthorised assertion, Sir W. adds that " Ph'ouro is in the Saidic (writ.) PPO," but this no way affects the derivation. For it is indeed true that, in the Coptic, contractions of words sometimes occur in writing, as for instance T in Coptic letters for Phi-noute; but such contractions in writing are only substitutes for the words at length, and do not alter the pronounced words themselves any more than the contraction of IHΣ for 'Inσous by the ancient Christians: neither can any such abbreviation of the word to PO in Coptic letters be found any where, except in the above quotation from the Essay on a Punic Inscription. I think myself justified, therefore, in concluding as before, that Etymologists ought to have some slight evidence, beside mere imagination, to support their derivations. That the ou of ouro is not the indefinite article answering to our a appears also from the verb erouro, to reign, for what concern has an article with a verb? All these suppositions seem to be made in order to favor the proposed derivation of Ph'ouro from the Hebrew roh, "a Shepherd," and any other person might just as well derive from such roots Porus, a well known king in the time of Alexander. Or again, I might confidently affirm that the above ou is the same as the oo of the Rosetta stone, and means as there deity (4òs,) and also king, the Egyptian kings being deified, and hence ou-ro came to mean the royal Shepherds of Sir W. Drummond, who never existed any where except in that Essay.

Norwich, July 30.

S.

I ON THE VULGATE BIBLE of 1450-1455.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

SIR,

HAVING been for some time busily occupied in making a Catalogue Raisonné of that portion of EARL SPENCER'S LIBRARY, which comprehends the volumes printed in the 15th century, with all the Editiones Principes;-to be accompanied with fac-similes of types, devices, and other appropriate and curious embellishments;— I had occasion to examine, with considerable patience and labor, the evidence which has been brought forward respecting

THE BIBLE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PRINTED AT MENTZ, BETWEEN THE YEARS 1450 & 1455, IN 2 VOLS. FOLIO.

His Lordship has a beautiful copy of it, and I commence my catalogue with a description of it; but finding the examination of this evidence too elaborate to be subjoined to the description, I presume to think that it will find an appropriate place in your JOURNAL.

There are few subjects in Bibliography which have given rise to such a long and stubborn disputation, as that of the time and place of printing the present Bible. The matter, however, from the testimonies about to be adduced in illustration of it, may now be considered to be at rest. Never was there a more connecting chain of evidence, than that which has linked certain facts together as corroborative of the execution of these volumes by Gutenberg, not later than the year 1455. As an inquiry into this evidence may be both useful and amusing to the typographical antiquary, it shall be my endeavour to conduct it with all possible attention to accuracy and compression.

2 3

In the year 1499 was published what is called, The COLOGNE CHRONICLE; a copy of which work is in Lord Spencer's Library. It is printed in the German Language, and Scriverius has transcribed the entire passage from it relating to the art of printing; while Boxhorn, Freytag, and Wurdtwein, have contented them

5

Mr. Beloe, in the 3d and 5th volumes of his Anecdotes of Literature and Scarce Books, has made mention of this Bible. See too the Bibliog. Dict. vol. I. p. 185.

2 The title is Die Cronica van der hilliger Stat von Coellen: see fol. cccxij. rect. 3 Laurea Laurentii Costeri, p. 100: see it in Wolf's Monumenta Typogra phica, vol. 1. p. 407-412.

4 Theatrum Hollandiæ, &c. p. 409. 1632. 4to.

5 Analecta Literaria; vol. 1. p. 115.

6 Bibliotheca Moguntina; p. 50.

VOL. IV. No. VIII.

2

selves with selecting that passage, which, on the oral testimony of Ulric Zell, (an ancient and respectable Printer of Cologne,) specifies "that the art of Printing was discovered at Mentz, on the Rhine, about the year 1440; and that in the Jubilee year of 1450, they began to print a Bible in a large letter, like the type used for Missals." The Latin translation of the German passage may be seen in Mallinkrot,' Chevillier, and in more recent bibliographical writers. To this evidence it has been objected, that Ulric Zell does not declare that he saw the Bible with the date of the Jubilee year affixed; and that the exact period of the commencement of the typographical art is not specified by the words, "Ind dat is geschiet byden jaren uns Heren MCCCCXL." Whatever may be the force of these objections, there is a very strong negative proof that the first essays of the art of Printing did not commence later than 1450, and that this Bible was printed before the year 1460; for the widest latitude of construction could not assign to the expressions of the Chronicle a date later than that here last submitted.

3

Towards the opening of the sixteenth century, TRITHEMIUS imparted to the book-world a valuable piece of information, which he had learnt from unexceptionable authority; namely, that "about 30 years ago he heard from the mouth of Peter Schoeffer himself, that, at first, great difficulties were encountered in the exercise of the newly-discovered art of Printing; for before the third Qarternion of an impression of the Bible had been struck off, they had expended not less than 4000 florins." Trithemius died in 1516, in his 55th year, having completed his Annals of the Hirsauge Monastery in 1514; so that he could not have received this intelligence later than 1485. This evidence has been questioned, although by no means shaken. The authority for it shall be now adduced.

Among the curious public records, which Bibliographers 5 have found respecting the absolute discovery of the art of Printing by

1 De Ortu et Progressu Artis Typographica, Colon. Agrip. 1639. 4to. p. 37. incorporated in Wolfii Monumenta Typographica, tom. I: see particularly p. 623-4.

2 L'Origine de l'Imprimerie de Paris, 1694. p. 8. Meerman, Origines Typographica, vol. 11. p. 105. 1765, 4to.

3 Annales Hirsaugienses, vol. 1. p. 421-2. 1690. fol. And see the subscription to Trithemius's Compendium de Origine Regum et gestis Francorum, 1515; repeated in his Breviarium Ecclesiæ Mindensis, 1516;—both printed by Jolm Schoeffer, the son of Peter Schoeffer-where it is expressly declared that Fust began to make experiments in 1450, and completed them in 1452, when he began to print effectively. Fournier slightly alludes to one of these authorities, but they are both specifically given in Meerman's Appeadices to his Origines Typographicæ, vol. II. No. XLIV. p. 146. See too No. IV. 4 A Quarternion is four sheets: see Lambinet, L'Orig. de l'Imprim. vol. i. p. 134; edit. 1808.

6

5 See the Documenta Typographica,' at the end of Schoepflin's Vindicia Typographica, Argent. 1760; but perhaps better in Meerman's Orig. Typog. vol. II. p. 58. The reader may also take the trouble of consulting a note in the recent edition of our Typographical Antiquities, vol. 1. p. lxxxvii.

Gutenberg, there is a document,' subscribed by the Notary Helmasperger, and dated the 2d of November, 1455, concerning a process, or law-suit, between Gutenberg and Fust; in which the former was condenined to pay the interest of 2020 florins advanced to him by the latter, in the way of business; and that part of the capital (admitted by Gutenberg to be 800 florins,) which was devoted to his own personal profit. How then does this tally with 4000 florins expended upon so small a portion of a Bible like the present?

In the first place, it is probable that Trithemius may not have correctly remembered the conversation, or at least the precise sum specified by Peter Schoeffer, after so long a period as thirty years had elapsed; or Schoeffer may have exaggerated; or upon Trithemius himself, then a young man, the communication might have made too lively an effect. But these are mere gratuitous conces sions, and may be opposed with as much propriety as they may be brought forward. We must take it for granted that both Schoeffer and Trithemius (till something very decisive be brought forward to impeach their veracity) stated the transaction in a fair bona fide manner; the one from personal experience, the latter as it was communicated to him. But

In the second place, there is nothing from this printed evidence, which at all affects the preceding testimony. Clement has dwelt with his usual animation upon it; but Meerman has well observed, that this debtor and creditor account between these two illustrious fathers of the art of Printing, was only that which occurred in the usual expenses of the office between the year 1450 and 1455; after the impression of this Bible, and after the cominencement of their partnership. He seems to infer, that 4000 (golden) florins was no unconscionable sum for procuring the matrices and puncheons, and other necessary materials, for printing so magnificent a work; and, at any rate, concludes, that the Bible was committed to the press before the partnership commenced. See his luminous note in the Origines Typographice, vol. 1. p. 150--1. and vol. II. p. 103.; in which latter he corrects Fournier.

Hence we may remark, that the testimony of Ulric Zell turns out to be not far short of the truth. It is ascertained that Gutenberg knew the art of Printing in 1439,3 and was making efforts in the same during the teu following years. He went to press with this Bible in 1450, but probably ruined himself in the speculation. Yet

1 A careful French translation of the original German deed may be seen in Fournier: De l'Origine et des Productions de l'Imprimerie Primitive en taille de Bois, Paris, 1759, 8vo. p. 92. 116. 124. Daunou, in his Analyse, &c. (of which hereafter,) Paris, An. XI. p. 35. notices a curious deed discovered by Fischer, (Description de quelques raretés bibliographiques, n°. 1. 1800, 8vo.) in which Gutenberg offered to give to the Monastery of St. Claire, at Mentz, the books he had printed, up to that period, (1-159,) and those which he might print in future.

2 Bibliothèque Curieuse, &c. vol. iv. p. 62-76.

3 Consult the authorities in the note 5. at p. 472.

« PredošláPokračovať »