Kitabı oku: «Notes and Queries, Number 45, September 7, 1850», sayfa 4

Various

Yazı tipi:

REPLIES

POETA ANGLICUS

Every proof or disproof of statements continually made with regard to the extravagant titles assumed, or complacently received, by the bishops of Rome being both interesting and important, the inquiry of J.B. (Vol. ii., p. 167.) is well deserving of a reply. Speaking of a passage cited by Joannes Andreæ, in his gloss on the preface to the Clementines, he asks, "who is the Anglicus Poeta?" and "what is the name of his poem," in which it is said to the pope, "Nec Deus es nec homo, quasi neuter es inter utrumque?"

"Poetria nova" was the name assigned to the hexameter poem commencing, "Papa stupor mundi," inscribed, about the year 1200, to the reigning Pope, Innocent III., by Galfridus de Vino salvo. Of this work several manuscript copies are to be met with in England. I will refer only to two in the Bodleian, Laud. 850. 83.: Ken. Digb. 1665. 64. Polycarp Leyser (Hist. Poem. medii Ævi) published it in 1721; and Mabillon has set forth another performance by the same writer in elegiac verse (Vet. Analect. pp. 369-76., Paris, 1723). In the latter case the author's name is not given, and accordingly he is entered merely as "Poeta vetus" in Mr. Dowling's Notitia Scriptorum SS. Pat., sc. p. 279., Oxon., 1839. Your correspondent may compare with Andreæ's extract these lines, and those which follow them, p. 374.:

"Papa brevis vox est, sed virtus nominis hujus
Perlustrat quiequid arcus uterque tenet."

Galfridus evidently derived his surname from his treatise on vines and wine; and he has been singularly unfortunate in the epithet, for I have never seen VIN-SAUF correctly printed. It varies from "de Nine salvo" to "Mestisauf." Pits and Oudin call him "Vinesalf" and Fabricius and Mansi change him into "Vine fauf."

The question now remains, Are the Roman Pontiffs and their Church answerable for the toleration of such language? Uncertainty may on this occasion be removed by our recollection of the fact, that a "Censura" upon the glosses of the papal canon law, by Manriq, Master of the Sacred Palace, was issued by the command of Pope Pius V. in 1572. It was reprinted by Pappus, Argent. 1599, 12mo., and 1609, 8vo., and it contains an order for the expurgation of the words before quoted, together with the summary in the margin, "Papa nec Deus est nec homo," which appears in every old edition; for instance, in that of Paris, 1532, sig. aa. iij. So far the matter looks well, and the prospect is not hopeless. These glosses, however, were revised by another master of the Apostolic Palace, Sixtus Fabri, and were edited, under the sanction of Pope Gregory XIII., in the year 1580; and from this authentic impression the impious panegyric has not been withdrawn. The marginal abridgment has, in compliance with Manriq's direction, been exterminated; and this additional note has been appended as a palliative:—

"Hæc verba sano modo sunt accipienda: prolata enim sunt ad ostendendum amplissimam esse Romani Pontificis potestatem."—Col. 4. ed. Paris, 1585.
R.G.

Poeta Anglicus (Vol ii., p. 167).—I cannot answer J.B.'s Queries; but I have fallen upon a cross scent, which perchance may lead to their discovery.

1. Ioannes Pitseus, de Scriptor. ad ann. 1250, (Relat. Histor. de Rebus Anglicis, ed. Par. 1619, p. 322.), gives the following account "de Michaele Blaunpaino:"—

"Michael Blaunpainus, vulgo Magister cognominatus, natione Anglus, patria Cornubiensis, … missus Oxonium, deinde Parisios, … præ cæteris se dedidit elegantiæ linguæ Latinæ, fuitque inter præcipuos sui temporis poetus per Angliam potissimum et Galliam numeratus. Hunc subinde citat Textor in Cornucopia sub nomine Michaelis Anglici.... In lucem emisit: Historiarum Normanniæ, librum unum: Contra Henricum Abrincensem versu. librum unum. Archipoeta vide, quod non sit. (MS. in Bibliotheca Lunleiana.) Epistolarum et carminum, librum unum. Claruit anno Messiæ 1250, sub Henrici tertii regno."

2. Valerius Andreas, however, gives a somewhat different account of Michael Anglicus. In his Biblioth. Belg. ed. 8vo. Lovan, 1623, p. 609., he says:

"Michael Anglicus, Bellimontensis, Hanno, I. V. Professor et Poeta, scripsit:

Eclogarum, libros iv., ad Episc. Parisien.
Eclogarum, libb. ii., ad Lud. Villerium.
De mutatione studiorum, lib. i.
Elegiam deprecatoriam.

Et alia, quæ Paris. sunt typis edita. Hujus eruditionem et Poemata Bapt. Mantuanus et Joannes Ravisius Testor epigrammate commendarunt: hic etiam in Epithetis suis Anglici auctoritatem non semel adducit."

3. Franciscus Sweertius (Athenæ Belgricoe, ed. Antv. 1628, p. 565.) gives a similar account to this of Valerius Andreas.

4. And the account given by Christopher Hendreich Brandebargca, (ed. Berolini, 1699, p. 193.) is substantially the same; viz.,

"Anglicus Michael cognomine, sed natione Gallus, patria Belmontensis, utriusque juris Professor, scripsit Eclogarum, lib. iv. ad Episc." &c … "Et diversorum carminum libros aliquot, quæ omnia Parisiis impressa sunt. Claruit autem A.C. 1500."

5. Moreri takes notice of this apparent confusion made between two different writers, who lived two centuries and a half apart. Speaking of the later of the two, he says (Dictionnaire Historique, Paris, 1759, tom. i. par. ii. p. 87.):—

"Anglicus (Michel), natif de Beaumont dans le Hainaut, qui vivoit dans le XVI. siècle, étoit poëte et professeur en droit. Nous avons divers ouvrages de sa façon, des églogues, un traité de mutatione studiorum, &c. (Valer. Andreas, Bibl. Belg.) Quelques auteurs l'ont confondu avec Michel Blaumpain. (Voyez Blaumpain.)"

Of the earlier Anglicus, Moreri says (ubi sup., tom. ii. par. i. p. 506.):

"Blaumpain (Michel) surnommé Magister, Anglois de nation, et Poëte, qui vivoit vers l'an 1250. Il est nommé par quelques-un Michel Anglicus. Mais il y a plus d'apparence que c'étoient deux auteurs différens; dont l'un composa une histoire de Normandie, et un traité contre Henri d'Avranches; et l'autre laissa quelques pièces de poësies;—Eclogarum, libri iv., ad Episcopum Parisiensem; Eclogarum, libri ii., ad Ludovicum Villerium, De mutatione studioram, Elogia deprecatoria, &c. Baptiste Mantuan parle de Michel Anglicus, qui étoit de Beaumont dans l'Hainault. (Pitseus, De Script. Angl. p. 322.; Valerius Andreas in Bibl, p. 670.)"

Perhaps some of your readers may have access to a copy of the Paris impression of Michael Anglicus, mentioned by Andreas, Sweertius, and Hendreich. J.B. will not need to be reminded of these words of Innocent III., in his first serm. de consecr. Pont. Max., in which he claimed, as St. Peter's successor, to be

"Inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus; citra Deum, sed ultra hominem; minor Deo, sed major homine: qui de omnibus judicat, et a nemine judicatur."—Innocentii tertii Op., ed. Colon. 1575, tom. i., p. 189.

Did the claim originate with Pope Innocent?

J. Sansom.

CAXTON'S PRINTING-OFFICE

I must protest against the manner in which Arun (Vol. ii., p. 187.) has proceeded with the discussion of Caxton's printing at Westminster. Though writing anonymously himself, he has not hesitated to charge me by name with a desire to impeach the accuracy of Mr. C. Knight's Life of Caxton, of which, and of other works of the same series, he then volunteers as the champion, as if they, or any one of them, were the object of a general attack. This is especially unfair, as I made the slightest possible allusion to Mr. Knight's work, and may confess I have as yet seen no more of it than the passage quoted by ARUN himself. Any such admixture of personal imputations is decidedly to be deprecated, as being likely to militate against the sober investigation of truth which has hitherto characterised the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES." ARUN also chooses to say that the only question which is material, is, Who was Caxton's patron? i.e. who was the Abbot of Westminster at the time,—who may not, after all, have actively interfered in the matter. This question remains in some doubt; but it was not the question with which DR. RIMBAULT commenced the discussion. The object of that gentleman's inquiry (Vol. ii., p. 99.) was, the particular spot where Caxton's press was fixed. From a misapprehension of the passage in Stow, a current opinion has obtained that the first English press was erected within the abbey-church, and in the chapel of St. Anne; and Dr. Dibdin conjectured that the chapel of St. Anne stood on the site of Henry VII.'s chapel. The correction of this vulgar error is, I submit, by no means immaterial; especially at a time when a great effort is made to propagate it by the publication of a print, representing "William Caxton examining the first proof sheet from his printing-press in Westminster Abbey;" the engraving of which is to be "of the size of the favourite print of Bolton Abbey:" where the draftsman has deliberately represented the printers at work within the consecrated walls of the church itself! When a less careless reader than Dr. Dibdin consults the passage of Stow, he finds that the chapel of St. Anne stood in the opposite direction from the church to the site of Henry VII.'s chapel, i.e. within the court of the Almonry; and that Caxton's press was also set up in the Almonry, though not (so far as appears, or is probable) within that chapel. The second question is, When did Caxton first set up his press in this place? And the third, the answer to which depends on the preceding, is, Who was the abbot who gave him admission? Now it is true, as ARUN remarks, that the introduction of Abbot Islip's name is traced up to Stow in the year 1603: and, as Mr. Knight has observed, "the careful historian of London here committed one error," because John Islip did not become Abbot of Westminster until 1500. The entire passage of Stow has been quoted by DR. RIMBAULT in "NOTES AND QUERIES," Vol. ii., p. 99.; it states that in the Almonry—

"Islip, abbot of Westminster, erected the first press of book-printing that ever was in England, about the year 1471."

Now, it appears that the various authors of repute, who have given the point their consideration, as the editor of Dugdale's Monasticon (Sir Henry Ellis), and Mr. Cunningham in his Handbook, affirm that it is John Esteney who became abbot in 1474 or 1475, and not Thomas Milling, who was abbot in 1471, whose name should be substituted for that of Islip. In that case, Stowe committed two errors instead of one; he was wrong in his date as well as his name. It is to this point that I directed my remarks, which are printed in Vol. ii., p. 142. We have hitherto no evidence that Caxton printed at Westminster before the year 1477, six years later than mentioned by Stow.