BACONIANA.
A FALSE-DATED BOOK.A REMARKABLE DISCOVERY.
When my books were being examined for that article by an expert wood engraver he insisted that the block there used in Naples in 1563 was the same as that printed from in London, in the appendix to Digge's "Stratioticos" in 1590, only it was newly engraved when used in London and had been much worn before being used in Naples. Obviously this was impossible, and apparently this was another instance of the unreliability of expert evidence. On the 11th of August I received a book catalogue in which the 1563 edition of "De Ziferis" was offered at 10s. 6d., and as it was a low price I sent for it. On comparing it with the copy I previously had it differed in type, illustrative designs, head and tail pieces, initial letters; in fact, in every detail, although on the titlepage the type had in one been chosen to represent that of the other. The same words appeared on each page, but in the first copy there was a key-word at the bottom of each page which was absent in the later one. Here was a remarkable position:-- Ioa. Maria Scotus had, in Naples in 1563, printed two editions of Baptista Porta's work on cyphers. For the illustration of each he had separate blocks printed; this meant that about fifty blocks relating only to the subject-matter of the book had been duplicated. What could be the explanation? |
There was another difference. The volume last purchased
had a list of 14 errata, and underneath the sentence "Auctoritate, Licentia
R. D. Aloysii Campagnae Episcopi Montis Pelusii ac Neapolitane Diocesis
Vicarii." In what proved to be the false-dated copy these fourteen mistakes had all been corrected, but another list of errata is printed in it containing 86 errors, of which 70 appear to have been unnoticed in the true Naples edition. The initial blocks and tail pieces in the copy containing the A A headpiece seemed familiar to me, and after a careful search I found every one of them in books printed by Adam Islip after 1590. In fact, they may all be seen in the edition of Chaucer's works, 1598, and the translation by Loys le Roy, called Regius of "Aristotle's Politiques," published in the same year. It was evident, therefore, that on the title-page of the volume containing the A A design the date, the place of publication and the name of the publisher were incorrectly stated. The only explanation appeared to be that it was an English reprint, but that the fact that it was a reprint was not stated. The book had been re-published in 1591 by John Wolph in London, and I had the good fortune to secure a copy from the first bookseller to whom I applied.* {*footnote: The 1563 false-dated copy is annotated throughout in Francis Bacon's handwriting. As was his invariable custom he went through the errata, altered each one, and as he did so ticked off the schedule. When I opened the 1591 copy I was surprised to find there also Bacon's handwriting. Pages 221 to 224 have been misplaced, and at the bottom of page 220 is a note. "Vide sequentia in initio Libri post folium tertium." On the title-page, in feminine Italian band, are the initials C. K. and the signature C. Killigrew. This is the signature of Lady Killigrew, who was Catherine Cooke, the sister of Lady Anne Bacon, and therefore Francis Bacon's aunt. She married Sir Henry Killigrew for her first husband and after his death she became the wife of Sir Henry Nevill.} |
![]() Contents |