NOTES

Xtcolaus Fakutms and Nicolaus Nicoli first edition which has caused confusion is that printed by Lucantonio Giunta at Venice, since Nicolaus Falcutius, or Falcuccius (Niccolo Fal- it contains the somewhat ambiguous date in the cucci) must be the one medieval author who colophon 'M.D. xv. Kal. Maij'. This was at first holds the record tor having been wrongly cata- correctly interpreted as 1515 when the British logued in the largest number of modern Euro- Museum bought Dr. Georg Kloss's imperfect pean libraries. In ihe hope that he may be set in March 1835; but at the end ofthe nine- correctly catalogued in the future, I will here list teenth ccntur: the cataloguers (evidently Proc- the printed editions of his major writings onh, tor himself) changed their minds, translated the the seven huge volumes otSer?nones (which are date as 17 April 1500, and placed these volumes medieal, not theological), .md show what has among the incunabula as IC. 24250. But it was been their fate in the printed catalogues of the soon recognized by the wise Victor Scholderer, Knglish-speakine; world: for no one has ever got when preparing the Venice volume of B.M.C. him quite right. Vov lack of space I will not which came out in 1924, that the true date of enter into the question of his fortuua in conti- this edition is indeed 1515, and so these books nental libraries, btil will restrict m\self to were once again transferred to the general Britain and America. library. The erroneous date of 1500 for this edi- Falcucci was a I'lorenline doctor who died tion persists in the old printed catalogue ofthe about 1412, at what age I cannot say. The first Bodleian Libtary of 1843, while Hain 11769, edition ot his huije, indigestible, unreadable dated 1500, is also an error for the same 1515 mass of medical writings was printed in seven edition. 1500 is a ghost edition. folio parts by Damianus de Gonfaloneriis at But between the 1491 and the 1515 editions Pavia between 1481 and 1484, and a glance at there is one other which deserves mention, as the Gesamthutahg (GW 9704) shows that many tor some unknown reason it appears to be the modern libraries, including the British Library, rarest ot them all: it is not represented, for possess only a partial set of these volumes. It is example, in the British Library. It was printed rare to find the entire work in one place. by Bonetus Locatellus for the heirs of Octavi- The only other incunable edition of the col- anus Scotus at Venice in 1507. There is a lected works was issued by Bernardinus Stagni- complete set in the National Library of Medi- nus de Tridino at Venice between December cine at Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., there is 1490 and October 1491 {GW^-jO'^), and of this one odd volume of it in the Wellcome Historical the British Librar\ does have a complete set. Medical Library in London, and one other odd Trouble begins for the modern cataloguer when volume in Pembroke College, Cambridge. No we reach the sixteenth-centurv editions. The doubt others could be traced, but it is very rare 198 in the major libraries. The last edition to be pub- guendus proindc a Nicolao Nieoli celebri lished lit Venice (or anywhere else) was that pro- Codicum & librorum eollectore, deiunctus duced by L. A. Giunta in 15,^^ although the est anno 1412. C^um hoc postremo conlundit eolophonot pt. i of this reads 'In edibus Aurelii Fabritius Vol. XII Bibliothecae Graecae Pineij sumptibus Luce Antonii Iunte', with the pag. 447 . . .'^ date 1531, showing that Pincio was the actual Panzer in his index of 1797 has him under printer, and that the edition took over two years Nicoi.ALis l''aleutius. Medic. Florentinus, but to eomplete. Of this edition the British Library wrongly includes under his name (as had has a lull set. I have had oceasion to write about Maittaire) the works of Nicolaus Salernitanus, a it in another context, when discussing the typo- totally different author. All this was copied by graphical material of the printer Aurelio Pincio.' Hain, who in 182(1 enters him under 'NICOLAUS After 1533 Falcucci's ponderous tomes merei- Falcutius', with seven entries (Hain 11763-9). fully went out ot tashion and were never again In taet Hain 11763-6 are really b\ Nicolaus reprinted. Salernitanus, Hain 11769 is not an ineunable at It is not, however, the dating of the editions all but a 'ghost' of the 1515 edition; and so nos. whieh has caused major confusion in modern 11767 and 11768 arc the only entries left in Hain libraries, but the form of the author's name. which correctly represent ineunable editions of Nowhere in all the massive volumes of these Nicolaus Falcutius. four eoilected editions (as far as I have ob- Confusion has continued to reign through ser\^ed) is the author's surname Falcutius actu- the ages with regard to this author, who himself ally found in print. He is always called 'Nieolaus cannot be blamed for any of it. The Bodleian Nieoli Florentinus', in the customary medieval printed catalogue of 1843 has the horrid h\brid way, the family surname not being considered 'Nicoi.US (Nicholay) P'lorentinus', and the important. It evidently means that he was the British Librar\ (formerly British Museum) son of another Nicholas, but the form of patro- General Catalogue has always carried the two n\Tiiie is regularly 'Nieoli' and not 'Nieolai'. It headings F"AI,CXTILS, Nicolaus, and Nic.oi.i, is not elear when the real family surname was Nieolaus. The Hunterian Museum catalogue discovered, but I have traced it back to at least (Glasgow, 1930) has the two headings FA[.- 1779. The result is that in almost alt catalogues CUCCIUS (Nicolaus) for the I*a\ia edition of 1484 the ineunable editions have been entered under and NICOLAS (Nieolaus) for the Venice edition FALCUTILS, Nicolaus, while the sixteenth- of 1515. The Wellcome Library catalogue eentury editions have been entered under (London, 1962) has FALCUTIUS (Nicolaus), but NicOLi, Nicolaus; and it has not been realized also has an entry under NicoLUS (Nicolaus) and that these two authors are the same man. declares that he flourished about 1515, when we Mairtaire's index of 1741 has the heading know that he died about 1412. R. J. Durling, in 'NicoLAi Nieoli sermones medicinales', and his detailed catalogue of the sixteenth-century quotes the editions of Venice 1500'[i.e. 1515], books in the National Library of Medicine in Venice 14Q1, and Venice 1533- Maittaire docs the U.S.A., published in 1967, has correctly put not know the name of Falcutius, or at least does all the editions together in the right place, but not use it. He wrongly enters the Anlntolanum has made one small slip in giving to Nicolaus of Nicolaus Salernitanus under our author.' Florentinus the dates 1428 1324, whieh turn Miehael Denis in 17H9 indexes him as Nicolaus out to be the dates of the next author in his list, Falcutius Florentinus.' It seems to have been in Nicolaus Leonicenus. The new National Union 177Q when the learned Mittarelli provided the Catalog of America has a large number of true name: 'Nicolaus Florentinus Medicus, entries under the name of Falcutius, but un- cuius cognomen erat Falcuccius, distin- happil) makes one mistake in including among 199 them the Miliin 1479 cdilion of ihc , lululohn- tielh, they should be very careful what they do nitn of Nicolaiis Sakrnitaniis.^ whenever ihey discover the true surname of an The linu- has surel) arrived when ihis un- eiirly author who never used it in his own writ- fortunate metiieval aulhor should be catalogued ings and was never credited with it by the prin- eorrectly in all libniries. The lesson to he learnt ters of the fifteenth or the early sixteenth is that whether the cataloguers are working in centuries. the earl\ eighteenth cen(ur\ or in the late twen- DENNIS E. RHODES

1 n. K. Rhodes, 'An Unidentified Edition of Galcn\ Appendix., cols. 293-5. ^^ Mittarelli rightly warns Fcsnihiijl jur Chius Nisscti, ed. I',. Geek and us, we must not confuse Nicolaus Nieoli (Faleu- G. Prcsslcr (Wicshadcn. 197,0, PP- 575-8,1, cspcei- tius) with the famous hutnanist and hook-collector all\ al p. 5S2. of I'lorcnce, Niccolo Niccoli, who died in 1437. 2 Michael MiUttaire, .Inini/iiiin But the latter did not write any books. hirnns ijiinuus (London, 1741), p. 5 For a useful summary of the work of Nicolaus 3 Auihihinii lypogiiip/iitfitutn r. c/. Muhuclis I'alcutius see George Sarton, huroductinn to the liiirc. Supplcmculum^ Adornavit Michael Denis History oj Siiencc, vol. iii, pt. 2 (Carnegie Institu- (\ icnna, i7'S()), p.

RhhiiiJ Ihn/gcs and Slowc Miiniiscnpf /j Richard Hodges was the first known posses- sor of this manuscript. He apparently began his This note is intended to explain the relationship career in 1543 as a London haberdasher and re- between Stowe Manuscript 15 and Richard sided in Westminster and Highgate, Middlesex, Hodges., whose name appears on tolio t2^ with before his death in 1572/3.' He possibly repre- the date 1545. The manuscript is .1 small volume sented the Cit\ of Westtninster in the Parlia- of ninct)-two \ellum folios containing di\crsc ment of 1559' B} 1554 he was closely associated subjeets dating from the twelfth to the sixteenth with Sir Roger Cholmley (d. 1565), a former centuries.' It was originalh begun as a twelfth- Recorder of the City of London, Chief Baron of century Latin cop\ of the four gospels and this the I'Achequer, and Lord Chief justice.'' When occupies the majority of the text (fols. 26

200