Search

jamesgray2

A discussion of interesting books from my current stock A WordPress.com site

The “Praeparitio” is a gigantic feat of erudition.

945G     Eusebius of Caesarea                  c. 260-c. 340

Eusebius Pa[m]phili de eua[n]gelica preparac[i]o[n]e ex greco in latinu[m] translatus Incipit feliciter.               

DSC_0263 2[ Cologne, Ulrich Zel, not after 1473]                          $18,000

DSC_0005 3Folio 10 ¾  x 7 ¾  inches. [a]12, [b-o]10, [p]8      One of the earliest editions most likely the Second, (editio princeps : Venice 1470)  This copy is bound in a modern binding of half  period exposed quarter sawn beech boards and bound in quarter dark goatskin and tooled in blind.

This copy contains the fifteen books of the “Praeparatio evangelica,” whose purpose is “to justify the Christian in rejecting the religion and philosphy of the Greeks in favor of that of the Hebrews, and then to justify him in not observing the Jewish manner of life […] The following summary of its contents is taken from Mr. Gifford’s introduction to his translation of the “Praeparitio:

“The first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology: Mythical, DSC_0011 2Allegorical, and Political.  The next three, IV-VI, give an account of the chief oracles, of the worship of demons, and of the various opinions of Greek Philosophers on the doctrines of Fate and Free Will.  Books VII-IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history.  In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosphy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses.  In the the last three books, the comparson of Moses with Plato is continued, and the mutual contradictions of other Greek Philosphers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, are exposed and criticized.”

The “Praeparitio” is a gigantic feat of erudition, and, according to Harnack (Chronologie, II, p. 120), was, like many of Eusebius’ other works, actually composed during the stress of the persecution.  It ranks, with the Chronicle, second only to the Church History in importance, because of its copious extracts from ancient authors, whose works have perished.” (CE)
In explaining the plan of his treatise Eusebius promises  that his purpose shall be worked out in a way of his own, differing from the methods of the many Christian authors who had preceded him. This promise is further explained   as meaning that his arguments will not depend on his own statements, but will be given in the very words of the most learned and best known advocates of the Pagan religions, that so the evidence alleged may not be suspected of being invented by himself. The cogency of |xvi this mode of argument truthfully and fairly conducted is unquestionable, but it had not in this case such entire novelty as Eusebius seems to claim for it. We shall find as we proceed that many of his arguments are the same as those of the earlier Apologists, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen; that he constantly borrows long passages from their writings, including the same quotations from Greek authors, reproduced word for word with due acknowledgement. Those earlier authors had in fact adopted the very same method which Eusebius announced as distinctive of his own work. The quotations thus borrowed are however few in comparison with the great multitude gathered by Eusebius himself from all parts of the Greek literature of a thousand years, from works both known and unknown of poets, historians, and philosophers.

The peculiar value of the Praeparatio resulting from this wealth of quotation is universally acknowledged. ‘This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient Philosophy as the Chronicon is with reference to History, since in it are present specimens of the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now extant’ (G. E. L. Cotton, Dict. Gk. and R. Biogr., ‘Eusebius,’ 116b).

‘The Preparation exhibits the same wide range of acquaintance with the classical writers of Greece which the History exhibits in the domain of Christian literature. The list of writers quoted or referred to is astonishing for its length (see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii. 346). Some of these are known to us, even by name, only through Eusebius, and of several others he has preserved large portions which are not otherwise extant. . . . It was chiefly the impression produced by this mass of learning which led Scaliger to describe it as “divini commentarii,” and Cave to call it “opus profecto nobilissimum” (H. L. i. p. 178)’ (Lightfoot, Smith and “Wace’s Dict. Chr. Biogr. ii. 331)

DSC_0275
It is also very interesting because of its numerous lively fragments from historians and philosophers which are nowhere else preserved, e.g. a summary of the writings of the Phoenician priest Sanchuniathon, or the account from Diodorus Siculus’ sixth book of Euhemerus’ wondrous voyage to the island of Panchaea, and writings of the neo-Platonist philosopher Atticus.

Eusebius (c. 263-339), Greek historian and exegete, Christian polemicist and scholar Biblical canon, became bishop of Cesarea in 314 and is considered as the father of Church History as his writings are very important for the first three centuries of the Christianity.

DSC_0264 3

In Book XI Eusebius proposes to show the agreement of Plato, as the representative of Greek Philosophy, with the Hebrew Scriptures. Adopting the threefold division of Ethics, Dialectic, and Physics, he notices the moral teaching of the sacred writers, their literary methods, accurate reasoning, and correct use of significant names, their knowledge of the natural world, and their contemplation of the ‘true being’ of things unseen (chapters 1-9). He then quotes the comments of Numenius, and his saying, What else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?, and Plutarch’s treatise on the Ei0 at Delphi (10, 11).

Other points of comparison are the ineffable nature of God, His unity, the Second Cause as contemplated by Philo, Plotinus, Numenius, and Amelius, the Third Divine Power of the Ps.-Platonic Epinomis (chapters 12-30).

The nature of the Good and of the Ideas, as stated by Plato in the Republic and Timaeus, is illustrated by xxiii quotations from Numenius, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria (21-25). The existence of evil powers, the immortality of the soul and the Divine image, as taught in the Alcibiades and Phaedo, and illustrated from Porphyry’s answer to Boethus On the Soul, the creation of the world and of the heavenly bodies, the goodness of God’s works, their changes and dissolution, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgement, are all brought into the comparison, and illustrated from the Timaeus, Republic, Politicus, and Phaedo, and from a fragment of Plutarch On the Soul.

In Book XII the comparison of Plato with the Hebrew Scriptures is continued on the simple instruction of children, the need of faith, the qualifications of rulers as described in the Laws, the Gorgias, and the Republic (chapters 1-9); the picture of the just man and his fate in the Republic; Paradise and the garden of Zeus, and the origin of mankind male and female, in the Symposium; the Deluge, the right foundation of law, religious training, the use of poetry, music, and wine, and the control of the passions, all illustrated from the Laws (chapters 10-28).

Other subjects brought into the comparison are the contrast of true philosophy and spurious wisdom (Theaetetus), the education of women (Republic), and passages of the Laws and Republic corresponding to the Hebrew Proverbs and laws of Moses on ‘the memory of the just,’ riches and poverty, and the honour due to parents, on slaves, landmarks, and thieves (chapters 29-42). Other coincidences are found in the use of certain examples and figures of speech, in the division of a nation into twelve tribes, in the situation of the chief city, and in Plato’s thoughts on faults in education (Republic), on atheism, on God, and Divine providence (Laws).

In Book XIII Eusebius quotes with approval Plato’s opinions on the absurdities of Greek mythology in the Timaeus, Republic, and Eutliyphron (chapters 1-5), on stedfast adherence to truth even unto death in the Crito |xxivand the Apology of Socrates (chapters 6-11), adding the testimonies of Aristobulus and Clement to the agreement of Plato and other Greek philosophers with the Hebrew Scriptures (chapters 12, 13).

The remainder of the book treats of matters in which Plato’s teaching is condemned concerning the belief of the common people (Timaeus and Republic), a multitude of inferior gods and daemons, the nature of the soul (Timaeus) criticized by the Platonist Severus, the worship of the heavenly bodies (Laws and Timaeus), the treatment of women (Laws and Republic), unnatural vice, and the laws of murder.

In Book XIV the consistent truth of Hebrew doctrines adopted by Christians is contrasted with the contradictions and conflicts of Greek philosophers, showing how Plato criticized his predecessors in the Theaetetus and Sophista, and was himself criticized by his followers in the successive Academies, who in their turn are subjected to the keen satire of Numenius (chapters 1-9). The subject is continued in quotations from Porphyry, Xeno-phon, Plato, Plutarch, and especially from Aristocles On Philosophy against the schools of Parmenides who rejected the evidence of the senses, of Aristippus, Metrodorus, and Protagoras who believed them alone, and of the Pyr-rhonists who believed nothing at all. The doctrines of Epicurus are refuted from the writings of Aristocles, Plato, and Dionysius of Alexandria (chapters 21-47).

In Book XV the moral character of Aristotle is defended against the slanders of Epicurus and others by Aristocles; but where he differed from Plato and the Hebrews in regard to virtue and happiness, the ideas of God and His providence, the creation of the world, the fifth corporeal essence, the nature of the heavenly bodies, and the immortality of the soul, his doctrines are severely criticized by Atticus the Platonist (chapters 2-9).

His description of the soul as an enteleceia is further criticized by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Atticus (10-13); |xxv the Stoic philosophy is discussed by Aristocles, Areius Didymus, Porphyry, Longinus, and Plotinus (14-22), and the remainder of the book is occupied with a long extract from Plutarch, De placitis Philosophorum, on the various physical theories of the world, followed by the judgement of Socrates on such questions from the Memorabilia of Xenophon.

The literary value of the Preparation for the Gospel will be most fully appreciated by considering a separate list of the chief fragments of ancient authors for the preservation of which we are indebted to Eusebius in that work.

(a) Fragments of Poetry.

1. An interesting epigram by Callimachus on the simplicity of the primitive statues (99 b): this is contained in a fragment of Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus.

2. A fragment of Euripides, Melanippe Captiva, on the characters of bad and good women (466 d).

3. Large extracts in iambic verse from the Exodus, a tragedy by the Jewish dramatist Ezekiel (438 c 10-446 d 2), on which see Schürer, Jewish People, ii. 3. 224.

4. Fragments of an epic poem On Jerusalem by a Jew named Philo, 421 c, d, 430 c, 453 a. Cf. Schürer, ibid. 222.

5. Eight extracts from the epic poem of Theodotus On the Jews, describing Sichem, and narrating the story of the sons of Emmor (426 b-429 a). Cf. Schürer, ibid. 224. |xxvi

6. Many of the oracles quoted by Oenomaus in The Detection of Impostors (209 c-234 a).

7. All the oracles contained in the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles (123 d-124 b, 145 a-146 b, 168 b, 175 c). These oracles with their contexts are carefully edited by Wolff in his work Porph. De Philos. ex Oraculis haurienda, of which they form the chief substance.

8. Pindar, Fr. Incert. 2 (105), Paean. 10 (33), both in 687 b.

9. The remarkable epigram on the Tetragrammaton and the Name of seven vowels (520 a).

To go no farther, the Greeks would be unable to state the etymologies even of the letters of the alphabet, nor could Plato himself tell the meaning or the reason of the vowels or the consonants.
But the Hebrews would tell us the reason of ‘Alpha,’ which with them is called ‘Al’ph,’ and this signifies ‘learning’:and of ‘Beta,’ which it is their custom to call ‘Beth,’ which name they give to a house; so as to show the meaning, ‘learning of a house,’ or as it might be more plainly expressed, ‘a kind of teaching and learning of household economy.’
‘Gamma’ also is with them called ‘Gimel’: and this is their name for ‘fullness.’ Then since they call tablets ‘Delth,’ they gave this name to the fourth letter, signifying therewith by the two letters, that ‘written learning is a filling of the tablets.’
And any one going over the remaining letters of the alphabet, would find that they have been named among the Hebrews each with some cause and reason. For they say also that the combination of the seven vowels contains the enunciation of one forbidden name, which the Hebrews indicate by four letters and apply to the supreme power of God, having received the tradition from father to son that this is something unutterable and forbidden to the multitude.
And one of the wise Greeks having learned this, I know not whence, hinted it obscurely in verse, saying as follows:

‘Seven vowels tell My Name,—-the Mighty God,
The everlasting Father of mankind:
The immortal lyre am I, that guides the world,
And leads the music of the circling spheres.’  28

You would find also the meanings of the remaining Hebrew letters, by fixing your attention on each; but this we have already established by our former statements, when we were showing that the Greeks have received help in everything from the Barbarians.
And any one diligently studying the Hebrew language would discover great correctness of names current among that people: since the very name which is the appellation of the whole race has been derived from Heber; and this means the man that ‘passes over,’ since both a passage and the one who passes over are called in the Hebrew language ‘Heber.’ 29
For the term teaches us to cross over and pass from the things in this world to things divine, and by no means to stay lingering over the sight of the things that are seen, but to pass from these to the unseen and invisible things of divine knowledge concerning the Maker and Artificer of the world. Thus the first people who were devoted to the one All-ruler and Cause of the Universe, and adhered to Him with a pure and true worship, they called Hebrews, naming men of this character as travellers who had in mind passed over from earthly things.
But why should I spend more time in collecting all the instances of the propriety and correctness of the Hebrew names, when the subject requires a special treatise of its own. However, speaking generally, I think that even by what has been said I have supplied the evidence of the art of reasoning among the Hebrews: if indeed, as Plato said, it is a task for no mean or ordinary men, but for a wise lawgiver and dialectician, to discover the kind of names naturally belonging to things,—-a man such as Moses who has made known to us the Hebrew oracles. So then what follows next after the subject of Dialectics, but to examine what was the condition of the Hebrew people in regard to Physics?

10. Part of the Orphic Hymn to Zeus, of which vv. 19-42 (except two or three) are found first in the fragment of Porphyry Peri Agalmatwn preserved by Eusebius P. E. 100 c 5-101 c 1.

(b) Historical Fragments.

1. In history we have first the long extract from the translation by Philo Byblius of Sanchuniathon’s Phoenician History contained in a fragment of Porphyry’s work Against the Christians preserved by Eusebius (31 a-42 b). If we could fully trust Porphyry’s testimony to the truthfulness of Philo, and to the genuineness and antiquity of the work of Sanchuniathon, the historical value of the extract could hardly be over-estimated: and we cannot wonder that the question of its authenticity has been a most fruitful source of criticism and controversy from the time of Scaliger and Grotius to our own days. ‘Few problems, in fact, in the circle of Semitic studies and of ancient history in general are of more importance than this.’ So writes M. Renan. Memoire sur l’Origine et le Caractere veritable de l’Histoire phenicienne qui porte le nom de Sanchoniathon, p. 6.

2. Diodorus Siculus. In 59 c 2-61 a we have an interesting fragment of the sixth book of the Bibliotheca, confirming his account of the sources of Greek theology from the Ιερα αναγραφη, or Sacred Record of Euemerus,|xxvii and adding the wonderful narrative of Euemerus concerning his voyage to the fabulous island of Panchaea in the Indian Ocean.

3. The large fragments of Philo Judaeus first known from Eusebius will be found in 322 d 11 on the Word or Second God, in 336 b Concerning Providence, in 355 c-361 b on the Exodus and the Law from a work otherwise unknown, entitled Hypothetica, and in 379 a-400 a a very long and important passage from the Apology for the Jews.

These fragments will be found placed together at the end of the sixth volume of Richter’s edition of the Greek text of Philo.

4. Among the most important of the historical fragments preserved for us by Eusebius are the long extracts from the work of Alexander Polyhistor Concerning the Jews, which occupy the larger part of Book IX, and have been very carefully edited in a special monograph by Dr. J. Freudenthal. The value of these extracts is much increased by quotations from lost works of authors otherwise unknown, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molon, a certain Philo, and Demetrius, who all wrote on the history of the Jews. On the importance of the fragments see Schürer, ibid. ii. 3. 197.

5. The extract from the Chronicon of Julius Africanus (487 d-491 b) was edited from Eusebius by Dr. Routh in Rell. Sacr. ii. 269-78, who enlarged the text from Georgius Syncellus and added copious notes (423-37).

6. From the lost work of Abydenus On Assyrian History we have most interesting notices of the Flood of Sisithrus, i. e. Noah (414 d), of the Tower of Babel (416 b), of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness and of his fortification of Babylon (456 d).

(g) Philosophical Fragments.

It is in the region of Greek Philosophy that the wealth of quotation is most remarkable.

1. Among the Neo-Platonists we find Atticus, whose commentary on the Timaeus is sharply criticized by |xxviii Proclus, but of whose own writings there remain only the important fragments preserved by Eusebius; the first of which describes the threefold division of Philosophy into Ethics, Physics, and Logic, and eulogizes Plato as ‘a man from nature’s mysteries new-inspired,’ and ‘in very truth sent down from the gods, in order that Philosophy might be seen in its full proportions,’ (509 b-510 a). Also in the long and important extracts contained in Book XV, chapters 4-9, 12, 13, Atticus appears as a passionate defender of Plato against Aristotle.

2. From the Epitome of Areius Didymus we have a short extract on the Platonic Ideas (545 b), and several passages on the Stoic doctrines in Book XV, chapters 15, 20.

3. Numenius the Neo-Pythagorean is known almost exclusively from the long and numerous extracts preserved by Eusebius. From the contemplation of true ‘Being’ with Plato (525 c-527 a) he passes on to the nature of ‘the First and Second God’ (537 a), and to ‘the only Good’ transcending all essence, which can be contemplated only apart from sense ‘in a certain, immense, ineffable, and absolutely Divine solitude’ (543 d). In 650 d we find him defending Plato for ‘preserving both life and truth’ by withdrawing from Athens; and in 727 b-739 he describes The revolt of the Academics against Plato, under the leaders of the three, or more, Academies.

4. The fragments of Aristocles the Peripatetic contain an interesting criticism of Socrates and Plato, and of the divergent Socratic Schools (510 b-511 c), a defence of the veracity of the senses against the Eleatics Xenophanes and Parmenides (756 b-757 d), a long refutation of the Sceptics Pyrrho and Timon (758 c-763 d), strong and able censures of the Sophists, Cyrenaics, and Epicureans (764 c-768 d), and lastly a defence of the moral character of Aristotle against the slanderous |xxix  attacks of Epicurus, Timaeus of Tauromenium, Alexinus the Eristic, Eubulides, Demochares, Cephisodorus, and Lycon (791 a-793 c).

5. Of the three known fragments of Euemerus, the most important is contained in a fragment of the sixth book of Diodorus Siculus, itself preserved by Eusebius (Diod. Sic. iv. 179, Dindorf).

6. On the falsehood of oracles we have first a valuable fragment of Diogenianus directed against the fatalism of Chrysippus (136 d 3); then the vigorous and amusing invective of Oenomaus occupying no less than eighteen chapters of Book V (209 b-234 c); and the long series of extracts from the work of Porphyry On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, mentioned above (p. xxvi).

7. Of other works of Porphyry Eusebius has preserved many fragments of the Epistle to Anebo (92 a, 197 c, 740 d), on which see Parthey’s edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis; a large part of the treatise De Statuis (97 d 2 note); several fragments of a work On the Soul, against Boethus; three long extracts from the Philological Lecture; fragments of the famous treatise Against the Christians (31 a, 179 d, 485 b).

8. A fragment attributed to Plotinus on the Entelecheia of Aristotle, which is inserted by Creuzer after Ennead. iv. 2.

9. From Plutarch’s treatise on the Daedala, or primitive wooden statues at Plataeae, and the worship connected with them Eusebius has preserved two very interesting fragments (83 c, 99 b); and though the long extracts from the Stromateis (22 b-25 b) and the De placitis Philosophorum (836 a-852 c) are not the work of Plutarch, but a compilation by some unknown writer from the Epitome of Aetius, this very ancient error in the title does not detract from their value. We are equally indebted for their preservation to Eusebius, to whose accuracy and fidelity Diels (Proleg. 5-10) pays an emphatic and even enthusiastic testimony. |xxx

 

Goff E119; BMC I 194

(United States of America: Boston Public Library
Indiana Univ., The Lilly Library (- 2 ff.)
YUL)
;

 

CHAPTER XIV

[PLUTARCH] ‘THALES of Miletus, one of the seven sages, declared water to be the first principle of all things. This man is thought to have been the founder of philosophy, and from him the Ionic sect derived its name; for it had many successions. After studying philosophy in Egypt he came as an elderly man to Miletus. He says that all things come from water, and are all resolved into water. And he forms his conjecture first from the fact that seed, which is watery, is the first principle of all animal life; thus it is probable that all things have their origin from moisture. His second argument is that all plants derive nourishment and fruitfulness from moisture, and when deprived of it wither away. And the third, that the very fire of the sun, and of the stars, and the world itself are nourished by the evaporations of the waters. For this reason Homer also suggests this notion concerning water,

“Ocean, which is the origin of all.” 34

This is what Thales says.

‘But Anaximander of Miletus says that the first principle of all things is the infinite, for from this all are produced, and into this all pass away; for which reason also infinite worlds are generated, and pass away again into that from which they spring. So he says the reason why the infinite exists is that the subsisting creation may not be deficient in any point. But he also is at fault in not saying what the infinite is, whether it is air, or water, or earth, or any other corporeal elements; he is wrong therefore in declaring the matter while excluding the efficient cause. For the infinite is nothing else than matter, and matter cannot have an actual existence, unless the efficient cause underlie it.

‘Anaximenes of Miletus declared that the air is the first principle of all things, for from this all are produced, and into it they are resolved again. For example, our soul, he says, is air, for it holds us together; and the whole world too is encompassed by air and breath, and air and breath are used as synonyms. But he too is wrong in thinking that living beings consist of simple homogeneous air and breath; for it is impossible that the matter can exist as sole principle of things, but we must assume the efficient cause also. As for instance silver suffices not for the production of the drinking-cup, unless there be the efficient cause, that is the silversmith; the case is similar with copper and various kinds of wood, and all other matter.

‘Heracleitus and Hippasus of Metapontum say that fire is the principle of all things: for from fire, they say, all things are produced and all end in fire: and all things in the world are created as it gradually cools down. For first the coarsest part of it is pressed together and becomes earth; then the earth being resolved by the natural force of the fire is turned into water, and being vaporised becomes air. And again the world and all the bodies in it are consumed in a conflagration by fire. Fire therefore is the first principle, because all things come from it, and the end, inasmuch as they are all resolved into it.

‘Democritus, who was followed long after by Epicurus, said that the first principles of all things are bodies indivisible, but conceivable by reason, with no admixture of vacuum, uncreated, imperishable, not capable of being broken, nor of receiving shape from their parts, nor of being altered in quality, but perceptible by reason only; that they move, however, in the vacuum, and through the vacuum, and that both the vacuum itself is infinite and the bodies infinite. And the bodies possess these three properties, shape, magnitude, and weight. Democritus, however, said two, magnitude and shape; but Epicurus added to them a third, namely weight. For he said the bodies must be moved by the impulse of the weight, since otherwise they will not be moved at all. The shapes of the atoms are limitable, not infinite: for there are none either hook-shaped, nor trident-shaped, nor ring-shaped. For these shapes are easily broken, whereas the atoms are impassive and cannot be broken; but they have their proper shapes, which are conceivable by reason. And the “atom” is so called, not because it is extremely small, but because it cannot be divided, being impassive, and free from admixture of vacuum: so that if a man says “atom” he means unbreakable, impassive, unmixed with vacuum. And that the atom exists is manifest: for there are also elements (στοιχεῖα), and living beings that are empty, and there is the Monad.

‘Empedocles, son of Meton, of Agrigentum, says that there are four elements, fire, air, water, earth, and, two original forces, love and hate, of which the one tends to unite, and the other to separate. And this is how he speaks:

“Learn first four roots of all things that exist:
Bright Zeus, life-giving Hera, and the god
Of realms unseen, and Nestis, who with tears
Bedews the fountain-head of mortal life.”  35

For by “Zeus” he means the seething heat and the ether; and by “life-giving Hera,” the air; the earth by Aidoneus, and by Nestis and “the fountain-head of mortal life,” the seed, as it were, and the water.’

So great is the dissonance of the first physical philosophers: such too is their opinion concerning first principles, assuming, as they did, no god, no maker, no artificer, nor any cause of the universe, nor yet gods, nor incorporeal powers, no intelligent natures, no rational essences, nor anything at all beyond the reach of the senses, in their first principles.

In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks who declared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things. They say at least that this philosopher had a great admiration for natural science beyond all who were before him: for the sake of it certainly he left his own district a mere sheepwalk, and was the first of the Greeks who stated clearly the doctrine of first principles. For he not only pronounced, like those before him, on the essence of all things, but also on the cause which set it in motion.

‘”For in the beginning,” he said, “all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion into order.'”

One cannot but wonder how this man, having been the first among Greeks who taught concerning God in this fashion, was thought by the Athenians to be an atheist, because he regarded not the sun but the Maker of the sun as God, and barely escaped being stoned to death.

But it is said that even he did not keep the doctrine safe and sound: for though he made mind preside over all things, he did not go on to render his physical system concerning the existing world accordant with mind and reason. …

 

Featured post

“Truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing”

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274. editor Theodoricus de Susteren.

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

DSC_0123

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

Cologne : Heinrich Quentell, 7 Mar. 1499                                        $11,500

Folio 10 1/2 X 8 inches 2°: A-Z6,Aa-Gg6; {signature Dd signed De)   Third Edition/The final 15th century edition.

Blind-tooled front and back covers (including some blind-tooled letters), full calf on DSC_0122thick boards. Clasps missing, catchplates present. Foxing throughout, with some red and green ink dots along edges. Front pastedown shows slight signs of water damage. Occasional small red stains on text block (e.g. E3v and Q5), likely from the books’ rubricator, but otherwise a clean text block. “Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris sancti Thome Aquinatis…”First written around 1256, Thomas Aquinas’ “Disputed Questions on Truth” defends “the view that truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing… Most importantly, he develops a notion of truth of being (what might be called “ontological truth”) along with truth of the intellect (what might be called “logical truth”)” (Wippel, 295)

DSC_0126Sections include: Truth; God’s Knowledge; Ideas; The Divine Word; Providence; Predestination; The Book of Life; The Knowledge of Angels; The Communication of Angelic Knowledge; The Mind; The Teacher; Prophecy; Rapture; Faith; Higher and Lower Reason; Synderesis; Conscience; The Knowledge of the First Man in the State of Innocence; Knowledge of the Soul After Death; The Knowledge of Christ; Good; The Tendency to Good and the Will; God’s Will; Free Choice; Sensuality; The Passions of the Soul; Grace; The Justification of Sinners; and The Grace of Christ.

For each topic, Aquinas reviews the topic’s Difficulties, and then responses with ‘To the Contrary’ and ‘Reply’. Aquinas concludes each topic with an “Answers to Difficulties” section, demonstrating his typical insightful worldview and readable literary style.“Everything is a being essentially. But a creature is good not essentially but by participation. Good, therefore, really adds something to being (“Good” [U1v]

translation from   http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer21.htm).

DSC_0125

Goff T181;(Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary;HEHL; LC ;Massachusetts Historical Society;YUL)  ;  BMC I, 289/90; Only one Copy in The British Isles (BL)

DSC_0127

Impressa Agrippine. opera atq[ue] impe[n]sis p[ro]uidi viri Henrici Quentell. ciuis eiusdem. Anno salutis humane nonagesimonono supra millesimumquadringentesimu[m] Ipso die celebritatis autoris cursu felici ad finem vsq[ue] perducta.

 

Featured post

Herbarum vires Macer tibi carmine dicet

164J  Floridus Macer, or Odo von Meung;  Aemilius Macer;  Guillermo Gueroaldo;

Herbarum vires macer tibi carmine dicet. Cum bonis ambula. Mors peccatorum pessima. Sic uteretuo ut alieno non egeas DSC_0006

[Paris] np. [Pierre Baquelier]. nd. [c, 1515]                                $9,500

 

Octavo 5 1/2 X3 1/2 inches . 157 of 160 unnumbered leaves. a-v5 {lacking V6-8 two text leaves and one blank. [last blank]. There is a Large woodcut on title of scholar in his study,(see above) and 65 largeDSC_0007 2 woodcuts of plants within double ruled border, small white on black printed initials,  The Title page is a little dusty, light age yellowing, the odd marginal thumb mark or spot, very minor occasional marginal water-stain. A good copy, crisp and generally clean. This copy is bound in C19th  century quarter calf over paper boards,

Very rare and interesting edition of this early French herbal, one of the earliest illustrated editions, with 65 cuts of plants.  The illustrations of the plants first appear in the Geneva Editions  three different printers Goff M5,M6, M7, all dated “after 1500” All thereof these editions are quite rare in US Libraries.

On the chronology of the Genevan editions of Macer Floridus, see H. Delarue in Genava 2 (1924) pp.177-86. Printed in the same types as the Arcana medicinae (Goff A947). Lőkkös dates about 1500, CIBN after 1500?, Goff after 1500. Dated about 1505 at BL. Woodcuts

The work takes the form of a Latin poem in hexameters, a poetic verse form that was most likely employed as a mnemonic device for physicians and midwives, describing the medical virtues of herbs. It was written under the pseudonym of Macer (with reference to the Roman poet Aemilius Macer, d. 15 BC). The author is generally identified with the French physician Odo de Meung-sur-Loire whose name is mentioned in a 12th-century copy of the text. This is“Perhaps the second edition with the prose commentary of Guill. Gueroaldus, which probably first appeared at Caen in 1509: see Brunet , III. 1270. The woodcut on the title is adapted from the earlier editions.

The 65 woodcuts of plants are closely copied also, but now have double line borders. ..DSC_0011 The text titled has been traditionally attributed to Odo de Meung, who is believed to have lived during the first half of the 11th century. Recent research has shown, however, that the De Viribus Herbarum was probably written in an earlier version, perhaps during the tenth century in Germany. The text was further expanded, including new data from the translation of Arabic texts into Latin in Salerno from the end of the 11th century onward. If this is the case, this text is good evidence of the continuity of scientific activity in the Middle Ages: its most ancient parts come from a period when there was a revival of interest in botany and a recovery of the classical tradition, while the most recent additions integrate the contribution of the Arabic world. “What was undoubtedly one of the more widely read works in this field (Botany) during the entire medieval period appeared contemporaneously with both Constantinus and the rise of Salerno. DSC_0012This work, consists of a catalogue of 77 herbs and their supposed medicinal properties; all expressed in 2269 lines of vulgar Latin verse. Even more curious is the fact that the poem not only refers to earlier medieval and botanical authors such as Walafrid Strabo; it was itself copied in part into the most significant remaining document of the medical school of Salerno, the Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum. Macer Floridus is important not only for medical and botanical knowledge but also for a wider range of medieval intellectual history. Its significance lies in the fact that it is the first document of such length to indicate a renewed interest in these subjects in the 11th century, and appears to reflect no direct influence from any Arabic sources.” Bruce Flood. ‘The Medieval Herbal tradition of Macer Floridus.’ It was a very popular work going through several editions at the beginning of the the C16th and this rare edition contains a very charming suite of cuts . “

Guilelmus Gueroaldus (Gueroust or Gueroult),  was professor of medicine at Caen at the end of the 15th century. There exist different editions of the Macer Floridus consisting of the same number of 159 leaves, with the signatures a-v. Although they resemble each other very much, they are not identical.” Becher. BM STC Fr. C16th p. 295. Fairfax Murray I 347. Renouard, Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVI siecle, t.3 n.35. Becher, A Catalogue of Early Herbals, 65. Arber p. 40.

A Miscellany of Divers Problems: Containing Ingenuous Solutions of Sundry Questions, Partly Moral, Partly of Other Subjects

Less like Bacon’s Essays and more like Wanley’s The Wonders of the Little World, Or Browne’s Pesudodoxia Epidemica.,and of course Joannes Jonstonus’ History of wonderful things.  The Divers Problem  deals with the curious things, ideas, and, common questions . It is a tour de force  of common sense thinking about common situation, with a little (small bit) of knowledge thrown in.

163J. P. Pellisson  [Also attributed to George Pellisson. Cf. BM.]

A miscellany of divers problems. Containing ingenuous solutions of sundry questions, partly moral, partly of other subjects. Translated out of French by Henry Some, M.A. late Fellow of the Kings Colledge in Cambridge.

 

London: printed for Charles Adams, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Talbot, near St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1662          $2500

Duodecimo Leaves A3-5 missigned A2-4; title page is A2. A 0(±A1-A10) a b B-K L8 (complete)  . First Edition Without the initial blank leaf, some inkstains in the extreme upper margins at beginning and end, and a couple of catchwords and signature-marks shaved at foot. bound in Nineteenth-century half calf, spine gilt; quite rubbed but sound. Ownership inscription “Gulielmus Leckey” dated 1723 on verso of title. The dedication says this work is by P. Pellisson, who wrote the history of the French Academy, also translated by Some.. The author said to be either Paul Pellisson-Fontanier, or his elder brother George Pellisson. Henry Some, the translator, died young, and there are three commendatory verses upon him at the beginning of this book.

The fifty-one “divers problems” which are, on the whole, still intriguing, e.g.: after the prefatory material, which ”  To this, Reader, let me tell you, that in some places indeed, the obscurity of my matter hath given me licence to make bold conjectures, and such as seem ed to me more likely to add Beauty than Light to my work: But that these places aie very rare, and that everywhere else I have laboured to give only solid reasons, and have we are apt for this reason to esteem them vain and f rivilous. But, Reader, I am not of this judgement, nay on the contrary

And here are some of my favorite “problems”

Whence comes it that Beasts do know naturally how to swim, and that Man hath need to learn?

What is the reason that the lowest Spirits are commonly most perswarded of the truth of their opinions? What is the reason that Fear makes ones hear [i.e. hair] stand on end? What are the causes of the marvellous things we observe in the Silk-worm?

What is the reason that Praises make a man blush?

Whence proceed the excessive Heats of the moneth of August, and the other effects which are attributed to the Dog-star?

Whence comes the custom of making fire- works And- shooting off Guns , either when a Peace is made  or after a victory, or at the entrance of . Princes ‘into some City, or upon other.

Why do we laugh in seeing a thing very Ul-favoured, since that which de-lights the mind, one would think, ought to have in it some perfection .

As for the ‘answers of these Problems, here is a quite interesting one:

What is the reason that Children in Winter, though their face and hands seem to show that they’ are more afflicted with cold than men grown , yet are not easily perswaded to warm themselves ?  Is it not because to warm themselves they must stand still a good while in the fame place, and that Children love to be constantly in motion, out of a kind of Impatience, which is natural to our spirit at that age? Or else is it, that when they are cold and come nigh to the fire is heat at first instead of comforting,, it doth more afflict them which happens, because it re-inforcech at first the cold of their bodies by Antiperistasis ; and that as they want experience and reason, and follow the first sentiment of nature, they reject this wholsom remedy for want of knowledge to judge , that by and by they shall find comfort by it ? Or else is it, that though their bodies be more easily altered by the cold, then those of full grown men, as it is plain to the eye ; yet this alteration is not so painful and grievous to them ; the reason of it is, because the cold hurts chiefly by too much hardening and making stiff all the parts of our body, and that theirs are so tender and so soft, that by reason thereof, they cannot but very hardly be brought into the contrary extream?

Wing P1108 (; nine locations in ESTC)

Belle da Costa Green!

The Morgan Library, which occupies a large complex on New York’s Madison Avenue, is known internationally as one of the finest collections of books and manuscripts in the world. It was founded in 1906 to house the private library of legendary financier J. P. Morgan, who began to accumulate rare books, illuminated manuscripts, incunabula and […]

via Belle da Costa Greene —

An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting

JANE COLLIER,  1714-1755

 

An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting; with Proper Rules for the Exercise of that Amusing Study…with some general instructions for plaguing all your acquaintance.

 

Art_of_Ingeniously_Tormenting2
“The Cat doth play,/ And after slay.”

London, A Millar, 1757.                                                       $2,900

8vo, pp [2], iii, [1], 234, etched frontispiece [of a cat tormenting a mouse, after Hogarth], bound in contemporary polished calf, spine gilt with raised bands,  spine slightly cracked and chipped at ends, but a clean sound copy,

SECOND EDITION ‘corrected’, with the ‘advertisement to the reader’ added;, one of the classic satires of the 18th Century, the work of a female friend of Samuel Richardson. Porkington Library bookplate with 19th Century signature of Mary Jane Ormsby, a much painted beauty married to the Irish MP William Ormsby-Gore.

Wickedly funny and bitingly satirical, The Art is a comedy of manners that gives insights into eighteenth-century behavior as well as the timeless art of emotional abuse. It is also an advice book, a handbook of anti-etiquette, and a comedy of manners. Collier describes methods for “teasing and mortifying” one’s intimates and acquaintances in a variety of social situations. Written primarily for wives, mothers, and the mistresses of servants, it suggests the difficulties women experienced exerting their influence in private and public life–and the ways they got round them. As such, The Art provides a fascinating glimpse into eighteenth-century daily life.swift-tormenting6.jpgAn Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting was a conduct book written by Jane Collier and published in 1753. The Essay was Collier’s first work, and operates as a satirical advice book on how to nag. It was modelled after Jonathan Swift’s satirical essays, and is intended to “teach” a reader the various methods for “teasing and mortifying” one’s acquaintances. It is divided into two sections that are organised for “advice” to specific groups, and it is followed by “General Rules” for all people to follow.

Although the work was written by Jane Collier, there are speculations as to who may have helped contribute to the content and style of the work, ranging from friends to fellow writers such as Sarah Fielding, Samuel Richardson and James Harris. There was only one edition printed during Collier’s life, but there were many subsequent revisions and republications of the work

In 1748, Collier was living with her brother Arthur in London. The conditions were not suitable, and she became the governess for Samuel Richardson’s daughter, Patty, by 1750.  Richardson was impressed by her understanding of Latin and Greek along with her ability to perform her domestic duties.   During this time, Collier was living with Sarah Fielding, and Richardson would spend time discussing writing with them.

It was under Richardson’s employment that she wrote An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting.   It has been suggested that Richardson helped Collier write the work, but Richardson’s lack of satirical skill has dispelled such ideas.

Instead, it was probably James Harris and Fielding who helped craft the satire, and all three probably helped to edit the work.  However, most of Collier’s help came from Fielding, who was a close friend and shared many of her earlier works with Collier.

The first edition was printed by Richardson for Andrew Millar in 1753.  A second edition of the Essay was published by Millar in 1757, two years after Collier’s death, but with revisions made by her shortly after its first printing.  Subsequently editions and revisions were published in 1795, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1808, 1809 and 1811.

The Essay is modelled on Jonathan Swift’s satire Instructions to Servants (1746), and even mentions Swift directly, but Collier reverses the roles in Swift’s satire and instead writes from a servant’s perspective in the first book.  All of her suggestions are to aid in the process of “teasing and mortifying”.

She begins her work with an actual “Essay on the Art of Tormenting” that serves as an introduction, before dividing the book into two parts. In this introduction, the narrator claims:

“One strong objection, I know, will be made against my whole design, by people of weak consciences; which is, that every rule I shall lay down will be exactly opposite to the doctrine of Christianity. Greatly, indeed, in a Christian country, should I fear the forces of such an objection, could I perceive, that any one vice was refrained from on that account only. Both theft and murder are forbidden by God himself: yet can anyone say, that our lives and properties would be in the least secure, were it not for the penal laws of our country?”

 

Part the First is divided into four sections: “Instructions to Masters and Mistresses, concerning their Servants”, “To the Patronesses of an Humble Companion”, “To Parents” and “To the Husband”. To the master and mistresses, the narrator claims that “you are no true lover of the noble game of Tormenting, if a good dinner, or any other convenience or enjoyment, can give you half the pleasure, as the teasing and mortifying a good industrious servant, who has done her very best to please you.”

 

Part the Second is divided into four sections: “To Lovers”, “To the Wife”, “To the Friend” and “To your Good Sort of People; being an appendage to the foregoing chapter”. To wives, she tells them to “Be out of humour when your husband brings company home: be angry, if he goes abroad without you; and troublesome, if he takes you with him.” When speaking to friends, she argues that “injuries go nearest to us, that we neither deserve nor expect”.

 

Added to the work are “General Rules for plaguing all your acquaintance; with the description of a party of pleasure” along with a “Conclusion” and “A Fable”. As a general rule, the narrator says, “By all means avoid an evenness of behaviour. Be, sometimes, extremely glad to see people; and, at other times, let your behaviour be hardly within the rules of good breeding”

 

Most of her contemporaries had only good things to say about the work. Henry Fielding complimented Collier on the work by declaring she had “an Understanding more than Female, mixed with virtues almost more than human”.  This line was part of a greater poem written by Fielding and inscribed on a copy of his favourite book of Horace.  This was one of Fielding’s last actions before he left for Lisbon, where he died shortly after.

 

Later, Betty Rizzo described the work as the “best-known generic satire written in the eighteenth century by a woman”.

Martin and Ruthe Battestin stated that Collier was “an author of wit and spirit”

Some critics find it interesting that Collier would “yoke” Richardson with those that he “felt especial antipathy” with: Swift and Fielding.

Craik describes the work as “a courageous social satire published at a time when satires were usually written by and for men”.

 

 

 

An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting

JANE COLLIER,  1714-1755

 

An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting; with Proper Rules for the Exercise of that Amusing Study…with some general instructions for plaguing all your acquaintance.

 

Art_of_Ingeniously_Tormenting2
“The Cat doth play,/ And after slay.”

London, A Millar, 1757.                                                       SOLD

8vo, pp [2], iii, [1], 234, etched frontispiece [of a cat tormenting a mouse, after Hogarth], bound in contemporary polished calf, spine gilt with raised bands,  spine slightly cracked and chipped at ends, but a clean sound copy,

SECOND EDITION ‘corrected’, with the ‘advertisement to the reader’ added;, one of the classic satires of the 18th Century, the work of a female friend of Samuel Richardson. Porkington Library bookplate with 19th Century signature of Mary Jane Ormsby, a much painted beauty married to the Irish MP William Ormsby-Gore.

Wickedly funny and bitingly satirical, The Art is a comedy of manners that gives insights into eighteenth-century behavior as well as the timeless art of emotional abuse. It is also an advice book, a handbook of anti-etiquette, and a comedy of manners. Collier describes methods for “teasing and mortifying” one’s intimates and acquaintances in a variety of social situations. Written primarily for wives, mothers, and the mistresses of servants, it suggests the difficulties women experienced exerting their influence in private and public life–and the ways they got round them. As such, The Art provides a fascinating glimpse into eighteenth-century daily life.swift-tormenting6.jpgAn Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting was a conduct book written by Jane Collier and published in 1753. The Essay was Collier’s first work, and operates as a satirical advice book on how to nag. It was modelled after Jonathan Swift’s satirical essays, and is intended to “teach” a reader the various methods for “teasing and mortifying” one’s acquaintances. It is divided into two sections that are organised for “advice” to specific groups, and it is followed by “General Rules” for all people to follow.

Although the work was written by Jane Collier, there are speculations as to who may have helped contribute to the content and style of the work, ranging from friends to fellow writers such as Sarah Fielding, Samuel Richardson and James Harris. There was only one edition printed during Collier’s life, but there were many subsequent revisions and republications of the work

In 1748, Collier was living with her brother Arthur in London. The conditions were not suitable, and she became the governess for Samuel Richardson’s daughter, Patty, by 1750.  Richardson was impressed by her understanding of Latin and Greek along with her ability to perform her domestic duties.   During this time, Collier was living with Sarah Fielding, and Richardson would spend time discussing writing with them.

It was under Richardson’s employment that she wrote An Essay on the Art of Ingeniously Tormenting.   It has been suggested that Richardson helped Collier write the work, but Richardson’s lack of satirical skill has dispelled such ideas.

Instead, it was probably James Harris and Fielding who helped craft the satire, and all three probably helped to edit the work.  However, most of Collier’s help came from Fielding, who was a close friend and shared many of her earlier works with Collier.

The first edition was printed by Richardson for Andrew Millar in 1753.  A second edition of the Essay was published by Millar in 1757, two years after Collier’s death, but with revisions made by her shortly after its first printing.  Subsequently editions and revisions were published in 1795, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1808, 1809 and 1811.

The Essay is modelled on Jonathan Swift’s satire Instructions to Servants (1746), and even mentions Swift directly, but Collier reverses the roles in Swift’s satire and instead writes from a servant’s perspective in the first book.  All of her suggestions are to aid in the process of “teasing and mortifying”.

She begins her work with an actual “Essay on the Art of Tormenting” that serves as an introduction, before dividing the book into two parts. In this introduction, the narrator claims:

“One strong objection, I know, will be made against my whole design, by people of weak consciences; which is, that every rule I shall lay down will be exactly opposite to the doctrine of Christianity. Greatly, indeed, in a Christian country, should I fear the forces of such an objection, could I perceive, that any one vice was refrained from on that account only. Both theft and murder are forbidden by God himself: yet can anyone say, that our lives and properties would be in the least secure, were it not for the penal laws of our country?”

 

Part the First is divided into four sections: “Instructions to Masters and Mistresses, concerning their Servants”, “To the Patronesses of an Humble Companion”, “To Parents” and “To the Husband”. To the master and mistresses, the narrator claims that “you are no true lover of the noble game of Tormenting, if a good dinner, or any other convenience or enjoyment, can give you half the pleasure, as the teasing and mortifying a good industrious servant, who has done her very best to please you.”

 

Part the Second is divided into four sections: “To Lovers”, “To the Wife”, “To the Friend” and “To your Good Sort of People; being an appendage to the foregoing chapter”. To wives, she tells them to “Be out of humour when your husband brings company home: be angry, if he goes abroad without you; and troublesome, if he takes you with him.” When speaking to friends, she argues that “injuries go nearest to us, that we neither deserve nor expect”.

 

Added to the work are “General Rules for plaguing all your acquaintance; with the description of a party of pleasure” along with a “Conclusion” and “A Fable”. As a general rule, the narrator says, “By all means avoid an evenness of behaviour. Be, sometimes, extremely glad to see people; and, at other times, let your behaviour be hardly within the rules of good breeding”

 

Most of her contemporaries had only good things to say about the work. Henry Fielding complimented Collier on the work by declaring she had “an Understanding more than Female, mixed with virtues almost more than human”.  This line was part of a greater poem written by Fielding and inscribed on a copy of his favourite book of Horace.  This was one of Fielding’s last actions before he left for Lisbon, where he died shortly after.

 

Later, Betty Rizzo described the work as the “best-known generic satire written in the eighteenth century by a woman”.

Martin and Ruthe Battestin stated that Collier was “an author of wit and spirit”

Some critics find it interesting that Collier would “yoke” Richardson with those that he “felt especial antipathy” with: Swift and Fielding.

Craik describes the work as “a courageous social satire published at a time when satires were usually written by and for men”.

 

 

 

Nice choices of Images

A guest blog post by Jarkko Tanninen, History of Art Junior Honours student on work placement in Special Collections. I was fortunate to be selected for an eight-week long work placement at the University of Glasgow Library’s Special Collections department, part of Archives and Special Collections, with the aim of gaining valuable skills in research […]

via Seeing the Reformation: Religion and the Printed Image in Early Modern Europe. — University of Glasgow Library

Perhaps The first English book by a Pack of Dogs!!!

158J AUTHORS  “Towzer, a Mastiff; Tray, a Spaniel; Lilly, a Hound; Fox, a Lurcher; Beauty, a Lapdog; Snap, a Cur; Trudge, a Carwibble; Smutt, a Sufferer, Cum multis aliis.”

 

The London-Puppies Memorial; complaining of the Great Hardships They have lately suffer’d by the Unmerciful Hands of St. Paul’s Dog-Whippers. Humbly presented to the High-Church, on behalf of themselves, and others.

 

[London] : Printed in the year [1710]                               $2800

Octavo 7 X 4 1/2 inches A4: eight pages First and only edition The London-Puppies Memorial The first Book written by a Pack of dogs? two copies in the US Copies – N.America Indiana University & University of Texas at Austin. (Price from imprint: Price One Penny)Signed at the end in type by “Towzer, a Mastiff; Tray, a Spaniel; Lilly, a Hound; Fox, a Lurcher; Beauty, a Lapdog; Snap, a Cur; Trudge, a Carwibble; Smutt, a Sufferer, Cum multis aliis.” The dogs complain against ill-treatment by the dog-whippers who were employed to drive them out of churches during services. A satire against the Church. There might have been earlier books in English supposedly written by a dog, but this is probably the first one purported to be written by a pack of dogs. (makes me think of Jack london) English Short Title Catalog,; T10130

William Tyndale

Renegade, rogue and radical: Martin Luther, King Henry VIII and William Tyndale. Of the three pillars of our Reformation exhibition, the radical Tyndale is the least well-known, yet he has been credited with founding the English Reformation and his legacy still influences us today. His first print translation of the New Testament into English had […]

via Tyndale Treasures — John Rylands Library Special Collections Blog

“Popish Midwife” Elizabeth Cellier , English Catholic Midwife 1680

741G Elizabeth Cellier
741G Elizabeth Cellier

741G   Elizabeth Cellier fl 1668-1688

Malice defeated, or, A brief relation of the accusation and deliverance of Elizabeth Cellier wherein her proceedings both before and during her confinement are particularly related and the Mystery of the meal-tub fully discovered : together with an abstract of her arraignment and tryal, written by her self, for the satisfaction of all lovers of undisguised truth.

London: Printed for Elizabeth Cellier, 1680          $1,800

Folio   A-l2, M2 (m2 is the begining of Wing C-1663)   First edition. Disbound, with generally clean, well margined leaves, though cutting into some marginal notation a bit, with some small stains on the title, some faint marginal toning.

Cellier, who was know as the “Popish Midwife” first came into prominence through the pretended “Meal-Tub Plot” of 1680.   Nothing seems known of her life till her marriage with Peter Cellier, a Frenchman, and her conversion from Anglicanism. In 1678 the prisons were filled with Catholics in consequence of the national alarm caused by the fabricated plots of Titus Oates. Mrs. Cellier’s charity led her to visit and relieve these prisoners, and as her profession procured for her the acquaintance of many leading Catholic ladies, she often became the channel of their charity towards the prisoners. Among these ladies was the Countess of Powis, whose kindness was shown to, among others, a clever impostor, Thomas Dangerfield. Becoming aware of this man’s true character, Lady Powis ceased to assist him further, and he, in revenge, decided to denounce her to the Government as concerned in a new popish plot. His story was that he had been released from prison through the good offices of Lady Powis and Mrs. Cellier, on condition that he would assassinate the king, Lord Shaftesbury, and others. He further pretended that he was to be engaged in manufacturing false plots to be foisted on those who were known to be unfavorable to the Catholic cause. One of these shams was to be based on a document which, he alleged, was hidden in a meal-tub in Mrs. Cellier’s house. Search was made, and in a meal-tub the paper in question was found. This document charged with treason most of the leading Protestants, including the king’s natural son, the Duke of Monmouth, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Sir Thomas Waller, who was the very official who conducted the search. In consequence of Dangerfield’s accusation founded on this document, Lady Powis and Mrs. Cellier were arrested, as well as some other Catholics, among them the Earl of Castlemain.  Mrs. Cellier’s trial took place on 11 June, 1680. She was charged with high treason, but practically the only evidence against her was that of Dangerfield himself, and she had little difficulty in proving him a witness entirely unworthy of credence. She was found not guilty, and Dangerfield himself was arrested on account of a felony, for which he had been previously outlawed. After her acquittal she published a this brief relation of the whole affair, under the title of “Malice Defeated”. This led not only to a long series of pamphlets for and against her, but also to her second prosecution. The charge this time was that of libel against the King and ministry, because she alleged that two witnesses in the Edmundbury Godfrey case had been tortured. But the real object of this prosecution, according to Roger North, was to prevent her from giving evidence in favor of the imprisoned Catholic peers.  For this she was sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000 and to stand three times in the pillory. During the reign of James II she planned the foundation of a corporation of skilled midwives and a foundling hospital. It is stated that she is buried in Great Missenden Church, Buckinghamshire. She wrote: (1) “Malice Defeated; or a brief relation of the Accusation and Deliverance of Elizabeth Cellier” (London, 1680); (2) “A scheme for the Foundation of a Royal Hospital and raising a revenue of £5000 or £6000 a year by and for the maintenance of a Corporation of skillful midwives” (London, 1687), printed in the “Harleian Miscellany” (IV, 142) and in the “Somers Tracts” (II, 243); (3) “To Dr. ______, An answer to his Queries concerning the College of Midwives” (London, 1687-88). This book was burnt by the authorities after Cellier was found guilty.

Bound with

Dangerfield, Thomas, 1650?-1685. 

The information of Thomas Dangerfield, gent. Delivered at the bar of the House of Commons, Tuesday the twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord 1680. Perused and signed to be printed, according to the order of the House of Commons, by me William Williams, Speaker

London : printed by the assigns of John Bill, Thomas Newcomb, and Henry Hills, printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, 1680.    Folio, A]² B-D².(Order-to-print on leaf [A]1v: I appoint Thomas Newcomb, and Henry Hills, to Print this Information … Novemb. 10th. 1680. Wi Williams, Speaker.)

“Tho. Dangerfield’s answer to a certain scandalous lying pamphlet entituled, Malice defeated, or, The deliverance of Elizabeth Cellier” and is Mrs. Cellier’s satirical account of Dangerfield’s career.

Wing C-1661. and D-187

Cellier1

N.America LinkCalifornia State Library-Sutro 
LinkFolger Shakespeare 
LinkHenry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery 
LinkNorthwestern University 
LinkUniversity of Kansas, Spencer Research 
LinkUniversity of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: