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

Kircher and The first published illustration of a magic lantern.

This part one of a group of blogs on Kircher’s  Ars magna lucis et umbrae this books covers such a broad scope I’ve picked a few subjects to focus on and today Will be the Macic Latern  “De Lucerna[e] Magicae”

720G Athanasius Kircher 1602-1680

dsc_0081

Athanasi Kircheri Fuldensis Buchonii è Soc. Jesu presbyteri ars magna lucis et umbræ, in X. libros digesta. Quibus admirandæ lucis & umbræ in mundo, atque adeò universa natura, vires effectusque uti nova, ita varia novorum reconditiorumque speciminum exhibitione, ad varios mortalium usus, panduntur. Editio altera priori multò auctior.

dsc_0082

Amstelodami,  Joannem Janssonium à Waesberge, & hæredes Elizæi Weyerstraet. 1671 .

$15,000

Folio *4, **4, ***6, (*)2, A-Xxxx4 Second Enlarged edition. This copy is bound in contemporary calf with nicely gilt spine.

 

DSC_0001Kircher’s Major Scientific Work and his Principal Contribution to Optics”In Ars magna lucis et umbrae Kircher discusses the sources of light and shadow. The work deals especially with the sun, moon, stars and planets. Kircher also treats phenomena related to light, such as optical illusions, color and refraction, projection and distortion, comets, eclipses, and instruments that use light, such as sundials and mirrors. He theorizes about the type of mirror supposed to have been used by Archimedes to set Roman ships afire, drawing from notes of his own experiments performed in the harbor of Syracuse. The work includes one of the first treatises on phosphorous and fireflies. Here Kircher also published his depictions of Saturn and Jupiter as he saw them through a telescope in Bologna in 1643. On that occasion he observed that the planets were neither perfectly round nor self-luminous, contrary to the popular Aristotelian belief that they are perfect, unchanging spheres.”Kircher takes a great interest in sundials and mirrors in this book, and several interesting engravings are of fanciful sundials. He had written extensively on these subjects on his previous work, the Primitiae gnomonicae catoptricae. In Ars magna lucis et umbrae Kircher also discusses an odd ancestor of the modern projector: a device called the ‘magic lantern,’ of which he is generally, though erroneously, considered the inventor. “Before writing this work, Kircher had read Kepler’s Ad vitellionem paralipomena (1604), the first modern work on optics and was influenced to some extent by it. The Ars magna lucis et umbrae reveals Kircher’s contribution as an astute observer and cataloguer of natural phenomena” (Merrill)

Kircher and the Magic Lantern

Invented by Huygens in 1656, the magic lantern was the precursor of both the slide machine and the motion-picture projector. It was disseminated with great success to the public throughout the 1660s by the entrepreneurial Thomas Rasmussen Walgenstein who was also the one who had christened Huygens’ device the “magic lantern”. Impressed by the magical device’s growing popularity, Kircher includes the first illustrated description of the magic lantern, “De Lucerna[e] Magicae seu Thaumaturgae Constructione”, on page 768 of his second edition of Ars magna lucis et umbrae published in Amsterdam in 1671. (Devices of Wonder, p. 297).

Prominent Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, is nowadays widely accepted as the true inventor of the magic lantern. He knew Athanasius Kircher’s 1646 edition of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae which described a primitive projection system with a focusing lens and text or pictures painted on a concave mirror reflecting sunlight. Christiaan’s father Constantijn had been acquainted with Cornelis Drebbel who used some unidentified optical techniques to transform himself and summon wonderful appearances in magical performances. Constantijn Huygens wrote very enthusiastically about a camera obscura device that he got from Drebbel in 1622.
Probably the oldest document concerning the magic lantern is a page on which Christiaan 1659_huygens_-_figure1Huygens made ten small sketches of a skeleton taking off its skull, above which he wrote “for representations by means of convex glasses with the lamp” (translated from French). As this page was found between documents dated in 1659, it is believed to also have been made in 1659.
Huygens probably only constructed the lantern to amuse young family members and soon seemed to regret it, as he thought it was too frivolous. In a 1662 letter to his brother Lodewijk he claimed he thought of it as some old “bagatelle” and seemed convinced that it would harm the family’s reputation if people found out the lantern came from him. Christiaan had reluctantly sent a lantern to their father, but when he realized that Constantijn intended to show the lantern to the court of King Louis XIV of France at the Louvre, Christiaan asked Lodewijk to sabotage the lantern.
Huygens’ 1694 laterna magica sketch, showing: “speculum cavum (hollow mirror). lucerna (lamp). lens vitrea (glass lens). pictura pellucida (transparent picture). lens altera (other lens). paries (wall).” Christiaan initially referred to the magic lantern as “la lampe” and “la lanterne”, but in the last years of his life he used the then common term “laterna magica” in some notes. In 1694 he drew the principle of a “laterna magica” with two lenses.
Walgensten’s magic lantern as illustrated in Dechales Cursus seu mundus mathematicus (1674)  Thomas Rasmussen Walgensten, a Danish mathematician, studied at the university of Leyden in 1657-58 and was acquainted with Christiaan Huygens. It is unclear if one was inspired by the other or if they even may have collaborated on the development of the magic lantern. At least from 1664 until 1670 Walgensten was giving magic lantern shows in Paris, Lyon, Rome and Copenhagen, and he “sold such lanterns to different Italian princes in such an amount that they now are almost everyday items in Rome” according to Athanasius Kircher in 1671. When Walgensten projected an image of Death at the court of King Frederick III of Denmark some courtiers were scared, but the king dismissed their cowardice and requested to repeat the figure three times. The king died a few days later.

dsc_0086

 

One of Christiaan Huygens’ contacts imagined in how Athanasius Kircher would use the magic lantern: “If he would know about the invention of the Lantern he would surely frighten the cardinals with specters.”   Athanasius Kircher would learn about the existence of the magic lantern via Thomas Walgensten and introduced it as “Lucerna Magica” in the widespread 1671 second edition of this book Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae. Kircher claimed that Thomas Walgensten reworked his ideas from the previous edition of this book into a better lantern.

Kircher described this improved lantern, but it was illustrated in a confusing manner:

dsc_0092 the pictures seem technically incorrect with both the projected image and the transparencies  shown upright (while the text states that they should be drawn in an inverted position), the hollow mirror is too high in one picture and absent in the other, and the lens (I) seems to be placed at the wrong side of the slide. Experiments with a construction as illustrated in Kircher’s book proved that it could work as a point light-source projection system. The projected image in one of the illustrations shows a person in purgatory or hellfire and the other depicts Death with a scythe and an hourglass.

dsc_0080-2According to legend Kircher secretly used the lantern at night to project the image of Death on windows of apostates to scare them back into church. Kircher did suggest in his book that an audience would be more astonished by the sudden appearance of images if the lantern would be hidden in a separate room, so the audience would be ignorant of the cause of their appearance.
The earliest reports and illustrations of lantern projections suggest that they were all intended to scare the audience. French engineer Pierre Petit, who saw a show by Walgensten, called the apparatus “lanterne de peur” (lantern of fear) in a 1664 letter to Huygens. Surviving lantern plates and descriptions from the next decades prove that the new medium was not just used for horror shows, but that all kinds of subjects were projected.

De Backer Sommervogel IV, col. 1050, no.9 ; Ferguson I.466; Vagnetti EIIIb42; this edition not in Merrill or Becker; Barbara Maria Stafford & Frances Terpak, Devices of Wonder, (Getty, 2001); Linda Hall Library, Jesuit Science, 10; Kemp, Science of Art, pp. 191 (camera obscura); Harvey, Luminescence, pp. 103ff; Wheeler 169 (1671 ed.).; Caillet 5770

Myographia nova:description of all the muscles in the humane body

992G John Browne 1642-1700?

Myographia nova: or, a graphical description of all the muscles in the humane body, as they arise in dissection: distributed into six lectures. At the entrance into which, are demonstrated the proper muscles belonging to each lecture, now in general use at the theatre in Chirurgeons-Hall, London, and illustrated with two and forty copper-plates … Together with a philosophical and mathematical account of the mechanism of muscular motion, and an accurate and concise discourse of the heart and its use, with the circulation of the blood, &c. and with a compleat account of the arteries and veins, to their outward coats, proving them to be made with circular fleshy fibers, by whose contractions their trunks become narrowed, and the fluid particles of the blood are sent forwards into all the parts of the body. Digested into this new method, by the care and study of John Browne,

 

London : Printed by Tho. Milbourn for the Author, 1698                            $ 4,500

s-l1600-1 2

Folio 12  1/2  x 8 inches. [π]3, ¶1, a-e2, A-Z2, Aa-Zz2, Aaa-Hhh2 (original blank Hhh2 present). In addition to the preceding collation, text complete with 39 (of 41) plates including the portrait frontispiece and 2 un-numbered plates (lacking plates 14 and 16 Second edition. Enlarged

This is a lovely copy, in good internal condition throughout..Bound in original paneled leather, with the rear board cleanly detached, the leather rounded and with some moderate to heavier wear. The front board missing, and the spine strip only retains some fragments of leather. Inked names to title page and front pastedown. Pages and plates with age toning and the odd spot here and there. A couple of leaves/plates with edge tears, nothing too disfiguring. A super find that will shine in a new binding.

s-l1600-6First published in 1681 under title: A compleat treatise of the muscles. The description of the muscles is based on William Molins’ Myskotomia, and the plates partly on Guilio Casserio’s Tabula anatomicae.According to Lowndes, the copies of this work that contain Browne’s portrait are printed on large paper.“Browne was a well-educated man, and in all likelihood a good surgeon, as he was certainly a well-trained anatomist according to the standard of the day. […] His treatise on the muscles consists of six lectures, illustrated by elaborate copper-plates, of which the engraving is better than the drawing. It is probably the first of such books in which the names of the muscles are printed on the figures. Browne’s portrait, engraved by R. White, is prefixed in different states to each of his books” (DNB).John Browne, physician to King Charles II, James II and William III, came from Norwich and gained surgical experience in London and in the navy, being wounded in the Anglo-Dutch war of 1665-67. About 1675 he was appointed surgeon-in-ordinary to Charles II and surgeon at St Thomas’s Hospital in 1683. s-l1600-5He published other works on medicine, including the first recorded description of cirrhosis of the liver (1685) and the best surviving account of touching for the king’s evil (1684). His most important contribution was one of the clearest early descriptions of cirrhosis of the liver. Browne was subjected to a scathing attack by James Young (1647/1721) in which the present work was shown to be plagiarized from works of Casserio and William Molinss-l1600-4. The nearly 40 anatomical plates were, with few exceptions, taken from Lolins’Myekotomia. Browne did not respond to Youngs criticism, but did make extensive changes to his text and issued future editions of the book under the title Myographia nova.”. (Heirs of Hippocrates N° 642 1681 ed.). Includes dedications to William III and Earl of Sunderland, printing privilege, preface, 8 letters and poems of commendation list of subscribers and a Treatise on Muscular Dissection by Dr Bernard Connor at beginning; and Mathematical Disquisitions concerning Muscular Motion and An Appendix of the Heart and its Use: with the circulation of the blood and index at the end, with a plate. The present work is based on William Molins’s “Myskotomia,” and the plates are based on Giulio Casserio’s (1552-1616) “Tabula Anatomicae.” In its later editions, this work appeared under the title: “Myographia Nova.” Wing B-5126; ESTCR 20507; Russell 101; Cushing B-762; Wellcome III, p. 251; Eimas 642.

s-l1600-2 2

BROWNE, JOHN (1642–1700?), surgeon, was born in 1642, probably at Norwich, where he lived in the early part of his life. He was of a surgical family, being, as he says, ‘conversant with chirurgery almost from my cradle, being the sixth generation of my own relations, all eminent masters of our profession.’ Among these relations was one William Crop, an eminent surgeon in Norfolk. He was acquainted with the celebrated Sir Thomas Browne of Norwich [q.v.], who wrote commendatory letters prefixed to two of his namesake’s books, but there is no mention of any kinship between them. Browne studied at St. Thomas’s Hospital, London, under Thomas Hollyer, but after serving as a surgeon in the navy settled down at Norwich. In 1677 he published his book on tumours, and in the following year migrated to London, being about the same time made surgeon in ordinary to King Charles II. On the occasion of a vacancy for a surgeon at St. Thomas’s Hospital, the king sent a letter recommending him for the appointment, and he was elected by the governors on 21 June 1683, ‘in all humble submission to his majesty’s s-l1600-3letter,’ though the claims of another surgeon, Edward Rice, who had taken charge of the hospital during the plague of 1665, when all the surgeons deserted their posts, were manifestly superior. This royal interference did not in the end prove a happy circumstance for Browne. In 1691 complaints arose that the surgeons did not obey the regulations of the hospital, and pretended that being appointed by royal mandamus they were not responsible to the governors. In the changed state of politics, and under the guidance of their able president, Sir Robert Clayton, the governors were determined to maintain their authority, and on 7 July 1691 they ‘put out’ the whole of their surgical staff, including Browne, and appointed other surgeons in their place. Browne appealed to the lords commissioners of the great seal, and the governors were called upon to defend their proceedings. The decision apparently went in their favour, for in 1698 Browne humbly petitioned the governors to be reinstated, though without success. Browne managed to continue in court favour after the revolution, and was surgeon to William III. He died probably early in the eighteenth century.

s-l1600-1 2 (1)Browne was a well-educated man, and in all likelihood a good surgeon, as he was certainly a well-trained anatomist according to the standard of the day. His books show no lack of professional knowledge, though they are wanting in originality. The most notable perhaps is ‘Charisma Basilicon, or an Account of the Royal Gift of Healing,’ where he describes the method pursued by Charles II in touching for the ‘king’s evil,’ with which as the king’s surgeon he was officially concerned. Though full of gross adulation and a credulity which it is difficult to believe sincere, it is the best contemporary account of this curious rite as practised by the Stuart kings, and gives statistics of the numbers of persons touched (amounting between 1660 and 1682 to 92,107). His treatise on the muscles consists of six lectures, illustrated by elaborate copper-plates, of which the engraving is better than the drawing. It is probably the first of such books in which the names of the muscles are printed on the figures. Browne’s portrait, engraved by R. White, is prefixed in different states to each of his books. (Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 07 Browne, John (1642-1700?)
by Joseph Frank Payne

pathognomicall signes thereof

126J Wilhelm Fabricius Hildanus 1560-1634.
Lithotomia vesicæ: that is, An accurate description of the stone in the bladder : shewing the causes and pathognomicall signes thereof, and chiefely of the method whereby it is to be artificially taken out both of men and women, by section. Wherein severall wayes of operation are described, and the chirurgicall instruments lively delineated. Written first in High Dutch by Gulielmus Fabritius Hildanus … Afterward augmented by the author, and first translated into Latin by his scholler and communer Henricus Schobingerus Sangalthensis ; and now done into English by N.C. … With better instruments than heretofore.
 DSC_0013
London : Printed by John Norton, and are to be sold by William Harris in Coleman-street, at the signe of the White Hinde,1640                                             $2,800
Octavo6 X 4 inches (*)8, A-M8,N7 (N8 Lacking Blank) = one folding plate and four woodcuts within the text, complete minus the blank.(complete) First english edition (and only)
This copy is bound in later quarter calf over marbled paper boards. English; The translation is attributed to N. Culpeper in a note in the JRULM (The University of Manchester Library) copy…
DSC_0007Wilhelm Fabry (also William Fabry, Guilelmus Fabricius Hildanus, or Fabricius von Hilden) (June 25, 1560   February 15, 1634), often called the “Father of German surgery”, was the first educated and scientific German surgeon.  He is one of the most prominent scholars in the iatromechanics school and author of 20 medical books. His Observationum et Curationum Chirurgicarum Centuriae, published posthumously in 1641, is the best collection of case records of the century and gives clear insight into the variety and methods of his surgical practice.Lithotomia Vesicae  was first published in in Basel in 1626 and it was quickly translated into Latin by his pupil, Henry Schobingerus who published this from Basel in 1628.  John Norton in London was so impressed by the accurate account of the stone in the bladder, its causes, diagnostic signs and in particular the method of extraction both in men and women that he translated the text into English in 1640  This Book contains 27chapters that deal  with all aspects of urinary calculi. In the first chapter Hildanus  references the great authors of antiquity about stones including: Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna, Celsus,Albucasis, Lanfranco, Guy de Chauliac, Vigo,Vesalius, Fallopius, Fabricius ab Aquapendente and Abroise Paré. He notes that stones were:

a preternatural, gross, slimy, coagulated humour, broght into a stone of thick matter by a preternatural heat and hidden quality of the bladder .”

He spends some time discussing lithotomy instruments. He states

DSC_0010there “should be plenty of instruments made from the best iron ”Hildanus discusses five methods of lithotomy, the first was the method of Celsus. The second was that of Sanctus using what he called itenerarium, conductor and hamulus. The third was also described by Sanctus and Paré that was similar but used pincers for grasping and extracting the stone. The fourth method was the described by Franco where a suprapubic incision was made down to the ineneraium and a “tent” is left in the wound to suppurate and within a few days the stone will either pass or can be extracted with forceps. The fifth method was also from Franco, the most dangerous, where a suprapubic incision was made into “the inguen above the upper part of the ospubis” and he mentions the dangers of this approach . He also was a proponent of keeping the wounds open to drain with “tents” for
DSC_0008the urinary tract to heal, he would use silver cannulas to drain the urine .

His wife, Marie Colinet (or Fabry), was a Swiss midwife-surgeon who improved the techniques of cesarean section delivery. She helped her husband in his surgical practice and was the first (in 1624) to use a magnet to extract metal from a patient’s eye (a technique still in use today). Fabry wrote a detailed description of the procedure in his Centuriae and, although he explicitly mentioned his wife as having invented it, was given credit for the discovery.
 DSC_0011
BM; SGC; 1; STC 10658; Waller 2902; Wellcome 2133;LCCN: nuc 87-458853; Pollard & Redgrave; 10658.
Copies – N.America
Harvard University 
Henry E. Huntington Library 
 New York Academy of Medicine 
 U.S. National Library of Medicine 

 Yale University, School of Medicine. 

DSC_0001 2

DSC_0008DSC_0010

Raymond of Sabunde: From scripture to Reason.

723G   Raymond, of Sabunde, .        d 1436

Theologia naturalis sive Liber creatura[rum] specialiter de homine [et] de natura eius in qua[n]tum homo. :[et] de his qu[a] sunt ei necessaria ad cognoscendu[m] seip[su]m [et] Deu[m] [et] om[n]e debitu[m] ad q[uo]d ho[mo] tenet[ur] et obligatur tam Deo q[uam] p[ro]ximo.  

 DSC_0005

Impressus Nurembergae : Per Anthoniu[m] koberger [sic] inibi co[n]cluem,1502      $7,800

Folio, 11X 8 inches . This is about the fifth printed edition. A-Q8 R6   In this copy there are contemporary manuscript initials added in red and blue,DSC_0006 There is a gilt initial at the beginning of the prologue tooled in the gold leaf into a gesso ground. It is bound in full contemporary Nuremberg blind-tooled brown sheepskin over wooden boards,lacking clasps, titled is blind stamped on front board with contemporary paper label; There are several inscriptions on title, including reference to the Prologue’s inclusion on the Index Prohibitorum;(1589)there are the usual stains, browning and internal wear, some marginal rodent damage, the binding has been rebacked,it is a good solid copy .DSC_0004

 

Sabunde was Born at Barcelona, Spain, towards the end of the fourteenth century; died 1432. From 1430 to his death he taught theology, philosophy, and medicine at the University of Toulouse. Apparently, he wrote several works on theology and philosophy, only one of which remains, “Theologia Naturalis”. It was first written in Spanish then translated into Latin.

This text marks the dawn of a knowledge based on  both Scripture and Reason.

The Catholic Encyclopedia sees this as “It represents a phase of decadent Scholasticism, and is a defense of a point of view which is subversive of the fundamental principle of the Scholastic method. The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, while holding that there can be no contradiction between theology and philosophy, maintain that the two sciences are distinct. Raymond breaks down the distinction by teaching a kind of theosophy, the doctrine, namely that, as man is a connecting link between the natural and the supernatural, it is possible by a study of human nature to arrive at a knowledge even of the most profound mysteries of Faith. The tendency of his thought is similar to that of the rationalistic theosophy of Raymond Lully….Moreover, in Spain scholastics, in combating Islam, borrowed the weapons of their erudite antagonists. Close internal resemblance indicates that Raimund de Sabunde was preceded in method and object by Raymund Lully.” CE

What is new and epoch-making is not the material but the method; not of circumscribing religion within the limits of reason, but, by logical collation, of elevating the same upon the basis of natural truth to a science accessible and convincing to all. He recognizes two sources of knowledge, the book of nature and the Bible. The first is universal and direct, the other serves partly to instruct man the better to understand nature, and partly to dsc_0008reveal new truths, not accessible to the natural understanding, but once revealed by God made apprehensible by natural reason.   The book of nature, the contents of which are manifested through sense experience and self-consciousness, can no more be falsified than the Bible and may serve as an exhaustive source of knowledge; but through the fall of man it was rendered obscure, so that it became incapable of guiding to the real wisdom of salvation. However, the Bible as well as illumination from above, not in conflict with nature, enables one to reach the correct explanation and application of natural things and self. Hence, his book of nature as a human supplement to the divine Word is to be the basic knowledge of man, because it subtends the doctrines of Scripture with the immovable foundations of self-knowledge, and therefore plants the revealed truths upon the rational ground of universal human perception, internal and external.

The first part presents analytically the facts of nature in ascending scale to man,the climax; the second, the harmonization of these with Christian doctrine and their fulfillment in the same. Nature in its. four stages of mere being, mere life, sensible consciousness, and self-consciousness, is crowned by man, who is not only the microcosm but the image of God. Nature points toward a supernatural creator possessing in himself in perfection all properties of the things created out of nothing (the cornerstone of natural theology ever after). Foremost is the ontological argument of Ansehn, followed by the physico-theological, psychological, and moral. He demonstrates the Trinity by analogy from rational grounds, and finally ascribes to man in view of his conscious elevation over dsc_0039-2things a spontaneous gratitude to God. Love is transformed into the object of its affection; and love to God brings man, and with him the universe estranged by sin, into harmony and unity with him. In this he betrays his mystical antecedents. Proceeding in the second part from this general postulation to its results for positive Christianity, he finds justified by reason all the historic facts of revealed religion, such as the person and works of Christ, as well as the infallibility of the Church and the Scriptures; and the necessity by rational proof of all the sacraments and practices of the Church and of the pope. It should be added that Raimund’s analysis of nature and self-knowledge is not thoroughgoing and his application is far from consistent. He does not transplant himself to the standpoint of the unbeliever, but rather executes an apology on the part of a consciousness already Christian, thus assuming conclusions in advance that should grow only out of his premises.   Yet his is a long step from the barren speculation of scholasticism, and marks the dawn of a knowledge based on Scripture and reason.

 

Montaigne (Essays, bk. ii. ch. xii., “An Apologie of Raymond Sebond”) tells how he translated the book into French and found “the conceits of the author to be excellent, the contexture of his work well followed, and his project full of pietie.. .. His drift is bold, and his scope adventurous, for he undertaketh by humane and naturall reasons, to establish and verifie all the articles of Christian religion against Atheists.” See D. Beulet, Un Inconnu celebre: recherches historiques et critiques sur Raymond de Sabunde (Paris, 1875).

dsc_0038

seee:
Mariàngela Vilallonga, Ramon Sibiuda in La literatura llatina a Catalunya al segle XV, p. 208
&
S. Peterfreund, Turning Points in Natural Theology from Bacon to Darwin: The Way of the Argument from Design, p.3-9

 

Mediavilla, on Lombards sentences and demonology! 1477

957G

220px-Nuremberg_Chronicle_f_222v_3
A generic portrait of Richardus de media villa, woodcut from the Nuremberg Chronicle

[Middleton], d. 1302/3

Commentum super quartem Sententarium..

Venice: Christophorus Arnoldus, [circa 1476-7] $22,000

DSC_0285

Folio 12 1⁄4 9 1⁄4 inches. a-z10 [et]10 [cum]10 [per]10 A 10 B-D8 (D8v blank and aa1r blank) aa8 bb10 cc8 {320 leaves complete)

DSC_0286Second edition. This copy is rubricated throughout with nicely complicated red initials. It is bound in an age appropriate binding of full calf over wooden boards with clasps and catches with quite impressive end bands.

DSC_0125“Middleton, Richard of [Richard de Mediavilla] Franciscan friar, theologian, and philosopher, was born about the middle of the thirteenth century in either England or France. He studied at Paris, where he formed part of the so-called neo-Augustinian movement, defending the philosophy and theology of Augustine against the inroads of Aristotelianism, during the years 1276–87. He probably studied under William of Ware and Matteo d’Acquasparta, usually viewed as principal figures in this movement.

Middleton’s Commentary on Peter Lombard’s ‘Sentences’ was probably begun in 1281 and was completed in 1284,

when he became regent master of the Franciscan school in Paris, a post he held until 1287. The chief characteristic of his Commentary is its sober assessment of many of the positions of Thomas. Aquinas. However, the tone of his eighty Quodlibet Questions, produced during his regency, is much more critical and on many issues shows a strong anti-Thomist reaction. In this they have more in common with his disputed questions, which were argued after the condemnations of 1277 but before his Sentences commentary. The latter commentary has been edited along with his Quodlibet Questions. A small number of his disputed questions have also been edited, as have six of his sermonDSC_0126s.

Furthermore;  nine questions (23 to 31) in this volume form a veritable treatise on demonology, a rare type in the thirteenth century. Mediavilla’s remark is singular: he is the only thinker who gives an autonomy of existence to the demon, in the framework of a rational description.
Mediavilla focuses on the present of the devil and its modes of action on men. He is the great thinker of the demonic turn of the 1290s.
This text offers one of the origins of a Western genre, the “novel of Satan”.

The questions of volume IV

23 . Did the first sin of the angel come from a good principle?
24. Can the angel at the moment of his creation sin?
25 . In the first sin of the angel, was the comparison of the creature anterior, according to the order of nature, to the distancing from God?
26. Was the first sin of the angel pride?
27 . Did the evil angel repent of his pride?
28 . In the evil angels, does sin follow another sin without end?
29. Does the sorrow of the evil angels leave her with a certain joy?
30 . Would the evil angels not be?
31 . Can bad angels play our sensations?

Middleton’s link to the neo-Augustinian movement is seen especially in his treatment of the will, even though he does not entirely follow his teachers, Ware and Acquasparta. For Middleton the will is much more noble than the intellect, since it is much more noble to love God than to understand him. Understanding without the corresponding love separates man from God. However, the key to the will’s nobility is its freedom. The intellect is forced by evidence when evidence is given; the will also is forced by its nature to seek the good, but it is free in choosing the means to its predetermined goal. Even if the intellect were prudent enough to show man the best means to his goal, he would not be forced to adopt them. ‘For although the intellect, like a servant with a lamp, points out the way, the will, like the master, makes the decisions and can go in any direction it pleases’ (Stegmüller, 722).

The superiority of the human will over the intellect further manifests itself in Middleton’s conception of the nature of theology. Certainly, the study of the scriptures attempts to clarify human knowledge of both creator and creatures; principally, however, it aims to stimulate man’s affections. Middleton believes that scripture prescribes laws, forbids, threatens, attracts man through promises, and shows him models of behaviour that he should follow or avoid. The study of scripture perfects the soul, moving it

toward the good through fear and love. It is more of a practical science than a speculative endeavour. A theology that is speculative is one that models itself on the theology of the metaphysician or philosopher and tends to reduce Christian faith to reason.

The influence of Aquinas is more in evidence in Middleton’s theory of knowledge.     Middleton rejects the illumination theory of Bonaventure and his more loyal followers. Man’s intellectual knowledge can be explained, he argues, by the abstraction performed by the agent intellect from the singulars experienced by the human senses. In short, human individuals know, and they know by means of their own intellectual efforts, not by some special divine illumination. Unlike those who endorse the illumination theory, Middleton contends that there is no direct knowledge of spiritual beings, including God. God is not the first thing known. He can be known only by starting with creatures and by. reasoning about their origins or final end. Middleton died in Rheims on 30 March 1302 or 1303.”   [Oxford DNB]

 

Goff M-424; BMC V 206.
(The ISTC shows two US copies…

St Louis Univ., Pius XII Memorial

Library (-)& YUL – i.e. both defective) add UCLA.

 

See also  Satan the Heretic: The Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West November 15, 2006by Alain Boureau (Author), Teresa Lavender Fagan (Translator)513wgqIFYkL._AC_US218_

a handful of VERY VERY rare early English books Books!

  1. 904G Theophilus Metcalfe active 1649.

 A Manuscript copy of :

Short-writing, the most easie, exact, lineal, and speedy method that hath ever been obtained, or taught. Composed by Theophilus Metcalfe, author and professor of the said art. The last edition. With a new table for shortning of words. Which book is able to make the practitioner perfect without a teacher. As many hundreds in this city and elsewhere, that are able to write sermons word for word, can from their own experience testifie. A young man, that lately lived in Cornhill, learned so well by this book that he wrote out all the Bible in this character.

img_0106

England: after 1689 and before 1717                                                                              $5500

Octavo6 X 4 inches  55, [7]pp. + portrait of author. The last section of 7 pp. contains Directions for Book-keeping after the Italian Method.

This manuscript is bound in full modern calf. This copybook manuscript is taken from the last edition published by Metcalfe. The entire work is done with remarkable calligraphy. This is a rare copy manuscript item with complementary addendum on Italian Book-Keeping.

Theophilus Metcalfe (bap. 1610 – c.1645) was an English stenographer. He invented a img_0111shorthand system that became popular, in particular, in New England, where it was used to record the Salem witch trials.[1]Metcalfe was baptised in Richmond, Yorkshire, and was the tenth child of Matthew Metcalfe and his wife Maria Taylor; Thomas Taylor (1576–1632) was his mother’s brother. A professional writer and teacher of shorthand, Metcalfe in 1645 resided in the London parish of St Katharine’s by the Tower. He died that year or early in 1646, when his widow assigned rights to reissue the book of his system.img_0108

Metcalfe published a stenographic system very much along the lines of Thomas Shelton’s Tachygraphy. The first edition of his work was entitled Radio-Stenography, or Short Writing and is supposed to have been published in 1635. A so-called sixth edition appeared at London in 1645. It was followed in 1649 by A Schoolmaster to Radio-Stenography, explaining all the Rules of the said Art, by way of Dialogue betwixt Master and Scholler, fitted to the weakest capacities that are desirous to learne this Art. Many editions of the system appeared under the title of Short Writing: the most easie, exact, lineall, and speedy Method that hath ever yet been obtained or taught by any in this Kingdome.

 

2. 902G Thomas Shelton 1601-1650

Zeiglographia. or A New art of  never before published. More easie, exact, short, and speedie than any here to fore. Invented & composed By Thomas Shelton Author and teacher of ye said art Allowed by Authoritie.

dsc_0168London: Printed by M.[ary] S.[immons] And are to be sold at the Author’s house in Bore’s Head Court by Cripple-Gate,  1659.                                                                                 $2,500

Octavo 5 1/2 X 3 1/4 inches . A4, B-D8, E4.  The first edition is reported to have been printed in 1649, the Address “To the reader” dated: Sept. 10. 1649 , But the 1650 edition is titled Zeiglographia; New art of short-writing never before published.

Counting the unrecorded first, this would be the fifth edition. “A re-issue of the 1654 edition with the same title page except for the alteration of the date to 1659.”
This copy is in a well-used state. The leaves are all slightly stained and dog-eared. Paper repairs have corrected many of the curling corners. It has its original calf binding but could use a rebacking.

The Shelton short hand systems were used by Samuel Pepys, Thomas Jefferson and Sir Isaac Newton. “Thomas Shelton [a] stenographer, descended from an old Norfolk family, was born in 1601. It is probable that he began life as a writing-master, and that he was teaching and studying shorthand before he was nineteen, for in 1649 he speaks of having had more than thirty years’ study and practice of the art. He produced his first book, called ‘Short Writing, the most exact method,’ in 1626, but no copy of this is known to exist. In 1630 he brought out the second edition enlarged, which was ‘sould at the professors house in Cheapside, over against Bowe church.’ He is styled ‘author and professor of the said art.’ Another edition was published in London in 1636. In February 1637-8 he published his most popular work, called ‘Tachygraphy. The most exact and compendious methode of Shorthand Swift Writing that hath ever yet beene published by any … Approved by both Universities.’ It was republished in 1642, and in the same year Shelton brought out a catechism or ‘Tutor to Tachygraphy,’ the author’s residence being then in Old Fish Street.  In 1645 he was teaching his ‘Tachygraphy’ at ‘the professors house, in the Poultry, near the Church.’ Editions of this work continued to be published down to 1710.“Shelton, who was a zealous puritan, published in 1640, ‘A Centurie of Similies,’ and in the same year he was cited to appear before the court of high commission, but the offense with which he was charged is not specified. In 1649 his second system of stenography appeared under the title of ‘Zeiglographia, or a New Art of Short Writing never before published, more easie, exact, short, and speedie than heretofore. Invented and composed by Thomas Shelton, being his last thirty years study.’ It is remarkable that the alphabet differs from the tachygraphy of 1641 in every respect excepting the letters q, r, v, and z. It is, in fact, an entirely original system. dsc_0167On its appearance Shelton was still living in the Poultry, and there he probably died in or before October 1650. The book continued to be published down to 1687.“Many subsequent writers copied Shelton or published adaptations of his best known system of ‘tachygraphy,’ which was extensively used and highly popular. Old documents between 1640 and 1700, having shorthand signs on them, may often be deciphered by Shelton’s characters, though the practice of adding arbitrary signs sometimes proves a stumbling block. It was in this system that Pepys wrote his celebrated Diary, and not, as frequently stated, in the system erroneously attributed to Jeremiah Rich.“An adaptation of the system to the Latin language appeared under the title of ‘Tachygraphia, sive exactissima et compendiosissima breviter scribendi methodus,’ London, 1660, 16mo. This adaptation was described and illustrated in Gaspar Schott’s ‘Technica Curiosa,’ published at Nuremberg in 1665. It was slightly modified by Charles Aloysius Ramsay, who published it in France as his own.“About 1660 there appeared in London, in 64mo, ‘The whole book of Psalms in meeter according to that most exact & compendious method of short writing composed by Thomas Shelton (being his former hand) approved by both universities & learnt by many thousands.’ It is uncertain whether Shelton’s or Rich’s Psalms were published first. They appeared nearly together; both were engraved by T. Cross; and the size of each is 2.5 x 1.5 inches.” (quoted from the DNB)

Wing S-3093 Five copies in the US: Folger ,Huntington ,New York Public ,Washington University, Yale :Westby-Gibson, p. 201-202; Galland, bibliography of cryptology, p. 169.

 

 

3.     700G      F.G. = Francis Gregory     1625?-1707 

    Oνομασικὸν βραχύ      (Onomastikon brachy)  sive. Nomenclatura brevis Anglo-Latino-Græca. In usum scholæ Westmonasteriensis. Per F.G. Editio duodecima emendata. Together with Examples of the five declensions of nouns; with the words in propria quæ maribus and quæ genus reduced to each declension_   

dsc_00067

London : printed by J. Macock, for Richard Royston, book-seller to His most Sacred Majesty 1672                           $2,200

Octavo, 6 3/4 X 4 1/2 inches.   A-E8  This copy is bound in full original sheep cords worn  spine torn but sewing and binding still holding!   Gregory, born about 1625, was a native of Woodstock,  Oxfordshire. He was educated at Westminster under Busby, who, as he afterwards said, was not only a master but a father to him, and in 1641 was elected to a scholarship at Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating M.A. in 1648. He returned to Westminster School as usher till he was appointed head-master of the grammar school at Woodstock. He was a successful teacher, and numbered among his pupils several sons of noble families. An ardent royalist he was chosen to preach the thanksgiving sermon for the Restoration at St. Mary’s, Oxford, 27 May 1660, and afterwards published it under the title of ‘David’s Return from Banishment.’ He also published ‘Votivum Carolo, or a Welcome to his sacred Majesty Charles II from the Master and Scholars of Woodstock School,’ a volume of English and Latin verses composed by Gregory and his pupils. Shortly afterwards he became head-master of a newly founded school at Witney, Oxfordshire, and 22 Sept. 1661 he was incorporated D.D. of Oxford University from St. Mary Hall. He was appointed a chaplain to the king, and in 1671 was presented by Earl Rivers to the living of Hambleden, Buckinghamshire. He. kept this post till his death in 1707. He was buried in the church, where a tablet was erected to his memory._   This book consists of Parallel vocabulary : Then Examples of the five declensions of nouns; followed by Examples of Adjectives. _   Not in Wing see G1899E a different printer                According to the ESTC there are 28 editions printed between 1651 and 1769 listing only eleven copies in the US, This copy is listed with only one copy at the Westminster School (where else could you expect?!)

 

4*** 670G   Edmund Gurnay      ±1648

The demonstration of Antichrist. By Edmund Gurnay, Bach. Theol. p. of Harpley Norfolke

dsc_00076

London:Printed by I[ohn] B[eale] for Iames Boler, and are to be sold at the signe of the Marigold in Pauls Churchyard 1631                      $2,900

Octavo, 5 1/4 X 3 1/4 inches. First edition A12,B5{ lacking b6 Blank}. This copy is bound in calf boards rebacked.       Gurney matriculated at Queens’ College, Cambridge, on 30 October 1594, and graduated B.A. in 1600. He was elected Norfolk fellow of Corpus Christi College in 1601, proceeded to M.A. in 1602, and B.D. in 1609. In 1607 he was suspended from his fellowship for not being in orders, but was reinstated by the vice-chancellor. In 1614 he left Cambridge, on being presented to the rectory of Edgefield, Norfolk, which he held till 1620, when he received that of Harpley, Norfolk. Gurney was inclined to puritanism, as appears from his writings. On one occasion he was cited to appear before the bishop for not using a surplice, and on being told he was expected to always wear it, ‘came home, and rode a journey with it on.’ He further made his citation the occasion for publishing his tract vindicating the Second Commandment. Thomas Fuller, who was personally acquainted with him, says: ‘He was an excellent scholar, could be humourous, and would be serious as he was himself disposed. His humours were never prophane towards God or injurious towards his neighbours.’ Gurney died in 1648. Gurney was married, and apparently had a son called Protestant (d. 1624—monument at Harpley). DNB STC (2nd ed.), 12529 [Stationer’s Register: Entered 29 January [1631.]

Copies – Brit.Isles British Library
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge University Magdalene College
Congregational Library
Lincoln Cathedral Library
Oxford University                                                                                                                           Copies – N.America   :Folger Shakespeare &Huntington (only)

Fuller’s Worthies, p. 258, ed. 1652

 

 

 

5.    293G    Robert Russel  fl 1692

Seven Sermons: Viz. I. Of the Unpardonable Sin against the Holy Ghost: or, the Sin Unto Death. II. The Saint’s Duty and Exercise: in Two Parts. Being an Exhortation to, and Directions for Prayer. III. The Accepted Time and Day of Salvation. IV. The End of Time, and Beginning of Eternity. V. Joshua’s Resolution to Serve the Lord. VI. The Way to Heaven Made Plain. VII. The Future State of Man: or, a Treatise of the Resurrection. By Robert Russel, at Wadhurst, in Sussex

dsc_00095

Boston:Reprinted by John Allen, for John Eliot, at his shop in Orange-Street,1718                          $1,600

Duodecimo, 6 X 3.25 inches. A1 (lacking A2-A5) A6 B1&2, B5&6, CI6, K1&2,(lacking K3&4)L1&2 (lacking L3&4)L5&6, N1-6, O1 (lacking O2-5) O6, P1 (Lacking P2-5 (P6 blank) This book is bound in sheep over scabord and sewn on two leather sewing supports , a typical early American binding. All Editions of this book are quite rare, there are only two copies of the Boston editions both at American Antiquarian Society Worcester. Of Russell, I could find very little, yet he was immensely popular, especially in the colonies being reprinted in Boston in 1701, 1727 & 1728. There is no doubt that Russell’s style of sermonizing upon sin met with the Mather’s approval. All early editions are quite rare. Estc Locates only one copy at The American Antiquarian Society .                          

 

 

6.  606G John Reading  1588-1667

Dauids soliloquie. Containing many comforts for afflicted mindes. As they were deliuered in sundry sermons at Saint Maries in Douer. By Io: Reading.

dsc_000410

Printed [by John Legat] for Robert Allot, and are to be sold at his shop in Saint Pauls Church-yeard at the signe of the Greyhound :1627         $950

Octavo, 5 1/2 X 3 inches . A-V X .Leaves A1, A11, A12 are blank. With additional engraved title page (plate), signed: F. Hulsius invenit et sculps·. This copy is bound in original soiled vellum. Reading matriculated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, on 4 May 1604, and graduated B.A. on 17 October 1607. He took holy orders about 1614 and was chaplain to Edward la Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche of Haringeworth, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and governor of Dover Castle. After preaching at Dover many sermons before his patron, Reading was appointed minister of St. Mary’s on 2 December 1616, at the request of the parishioners, . He secured a position of influence in the town, and subsequently became chaplain to Charles I .  Although his sermons advocated Puritan principles, he supported the king’s cause in the English Civil War. In 1642 his study at Dover was plundered by parliamentary soldiers, and he was imprisoned for nineteen months.  By direction of Charles I, and William Laud,  Reading was made  the rector of Chartham, Kent, on 27 January 1643.  The House of Commons declined to sanction Reading’s institution, and appointed Edward Corbett. Laud refused to abandon Reading.  A prebend in Canterbury which was bestowed on Reading at the same time brought him no advantage. In July 1644 he was presented by Sir William Brockman to the living of Cheriton, Kent, and in the same year Reading was appointed by the Westminster Assembly to be one of nine commissioned to write annotations on the New Testament. Shortly after 1645, on the discovery of a plot for the capture of Dover Castle by the royalists, he was arrested by command of Major John Boys, and hurried to Dover Castle, and next day to Leeds Castle. There he composed the “Guide to the Holy City.”’ He was at length discharged by the parliamentary committee for Kent, and the restitution of his goods was ordered; but his livings were sequestered. On 8 January 1647 he was a prisoner in the Fleet Prison. On 10 March 1650 he attacked the right of unordained preaching in a public disputation with the baptist Samuel Fisher of Folkestone. Fisher used arguments from Jeremy Taylor’s “Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying,”’ which Reading had already criticised in print.Reading was restored to his Dover living shortly before the English Restoration of 1660. On 25 May 1660 he presented to Charles II, on his first landing, a large bible with gold clasps, in the name of the corporation of Dover, and made a short speech, which was published as a broadside. He was shortly afterwards restored to Chartham, made canon of the eighth prebend of Canterbury, and reinstituted to Cheriton on 18 July . In October following the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of D.D. per literas regias. Before August 1662 he resigned the living at Dover.   STC (2nd ed.), 20788 Estc Locates Folger and Huntington only.

7***723G Langston, John. 1641-1704

Lusus poeticus Latino-Anglicanus in usum scholarum. Or The more eminent sayings of the Latin poets collected; and for the service of youth in that ancient exercise, commonly called capping of verses, alphabetically digested; and for the greater benefit of young beginners i the Latin tongue, rendred into English. By John Langston teacher of a private grammar-school near Spittle-fields, London .

dsc_00069

London : printed for Henry Eversden at the Crown in Cornhil, near the Stocks-market, 1675.      $2,400

Octavo, 5 3/4 X 3 3/4 Inches . First edition, 2nd edition in 1679 and 3rd edition in 1688. This copy is bound in full 17th century calf, recently expertly rebacked.   This alphabetically arranged compendium of eminent sayings by Latin poets for the service of youth in capping of verses is the work for which Langston is best remembered. He issued a lesser known grammatical work, “Poeseos Graecae Medulla”, in 1679. He published nothing of a religious nature, but issued the following for school purposes: 1. ‘Lusus Poeticus Latino-Anglicanus,’ &c., 1675, 8vo; 2nd edition, 1679, 8vo; 3rd edition, 1688, 12mo (intended as an aid to capping verses). 2. ‘ π . Sive Poese Græcæ Medulla, cum versione Latina,’ &c., 1679, 8vo.” “LANGSTON, JOHN (1641?–1704), independent divine, was born about 1641, according to Calamy. He went from the Worcester grammar school to Pembroke College, Oxford, where he was matriculated as a servitor in Michaelmas term 1655, and studied for some years. Wood does not mention his graduation. At the Restoration in 1660 (when, if Calamy is right, he had not completed his twentieth year) he held the sequestered perpetual curacy of Ashchurch, Gloucestershire, from which be was displaced by the return of the incumbent. He went to London, and kept a private school near Spitalfields. On the coming into force of the Uniformity Act (24 Aug. 1662) he crossed over to Ireland as chaplain and tutor to Captain Blackwell, but returned to London and to school-keeping in 1663. Under the indulgence of 1672 he took out a license, in concert with William Hooke (d. March 1677, aged 77), formerly master of the Savoy, ‘to preach in Richard Loton’s house in Spittle-yard.’ Some time after 1679 he removed into Bedfordshire, where he ministered till, in 1686, he received an invitation from a newly separated congregation of independents, who had hired a building in Green Yard, St. Peter’s parish, Ipswich. Under his preaching a oongregational church of seventeen persons was formed on 12 Oct. 1686. Langston, his wife, and thirty others were admitted to membership on 22 Oct., when a call to the pastorate was given him; he accepted it on 29 Oct., and was set apart by four elders at a solemn fast on 2 Nov. A ‘new chappell’ in Green Yard was opened on 26 June 1687, and the church membership was raised to 123 persons, many of them from neighbouring villages. Calamy says he was driven out of his house, was forced to remove to London, and was there accused of being a jesuit, whereupon he published a successful ‘Vindication.’ The publication is unknown, and Calamy gives no date; the year 1697 has been suggested. Langston’s church-book gives no hint of any persecution, but shows that he was in the habit of paying an annual visit of about three weeks’ duration to London with his wife. He notices the engagement with the French fleet at La Hogue on 19 May 1692, ‘for ye defeat of wh blessed he God,’ and the earthquake on 8 Sept. in the same year. The tone of his ministry was conciliatory ‘towards people of different perswasions.’ In November 1702 Benjamin Glandfield (d. 10 Sept. 1720) was appointed as his assistant. Langston died on 12 Jan. 1704, ‘aetat. 64.’ (DNB). Wing L411;  Harvard,Huntington,U of Ill, U of Texas,Yale . Arber’s Term cat. I 213.

Copies – Brit.Isles British Library
Cambridge University King’s College
Durham University Library
National Library of Scotland
National Library of Wales
Nottingham University Library
Oxford University Bodleian Library
Signet Library
The National Trust
Winchester College Fellows Library

8.     635F Covil, Samuel. fl 1680’s Mock poem: or, Whiggs supplication. Part I. DSC_0005Edinburgh : printed by James Watson, and sold at his shop opposite to the Lucken-Booths, 1711        $1,800 Octavo, 5 3/4 X 3 3/4 inches First Edinburgh Edition A-G8, H4. This copy is bound in modern quarter calf. Of Colvil’s personal history nothing is known. His first appearance as a writer is supposed to have been in 1673. A work printed at Edinburgh in that year is extant, entitled “An Historical Dispute of the Papacy and Popish Religion,” which bears to be written by “Sam. Colvil,” but whether this was the same individual who wrote the “Whigs’ Supplication” is not certain. The latter work was published at London, in duodecimo, in the year 1681. It was much read, and has even continued to be read, down to a late period. Samuel Colville, was a poet of considerable reputation. He is described as a gentleman ; * an expression which is perhaps intended to signify that he belonged to no profession ; and his name occurs in a ” bond of provision,” executed by his father on the 5th of May 1643. His popularity as a poet seems at least to have equalled his merit. His ” Whiggs Supplication” was circulated before it appeared in print, and manuscript copies of it are still to be found: it was published in the year 1681, and has passed through several editions. Colville is manifestly an imitator of Butler, but he displays a slender portion of Butler’s wit and humour. The language of his poem was apparently intended for English, but is interspersed with many Scottish words and idioms.   ESTC Citation No. T32966 Princeton,UCLA, U of Texas, Yale. Foxon, C308

9.

812G Serre, M. de (Jean-Puget), [1600-1665]  Translator’s dedication signed: H.H., i.e. Henry Hawkins.

The sweete thoughts of death and eternityDSC_0014

(bound with)

Thoughts of Eternity.

Paris [i.e. Saint-Omer : Printed by the English College Press], 1632                          $2,250

Octavo 5 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches π1 ã A-X Y . First and only edition This copy s bound in its original limp vellum binding, soiled and rumpled.

HAWKINS, HENRY (1571?–1646), jesuit, born in London in 1571 or 1575, was second son of Sir Thomas Hawkins, knt., of Nash Court, Kent, by Anne, daughter and heiress of Cyriac Pettit, of Boughton-under-the-Blean, Kent. John Hawkins [q. v.] and Sir Thomas Hawkins [q. v.] were his brothers. After studying classics in the college of the English Jesuits at St. Omer, he entered the English College at Rome, under the assumed name of Brooke, on 19 March 1608–9. He received minor orders in 1613, was ordained priest about the same time, and, after spending two years in the study of scholastic theology, left for Belgium and entered DSC_0015the Society of Jesus about 1615. A manuscript ‘status’ of the English College at Rome for 1613 says that he was the ‘son of a cavalier, lord of a castle, a man of mature age, intelligent in affairs of government, very learned in the English laws, and that he had left a wife, office, and many other commodities and expectations, to become a priest in the seminaries.’ Hawkins on coming to England was captured and imprisoned. In 1618 he was sent into perpetual exile with eleven other Jesuits, but, like most of his companions, soon returned to this country, where he laboured, principally in the London district, for twenty-five years. He is named among the ‘veterani missionarii’ in the list of Jesuits found among the papers seized in 1628 at the residence of the society in Clerkenwell. In his old age he withdrew to the house of the English tertian fathers at Ghent, where he died on 18 Aug. 1646.

 

STC (2nd ed.), 20492Copies – N.America Folger Shakespeare , Huntington Library ,University of Texas

 

DSC_0008 250G Maulden, John. 1644-1714

A threefold dialogue, concerning the three chief points in controversy amo[ng] Protestants in our days. Viz. I. Whether the holy scriptures do prove the doctrine of free grace, or free will? II. Whether believers, or infant-baptism, be the ordinance of Christ? III. Whether the seventh, or first day of the week, be the sabbath of the Lord? Deliver’d in a familiar stile, easy for each capacity to understand. By Philotheos   London : [s.n.], printed in the year 1708.                 $1,950

Octavo, 6 1/4 X 4 inches . First and only edition A-F12 Bound in full early sheep. It is a good copy with deckel edges.

No copy in the US only two copies in the UK, All three of Maulden’s books are quite rare, none are represented outside of England.

 

 

Politeuphuia, Wits Common-wealth. (another copy!)

779G Nicholas, ed Ling fl. ca. 1599

Politeuphuia, Wits Common-wealth. Newly corrected and amended.

 

London : printed by M. Flesher, and are to be sold by Edward Badger at the Crane in St. Pauls Church-yard1647.

$4,900

 

Duodecimo 5 3/4 x 3 1/4 inches 3 preliminary leaves, 322 pages, 4 leaves A-O12. edition(?), first printed in 1597.(To the reader: “Courteous reader, encouraged by thy kind acceptance, of the first and second impression of Wits Common-wealth, I have once more adventured to present thee with the foureteenth edition.”) Copies – N.America Harvard University DSC_0025Lehigh University Library of Congress William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of Minnesota Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Bound in ninteenth century full calf edges gilt a very lovely copy. Usually ascribed to John Bodenham, who planned the collection, though the work appears to have been done by Nicholas Ling. Cf. Dedication; also DNB.p. Often cited as Wits’ commonwealth, and some editions appeared under that title. Published first in 1597, as the first in a series of which Mere’s “Palladis tamia”, 1598, was the second, “Wits theater of the little world,” by Robert Allott, 1598, the third, and “Palladis palatium, wisedoms’ pallace,” 1604, the fourth. Cf. DNB. “The popularity of this book, of which altogether some eighteen editions before the end of the seventeenth-century were issued, was due it would seem to the fact that it filled a peculiar need of the public of the day. It is difficult to imagine the style and tone of the conversation of the later years of Elizabeth’s court — the written word is the only clue. But it is certain that the more commonly endowed members of a society which included men of such wide reading and extensive knowledge as Bacon, Selden, Jonson and Raleigh must have frequently felt the need of some compendium of wise and sententious aphorisms by means of which they might ornament their discourse. It is just that function which this volume appears to be intended to fulfill for it is a compilation of precepts and maxims, frequently with their source noted, gathered under various heads such as ‘Of Courage’, ‘Of Nobilitie’, etc. Each division begins with a definition and ends with a Latin quotation, while the tables which are appended enable one to search not only the divisional topics, but also the individual aphorism much in the manner of a modern Bartlett.“The popularity of this type of manual in the early years of the seventeenth century may be compared with the deluge of ‘outlines’ of this and that which the public of the present day is encouraged to imagine will provide a short and easy road to knowledge and culture. This appears to be substantiated by the fact that this book is but one, the first of a series, of four volumes which for the want of a better name is called the ‘Wits Series’. From the fact that there is no indication in this book that it was to be followed by others it may be assumed that the series, as a series at least, was not projected until after the demand for this first book indicated the public taste.“In the address To the Reader, which otherwise appears to be a reprint of the text of the third edition, the present is numbered the ‘fifteenth edition’. It is quite possible that it is the fifteenth but we have only the publisher’s word as no copies of editions five to eight can be traced, and it is a well known ‘puffing’ device to misnumber editions.” (Pforzheimer) Wing L- 2344; see Pforzheimer 802.;McKerrow 259 [triple star]) Reblogged on WordPress.com

 

Magic skills and magical spells. 1491

998G Bernardus: Basinus 1445-1510

De magicis artibus et magorum maleficiis

DSC_0197( Tractatus exquisitissimus de magicis artibus et ma//gorum maleficiis, per sacre scientie Parisiensem doctorem ma//gistrum Bernardum Basim, canonicum Cesaraugusta//nensem, in suis vesperis compilatus. )

DSC_0194

Paris : Antoine Caillaut,1491-1492? (Dated by  CIBN: Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue des incunables. T. I (Xylographes, A-G); . Paris, 1981-2014. B-182)          $ 28,000

DSC_0195 2

Quarto7 3/4 X 5 1/4 inches  a8 b6.   Second Edition. First Published in 1483, (Goff B-279 listing four copies) This copy is bound in later vellum.

 

This treatise on magical practices was based on a speech Basin delivered in Paris before an assembly of cardinals in 1482. Basin was born 1445 in Zaragoza and he received his doctors degree in Paris, having study there theology and canon law.  In nine  propositions he explains how people enlist the help of demons and if the practise of such diabolic magic makes a person a heretic.

Basin states that magic arts, such as involving the invocation of demons and pacts must be been prohibited by all laws, civil and canon alike. Hain 2703. The editio princeps was published in 1483 and is extant in 12 copies worldwide. This second edition is more rare and exists in 6 copies worldwide. A corner stone text in the study of witchcraft and inquisition.

 

Only one copy in the United States of America: (not in Goff) Southern Methodist Univ., Bridwell Library

 

Not in Goff: Dated by CIBN; Pell(Lyon) 40; Bod-inc B-132; Sheppard 6190; Pr 7967; BSB-Ink B-233; GW 3720 ;  CIBN B-182; Aquilon 89; Parguez 146.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: