lomed 
 
 1st & 
 
 \m? 
 
 
 '"r'-m 
 
 <m \ 
 
 ■ 'MATi 
 
 
 ^
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 From the Library of 
 CHARLES DONALD O'M ALLEY 
 
 1907 - 1970
 
 1 PAN N ES M ATT UJEVS 
 AND HIS TRACT 
 
 *' Dp: Rerum Inventoribus." 
 
 JOHN FERGUSON, 
 
 M.A., I.I..D., F.R.S.E., F S A , 
 
 |-.,||-...K i>|- ("llKMIS-IRY IN THE UNIVKK^m "I (".IAm;"\\. 
 
 CtLASGOVV: 
 
 'KINIKD l-()K llll'. KONAI. li 1 1 1.< (Sol'1 1 1( Al. S(KI1;TY 
 OF CLASdOW 
 
 m CAKI'KK AM) I'KAI r. 
 
 It)02.
 
 JOANNES MATTH.EUS ^ _^ 
 
 AND HIS TRACT ^^fol 
 
 *' De Rerum Inventoribus." 
 
 JOHN FERGUSON, 
 
 M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.S.A., 
 
 Proi-essor ok Chkmistry in the University of Glasgow. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 PRINTED FOR TIIK KOVAL PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
 (JF GLASGOW 
 
 BY CARTER AND PRATT. 
 1902,
 
 [From llie JVocccdiii^i^^s ol the Royal rhilosophical Society of Glasgow.] 
 
 Joa/ifics Mafthiciis and his Tract '"'' Dc Kcnim luvoitorihus.'''' 
 By John Ferguson, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.E., etc, Professor 
 of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow. 
 
 [Read before the Society, 4lh December, 1901.]* 
 
 I. There is an Itah"an author of the sixteenth century who wrote 
 a small treatise on the original inventors of various things. His 
 name was Joannes Matthteus Lunensis. His book was edited by 
 Agostino Giustiniani, Bishop of Nebbio, in Corsica. 
 
 2. There is another Italian author of the same century, who 
 wrote odes and hynms, and a translation of the psalms in Latin 
 verse. His name was Joannes Matthreus Toscanus. Some of his 
 works are said to have been edited by Jean Dorat (Joannes 
 Auratus), the Court poet of France. 
 
 3. Is there here one man under two different appellations, or 
 are they two different men? In other words, are the epithets 
 " Toscanus " and " Lunensis " synonymous ? The question is 
 legitimate, for the persons have been identified or confused by 
 iiome writers, while, by others, they have been practically, if not 
 explicitly, distinguished. 
 
 4. The first reference to the book about inventors I met witli 
 was that by Beckmann,^ and, without having seen a copy of it, 1 
 mentioned it on his authority.- Subse(iuently, I found one in 
 "Sir William Hamilton's collection (now in the University Library, 
 Glasgow), and gave a notice of it and of its author.^ 
 
 On that occasion I accepted what had been said about him by 
 Jocher, to whom Beckmann refers, unaware of any possible dififi- 
 culty in the matter. But, having had cause subsequently to dis- 
 
 [* The first draft of this paper was read to the Bibliographical Society of 
 I'",(linl)urgh, I ith January, 1900. It was afterwards elaborated in detail, and 
 tiuirely re-wriiten.] 
 
 ' Biytnii^c :,ur Geschichte der Er/iiidtinx'", Leipzig, 1 792, III. p. 559. 
 
 ■■' " Notes on some Books of Receipts," ... in J'raiisaclions of tin 
 Archuological Society, Glasgow, 1883, II. j). 232. 
 
 » Ibid., 1896, N.S. II. p. 369.
 
 4 Royal Philosophical Society of Ghxsiyow.. 
 
 trust Jocher on tliis point, I have become doubtful of the accuracy 
 of the account of Joannes Matthaaus which I formerly wrote, and 
 I intend now to re-examine the whole subject. 
 
 5. Jocher'* states that Joannes Matthasus, a native of Tuscany,, 
 was the author of a tract De Rerum ef Artimn Ifivenforihus, edited 
 by Augustinus Justinianus, of a translation of the psalms into 
 Latin verse, and of original odes, hymns and poems in Latin, 
 which were edited by Joannes Auratus. There can be obviously 
 no uncertainty about Jocher's opinion. 
 
 In an attempt to discover something more about the author of 
 the tract De Rerum Inventoribus, I failed to find his name in the 
 later biographical dictionaries, and thus learned that he and bis 
 book are practically forgotten. Accordingly, I turned to writers 
 prior to Jocher, and soon ascertained that they are by no means 
 concordant. It may, therefore, be as well at this point to collect 
 and compare the different statements. 
 
 6. The name Joannes Matth?eus, both with and without a 
 qualifying epithet, is not uncommon. There is a Joannes 
 Matthgeus ex Ferrariis, or de Gradibus, "philosophus insignis, 
 medicus illustrissimus," as he is styled by Gesner, in the middle 
 of the fifteenth century. He wrote commentaries on Rhazes and 
 Avicenna. A theologian, who wrote commentaries and contro- 
 versial works on theological questions, towards the end of the six- 
 teenth century was known as Joannes Matth?eus Smalcaldensis. 
 He was a professor at Wittemberg, and died September 18, 1588.'' 
 Another physician and author was Joannes Matthnsus Hessus, 
 whose books appeared in the early years of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury. Besides these, there are the two authors now under con- 
 sideration, Joannes Matthsus Lunensis, and Joannes Matthseus 
 Toscanus, to whom may be added a certain Matthaeus 
 Toscanus. 
 
 With the first three there is no difficulty. They are easily dis- 
 tinguished from each other, and from the other three, and as they 
 have no bearing on the present question, they need not occupy 
 us any further. 
 
 7. The earliest mention of Joannes Matthaeus Lunensis, ot 
 which I am aware, is in the appendix to Conrad Gesner's Bihlio- 
 theca, where there is ascribed to him the work De Mulieribus 
 
 ■• Allgemeines Gclehrteu-Lexicon, Leipzig, 1751, III. col. 287-8. 
 
 •'' Freher, 7'hcatntm I'irorum Eriiditionc C/aroniiii, Norib. 1688, I. p. 274.
 
 Prof. Ferguson ofi Joannes Matthceus and His Tract. 5 
 
 Claris, published at Paris in 1520.'^ Reference will be made lo 
 this book further on. The Libellus Dc Reriim Invenforibiis is 
 not included, and as for the name of Joannes Matthajus Toscanus, 
 it does not appear in it till the edition of 1583, when he is spoken 
 of as the author of a translation of the psalms. 
 
 8. Next in order of time is Georgius Draudius, who certainly 
 ■draws a distinction between the two writers. Under Joannes 
 Ma'threus Lunensis he places " the tracts about inventors and 
 about famous women, but he gets into some confusion over the 
 other, for he ascribes to Joannes Matthreus Toscanus the transla- 
 tion of the psalms,'^ the collection of Italian poets who wrote in 
 Latin,'-' and the Antliologia Epigrani/nafitin,^''^ although the com- 
 piler of this last work is called Matthaius Toscanus simply, and 
 not Joannes. As for the Pepliis Ifa/icc he has got its author's 
 name wrong, for he styles him Joannes Maria Toscanus." This 
 same error crops up subsequently. 
 
 9. Notwithstanding these entries by Draudius, Hallervord ^■- 
 puts the LH>cllits De Reriim Invenforibiis, 1520, and the Pepliis 
 Italiie, 1578, under the same author, whom he terms Joannes 
 Matthceus Lunensis, with the additional epithet " Hetruscus," 
 which, though more general, comes practically to the same thing. 
 This is as plainly an identification of the two authors. The 
 <;pithet Hetruscus, it may be remarked, was never employed by 
 either Matthasus Lunensis or Toscanus. 
 
 10. Konig's^'^ article is almost a copy of the preceding. He, too, 
 styles Mattha;us " Lunensis, Hetruscus," and makes him author 
 both of the De Rerinn Inventoribiis, 1520, and Feplus Italice. 
 But under Toscanus,^^ whose name does not appear in Hallervord's 
 list, he puts the metrical version of the psalms, 1596, but not the 
 
 " Hibliolhcca i'liivt-rsa/is, Tiguri, 1545, Appendix, f. 67 rt-rso. The same 
 «nlry is repeated in tiie .subse(iuenl editions of 1555 (I'aralipoinena) p. 184 ; 
 1574. P- 394; I5^J' P- 394- i-'T Tosomus, see 1583, p. 471. 
 
 ■' Hihliothcca C/assiid, Francofiiili ad Moenuni, 1625, I. p. 1155 and p. 11S9 
 {misprinted 11 98). 
 
 ■* //>id., II. 1). 15S6. 
 
 ■' Ifiid., II. p 1521 and 155S. In tiie former of these the name is misspelt 
 7'ossaiiiis\ wliieli miglil make a confusion with a Pelrus, a Daniel, aiul a 
 I'aulus Tossanus, all of whom are known. 
 
 3« Ibid., II. p. 1534. " I/mt., I. p. 12S5. 
 
 '■•^ Ribliotheca Citriosa, Regiomonli el Francofurti, 1676, |). i8<). 
 
 '•* Hibliolheca Vet us et Nova, . . . a Geor!;io Malttiia Kc'migio, Alldorfi 
 . . . 1678, p. 519. 
 
 '•« Ibid., p. Si 5.
 
 6 Royal Philosophical Society of Glas^^i^ow. 
 
 Peplus, so that his statements about these authors conflict with 
 those of Draudius. 
 
 11. The entries in the catalogue of the Barberini Hbrary ex- 
 plicitly discriminate between our authors. Under Matthieus ^■'' 
 appears the De Rcnim Invciiforiluis, 1613, and under Toscanus !"• 
 the Can/ii/ia. It is true that to Matthfeus are apparently ascribed 
 also certain medical tracts which were written a century later by 
 J. Matthcxus Hessus, but that confusion is easily rectified, and 
 does not concern us now, 
 
 12. A variation on the preceding entries was introduced by 
 Antoine Teissier/' who distinguished the two in a different way. 
 He names them both Joannes Matthx^us, but to one he gives the 
 epithet Linie/isis, to the other Tosca/nis, which he evidently regards 
 as a mere adjective, and not as an essential part of the name. 
 Under Lunensis are given both the Libellus De Renim Inveiitori- 
 bus, 16 1 4 (sic), and Opus De Miilieriluis Cla?-is, 1520, but no 
 mention is made of a 1520 edition of the former tract. 
 
 The Pepliis Italice, 1578, is ascribed to Toscanus, and there is 
 quoted, on Ph. Labbe's authority, a copy with additions and 
 corrections in the author's hand, in the possession of Raphael 
 Trichet Dufresne, "<//// Bibliofhecam Historicoruin Italice magna 
 studio adoriiabat." The other works of Toscanus are not referred 
 to because they did not come within the scope of Teissier's list. 
 Apparently, while discriminating between these authors, he has 
 not quite grasped the real ground of difference. 
 
 13. Only the tract De Rerum Inventor ihiis, by Jo. Matthreus 
 Lunensis, misdated 1620, is mentioned by Jacob Friedrich 
 Reimmann,^^ who, moreover, warns his readers not to confuse him 
 with Joannes Matthaius Smalcaldensis. 
 
 14. Zedler, also, quoting Hallervord, mentions only the Peplus 
 Italice, 1578) ^nd De Inventoribus Re rum, 1520 and 16 13, and 
 assigns both to Lunensis.^'' But Zedler has also an article -" under 
 
 ^■' Index BibliotheCiV qua Francisctts Barberimis . . . Alaguifuentis- 
 siiiias S2i(C Familia ad Qiiirinalein ^-Edes . magiuficcutiorcs rccMidi'L RouiiV, 
 1681, II. p. 43. 
 
 16 Ibid., p. 473. 
 
 1" CatalogiisAiictorum qui Libroniin Catalogos, Indices, Bibliothecas, I'irorum 
 Litleratorum Elpgia, J'i/as, aul Oratioues Fuucbres, Script is coiisiptarunt, _ 
 Gc'neva', 1686, 410, p. 190. 
 
 ^'* Vcrsuck einer Einleitung in die Ilistoriaiu literariaiu antedilux'ianani, 
 Halle im Magdeb. 1709, p. 213. 
 
 1^ Universal -Le.xicpu, Leipzig, 1739, XIX. col. 2105. 
 
 ^" Ibid., 1745, XLIV. col. 16 1 3
 
 Prof, Ferguson on Joa/i/ics Mafthccus and His Ti-act. 7 
 
 ' Tosc^nus,' whom he credits with the A /i/Zio/oi^ia Epigrammati/m, 
 1619, and Pephts Ifalicc, 1658 {sic). 
 
 Zedler's double entries indicate either forgetfulness on the part 
 of a single author of the two paragraphs, or else emanation from 
 quite different writers, but, anyhow, as they are full of confusion, 
 they have the effect of increasing the obscurity, and contributing 
 to the identification of the two writers which we find at last com- 
 pleted in Jocher. 
 
 15. In speaking of the Feplus Italian 1578, Jo. Albertus Fab- 
 ricius-^ ascribes it to Toscanus, and makes no reference to any 
 other works either by him or by Lunensis. He repeats what is 
 said by Teissier about a copy with the author's emendations, but 
 adds that he could not discover what had become of it. 
 
 16. Though Jocher identifies the two authors as far as their 
 works are concerned, he does not style the writer either Lunensis 
 or Toscanus ; perhaps he was bothered by the conflict of authorities, 
 was not sure about the epithets, and thought it most judicious to 
 drop them entirely. He commits the mistake, also, of calling 
 him Mattha^i, instead of Mattha;us, but he evidently looks upon 
 that as his fiimily name. Jocher enumerates only the Lihellits 
 J)e Reruju Invcntoribiis \'^2o\xwdi \(i\2i,'3^'^'^'^ P^<^l»ii Davidis . . . 
 /iy?nni ef/>oema/a, Paris, 1576. 
 
 17. Lessing,-'- who has devoted a section to the author of the 
 De Rerum Invcutorihiis, follows Jocher as to his having written 
 poems edited by Joannes Auratus, but he, too, avoids the epithets 
 i.unensis and Toscanus. 
 
 18. Even Beckmann,--' who is so careful in general, has taken 
 Jocher's statement for granted, and assigned the authorship of the 
 Pcphis Italice^ as well as of the Latin poems, to Joannes Mattha^us 
 Lunensis. 
 
 19. Singularly enough, while Graesse has omitted both authors 
 from his great catalogue,-^ he has mentioned and clearly distin- 
 guished them in his Litcriiri;;cschiihtc. Toscanus, whom he too 
 misnames Maria, was, he says, a native of Milan, known by poetic 
 biographies of his ( ontemporaries, and Graesse refers to the Pcp/ns 
 
 -'' Coiispirtiis I'lusaiiri Lillcrarii Ilaliii, Haiiihurgi, 1 730, p. 285. 
 
 '-- KolUhlanci'ii ziir I.iterattir, Berlin, 1 790, II. j)|). I42-I45. 
 
 -' Sup. § 4, wAi- I. 
 
 -^ 7'n'sor ({<■ /.itiys A'arex, Dri'Stk-, 1859-1869.
 
 S Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 I(ali(e, Lutet., 1578, 8vo, and the reprint by Fabricius, Consp, Hal., 
 p. 369.25 
 
 The other he calls Johann Mattha;us, of Luna, in Tuscany, who 
 wrote on the history of inventions, mentioning the Paris edition of 
 1520, and that of Hamburg, 16 13."-'' 
 
 It is obvious that Graesse not only considered them as quite 
 distinct, but as having different names, the poet being called 
 Toscanus, the historian Matthreus, thus differing from Teissier and 
 Jocher. 
 
 20. From these extracts it will be seen how much uncertainty 
 envelopes the individuality of these writers. None of the autho- 
 rities (except perhaps Draudius), gives a full list of their respective 
 works if they were believed to be different, or collectively if they 
 were believed to be identical. 
 
 It is also worth 'remarking that they are neither of them men- 
 tioned by writers on rare books. Either their works were so rare 
 that they were not known at all, or else they were not considered 
 of sufficient importance to be noticed. 
 
 When, therefore I identified these writers,-" I followed what I 
 thought were sound authorities, and omitted to subject them to 
 the scrutiny which the foregoing com])arison proves plainly was. 
 necessary. If I erred, it was, truly, in respectable company, 
 but that is no excuse for not having made sure of my guides. 
 
 21. The two authors may now be specially considered. Of 
 Joannes Matthaeus Toscanus, who, for convenience, may be called 
 simply Toscanus, there is the briefest notice in the biographical 
 dictionaries and histories. 
 
 Tiraboschi -^ speaks of him as Giammatteo Toscano, a Milanese, 
 who lived a long time in France. l)e Angelis -' possibly simply 
 copying Tiraboschi, says he was born at Milan, adding that it 
 was towards the end of the fifteenth century, but no year is men- 
 tioned. Graesse,^'^ in turn, repeats that he was a Milanese. Peter 
 Burmann,^^ referring to a promised third volume of Italian poets, 
 
 "' Lchrhuch einer alli^ciuciiioi Literiirgeschichtc. . . . Leipzig, 1852, 
 V. p. 1214, and p. 1226, note 107. 
 '^ Ibid, 1853, VI. p. 789, and p. 790, note 2. 
 -" Sup. § 4, note 3, 
 
 '-^ Sloria delta Letteratura Italiana, Firenze, 1812, VII. iii. p. 1025, 
 '-® Biographie Universelte, Paris, no date, XLII. p. 2. 
 ^" Sup. § 19, note 25. 
 21 Infr. § 25.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes Matfhccus and His Tract. 9* 
 
 which, however, never appeared, calls him Joannes Malthreus 
 Toscanus. So, too, Crescimbeni,^-' who quotes both the Feplus 
 Itali(e and the Carniina Poetarum Ifalonim more than once, calls 
 the author Toscanus, with or without his christian names. All 
 these authorities seem to me to consider that 1 oscanus, whatever 
 it may have signified originally, was his family name, and not a 
 mere birthplace appellation, as it was certainly regarded by Teissier,, 
 and must have been by Jocher. 
 
 22. His writings are well known. The following, which I have 
 seen, form, I believe, a complete list. 
 
 1565. Adr. 'rvinebi | Ad Acadeniiam | Parisiensem | lIpoa-wTroTroii'a | 
 Aiicton- /('. Mattluco Toscaiio Romano. \ [Device.] 
 
 Parisiis \ Apiid Thomant Kn/iardtini, sith Bibliis aiircis, \ c rci^ione 
 coUegij Kheiiieiisis\ 1565. | 
 Small 4°. A in fours. Aj, Title leaf; Aij recto, folio 2, Text of the 
 poem begins ; it ends Aiij verso, folio 3 ; Aiiij is blank. 
 
 This is one of the multitudinous elegies called forth by the 
 death of the famous professor of Greek, at Paris. It is included 
 in the author's collected poems, 1575, p. 55, but this 1565 editiott 
 is not quoted by the bibliographers. 
 
 23- 1575- Psalmi Davidis ex hebraica veritale latinis versibus express!. 
 . . . (^)iiibus pnvfixa sunt Argumenta singulis Distichis comprehensa^ 
 opera lo. Aurati I'oette Regij.-*"* 
 
 Parisiis. Kx Officina Federici Morclli . . . 1575. 8vo. 
 The edition cited by Draudius {Bibliotheca Classica, 1625, II. 
 p. 1586), has tlie date 1576. That by Konig {BibliotJieca I'efits 
 et Nova, 1678, p. 815), has the date 1596. I suspect this is a 
 misprint. I have seen no other reference to a copy of this date. 
 
 24. 1575. C3clo Cantica Sacrae Sacris Bibliis latino carmine expressa . . . 
 pnvfixis argunientis lo. Aurati Poetie Regij. Ejusdem Toscani Il\nini 
 et Poemata. 
 
 I'arisiis. Ex Oflicina Federici Morelli . . . iS7v "i^'o. 
 This volume contains paraphrases of the songs of Zacharias,. 
 Anna, Simeon, etc., hymns, epigrams, and odes. Draudius quotes, 
 an edition of 1576, and so does Jocher, possibly a re-issue wiili a 
 new title page. 
 
 *^ V hloria del la Vo/i^ar /'ocsia scritta da Gio. Mario Crcsciiiiheiii, \'enezia,. 
 1731- 4'- 
 
 •'^ Olaus Borrichius, who has just a line to spare for Jo. Auratus (Z)/.f.ftv-/rt- 
 liones Acadeiiiicic de /Wtis, Francof. 1683, 4° p. Ill), does not mention 
 Toscanus among cither Italian or Frcncli poets. 
 
 .\ 2
 
 10 Royal riiilosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 The statement that the psahns, hymns, and odes were edited by 
 Joannes Auratus (Jean Dorat) (S 2), seems to have originated >vith 
 Jocher by a misunderstanding of what Auratus really did, which 
 was simply to prefix the arguments to the psalms and odes in the 
 form of a couplet. The only other writer who either repeats 
 Jocher or makes the remark afresh is De Angelis, who says of the 
 ])salms : — " Ce dernier ouvrage fut public par Dorat son ami, 
 dont il se vantait d'etre 1 eleve. II I'avait connu a la cour de 
 Catherine de Medicis, dont il fut particulierement le protege." 
 
 25. 1576-77. Carmina Illvsliivm I'ocLarvm Italorvin. . . . Tomvs 
 
 Primvs. 
 
 LvtetiiV. Apud .I'^gidiuni (iorbinum. . . . 1576. 
 Id. Tomvs Secvndvs. 1577. i6mo. 
 
 Apparently there was to have been a third volume, but it never 
 appeared. ^^ 
 
 26. 1578. Peplus Italia?. lo. M. Tiwcani Opvs, in (|iio ilhistres viri . . . 
 
 ((|U()t(jUot trecentis abhinc annis tola Italia florucrunl) eorunique palria.-, 
 professiones.&litterarum nionumenta turn carmine tum soluta oratione 
 recensentur. 
 
 Lvtetiit. Ex Ofticina I-V'dcrici Morclli. . . . 1578. 8vo. 
 
 Draudius (I. p. 1285), puts the imprint and date in his wonted 
 curtailed fashion: "Lutet. ap. Morel, 58," meaning 1558. This is, 
 of course, a misprint for 78, that is, 1578, but it has had the effect (so 
 prolific is inaccuracy) of producing another blunder. For, in his 
 article on Toscanus, Zedler (sup. >5 14) assigns to this book the 
 <]ate 1658, referring also to Fabricius' reprint. This date, 1658, is 
 I )raudius's original misprint, writ large, and misinterpreted by a 
 whole century. The culmination of the confusion and the ven- 
 geance upon the blunder are to be found in Zedler's article on 
 Joannes Matthceus (Lunensis). For there, where the Pepliis 
 Jtalice has no business to be, as not having been written by 
 Matthasus, it is correctly dated 1578. 
 
 27. 1722. Toscanus' poems were reprinted in a collection entitled : Car- 
 
 mina Illuslrium Pociaruin Ilaloniin, Florentine, MDCCXXII. Svo. 
 They are contained in Vol. IX., pp. 283-387, and are reprinted 
 from the edition of 1576. 
 
 28. 1730. T\\Q Pc'p/iis I/a/ia- was reprinted from tlie 1578 edition by Jo. 
 
 AH). Falnicius at the end of his Conspectus 'I'hcsaiiri Littcrai-ii Italia-, 
 Hamburgi, 1730, Svo. It occupies pp. 369-531 of this volume. The 
 
 •'"' AntJioloi^ia I'l'tcriu/i Latinoruni Epiij^raiiimaliiiu cf Po.'ina! iini, liy Petrus 
 Purmannus, Jr. Anistel, 1759, I., p. xiv.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes MattJueus and His Ttact. 1 1 
 
 remainder of this edition re-appeared at Hamburg, 1749, willi a new 
 title page, and with the epistle and contents reprinted. 
 
 In the preface addressed to " Antonius El:)rardus Sansuplicianus 
 Episcopus et Comes Cadurcensis," Toscanus refers to the 
 collection of Italian poets already published by him, the aim of 
 which was not only to celebrate his own countrymen, but to stir 
 up others to do the same for theirs. And now, with a similar 
 motive, he published the present collection. 
 
 The Pephis Italicc is rather an interesting piece of work, and 
 affords one or two items bearing upon the present discussion. It 
 consists of four books of epigrams on distinguished men of Italy, 
 irom Dante to Joannes Carga, a period of three hundred years. 
 There are 200 epigrams in all, numbered consecutively, and they 
 display on the part of the author knowledge of the men, and of 
 events connected with them, aptness of expression and facility in 
 verse writing. Each epigram is followed by a brief notice in prose 
 of the subject of it, indicating his more important works. This 
 seems to have been a favourite form for short biographies, and 
 there is something of the same kind in Paolo Giovio's " Inscrit- 
 tioni." On account of the biographical details which it supplies, 
 the Peplus Italice. is still occasionally quoted. I have noticed that 
 on such occasions the author is not called Matthreus, but 
 Toscanus.^-^ 
 
 29. With regard to his death there is a want of definite informa- 
 tion. Tiraboschi says that he wrote the Pep/iis I/aluc, first printed 
 at Paris in 1578, and probably died towards the end of the six- 
 teenth century, De Angelis •'■'' makes the following remark : " II 
 mourut en France peu apres I'annee, 1576." If the works above 
 mentioned, the psalms and the sacred poems, had been actuall\' 
 edited by Joannes Auratus, it would imply tliat Toscanus was 
 dead before 1575. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the Peplits Italice, the preface to which 
 is dated 1578, there is no reason to doubt was brought out by 
 the author himself. It seems most correct to believe that he died 
 in the latter part of the century. In that case he must have been 
 a very old man, and the publication of the Peplus Ilalice, when, 
 .so far as one can judge, he was bordering on eighty years of age, 
 
 ■*'' Compare the entry by Georgii {.illge/iiciiies Etiro/niisc/us liiithir Ltxikon, 
 1742, IIII. p. 225): — 1578. J. M. Toscani rei)lus Ilali;e, sen de ejus viris 
 <ioctis diss., 12. Taris, Morell. 6 gr. 
 
 •"' Jiioi^riiphic Uiiiversclk, Paris, no date, T. XLll., j). 2.
 
 12 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 .shows that he must have been possessed of remarkable energy 
 and vitality. 
 
 30. Nothing as yet has been said of the book of epigrams 
 ascribed to Joannes Matthaeus TosCanus by Draudius, and after 
 him by Zedler. The book has entailed some additional confusion, 
 but it need not detain us. The title, as given by Draudius (II. 
 1534), is as follows : — 
 
 lo. Matth. To.scani Anthologia epigranimatum, nunc primum edita. 
 Geiieu. apud Petr. & Jacob. Chouet. 1619 in 8°. 
 
 The copy I have seen has a different imprint : — 
 
 1619. M. To.scani Anthologia Epigranimatum nunc primum edita. 
 Bvrdigalac, .Vpud Gilbertum \'ernoy, MDCXIX. Small i2mo. 
 
 Copies of this edition are in the University Library, Cambridge, 
 and in the Advocates' Library. There is a re-issue : — 
 
 M. Toscani l\omani .Vnthologia Epigrammatum. Nunc primum etlita. 
 BurdigaUv, 1620. 12', 
 
 of which there is a coj)y in the British Museum (11409, a. 31), 
 and it is also mentioned by De Angelis. 
 
 Although this collection is ascribed to Joannes Matthreus Tos- 
 canus, it cannot very well be by him. If, as stated above, 
 Toscanus was born at the close of the fifteenth century, he was 
 probably dead before the end of the sixteenth century, wherea.s 
 the present editor must have been alive in 1619. 
 
 The book announces distinctly that it was first pul)lished in 
 that year, and the epistle by the author is dated Kal. Jun. 
 MDCXIX. If this be also by the author of the Peplus, etc., it must 
 be assumed either, 1°, that he lived certainly to 1619, which is 
 contrary to all probability, publishing nothing between 1578 and 
 16 19, or, 2°, that this was a posthumous publication with the date 
 of the preface altered to suit the date of the publication, which 
 would be a mere assertion to support the theory of identity. 
 Otherwise, the authors are two distinct persons. 
 
 On this point De Angelis is quite clear, asserting that they are 
 different, and that the present person died at Condom in 1624. 
 I liave myself no doubt that they are different.^"" 
 
 But curiously enough, the fact of the editor of this anthology be- 
 
 "' "II ne faut pas confondre cet auteur [Jo. M. Toscanus] avec un autre 
 Matthieu Toscano, Remain, qui, apres avoir public un recueil intitule Antho- 
 h^ia epigratiiinatiiiii, iiitttc priiiiiiiii edita, Bordeaux, 1620, in 8^, mourut ;u 
 Condom en 1624. Ihid., T. XLII., p. 2.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes Matthceus and If is Tract. 13 
 
 ing called Romanus does not distinguish him from J. Matthaeus 
 Toscanus the poet, as De Angelis seems to imply. For if refer- 
 ence be made to the elegy on Turnebus (§ 22), it will be seen 
 that the very same title is applied to its author. In fact it is 
 the only argument in favour of the Anthologia having been com 
 piled by the poet, if such a thing were not rendered improbable 
 by actual dates. If the identity could be established, Joannes 
 Matthaius Toscanus must have lived for 125 years or more. If 
 he had, I fancy we should have heard of it in some other way. 
 
 31. What little wc know about Joannes Matthajus Lunensis 
 is obtained from the dedicatory epistle to Geduinus prefixed by 
 Agostino Giustiniani to the tract De Rentm Liventoriluis. 
 Matth?eus received the name of Lunensis because he was a native 
 of Luna in Tuscany. \\'hat Giustiniani says in his dedication 
 about the sta'e of tlie place in Mattliaeus' time is sufficiently 
 striking. 
 
 Luna, a city of lOlniria, was celeljrated by authors hoih on its ovvti 
 account and for its splendid harbour, but now it is remarkable only for 
 the vastness of its ruins, out of wJiich are dug up daily marble monu- 
 ments which plainly show how great it once was. The harbour, 
 however, which was fashioned by nature and by art, retains its magnificence 
 to this day, having only had the name of Luna changed to that of 
 Venus, or, as some will have it, of St. V'enerius. Navigators now 
 reckon it among the harbours which at the present time are the best ; 
 for they afifirm that those of Constantinople, of New Carthage, and of 
 Luna, or of Venus, far surpass all others.''^ 
 
 In this district of Luna tlien, was born in our lime a man called 
 Joannes Maltha;us, a learned rhetorician and especially a student of 
 anti(juity. It is he who put forth a book " De mulieriinis Claris" — of 
 illustrious women — which we will shortly render accessible to all 
 students, l-'or in it there is besides unusual learning, a very pleasing 
 variety of matter. 
 
 He liad over and aljove Ijegun a l>ook "De reruni invenloribus," 
 which although he has left it imperfect, I am gl.-id nevertheless, to share 
 
 '"* Small blame to Giustiniani for his praise of this harbour, which is better 
 known as the (julf of Spezia, the head i|uarters of the ItaliaTi fleet. It had 
 been spoken of in similar terms by .Slrabo and I'lolemy, l)y Lnnius and .Silius 
 Italicus, long before ( iiusliniani's''"-' time, and, not to be behind any of these, 
 the modern guideb(3ok calls it "one of the largest, safest and most convenient 
 in Europe." ^" 
 
 Luna, itself, however, is some distance from the (iulf, and is separated from 
 it by a range of hills. I'ortus \'eneris or I'orto \'enere, is situated on the 
 Western promontory of the ba)- oi)|)osile the Isola I'almaria. The iiarl)our of 
 Spezia is only one of several smaller harbours of the Culf. .\t the present day 
 the fame of Luna is connected with the (juarries of Carrara marble. 
 
 3g Ennii Fragmcnta ed. Hesselius, Amstcl, 1707, p. 3 anil note. 
 
 40 Baedeker, Handbook to Northern Italy, 1 895.
 
 14 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgoiv. 
 
 with students, so that the laljours of my friend may not he altogether 
 lost. And as the unfinished book needed a patron and guardian, you 
 alone occurred to me, as the person to whom I should entrust the 
 protection of the vigils of my friend most accomplished in letters and 
 deserving well of them. For it is no secret to me how willingly and 
 graciously you afford your patronage, most noble-minded Geduinus, 
 to learned men. Which courtesy as you are wont to confer so 
 readily of your own free will upon the living, you will show also tO' 
 the dead ; either for my sake, whom you have always loved, and for the 
 merit of the author himself now done with life, or above all, because 
 whatever office is performed for the dead, is esteemed not only for its- 
 humanity, but for reverence and religion, of which you ha%-e always been 
 a zealous adherent. 
 
 Accept of this tin\- Ijooklct with tlie same spirit as that with which 
 you are wont to receive all things, whether great or small, which pro- 
 ceed from j-our friends. 
 
 Farewell. Paris, i\pri] 15, 1520. 
 
 32. From this dedication we can draw six inferences. — i, That 
 the author was dead by April 15, 1520; 2, That he wrote twa 
 books ; 3, That he did not Hve to complete his second work ; 
 4, That he did not himself publish either of them ; 5, That they 
 were edited by Giustiniani ; 6, That the Libellus De Renim 
 Itiventoribus came out before the De Miilierilms Claris. 
 
 33. We have no clue from this as to the date and age of the 
 writer, but it may be conjectured that he died comparatively 
 young, having only begun his literary labours. Assuming that he 
 was as much as thirty years old and died shortly before 1520, he 
 would have been born about 1490. Anyhow he must have been 
 junior to Polydore Vergil, as he was most probably junior to his 
 own editor, who was born in 1470. Nevertheless, he is quoted 
 by Lessing,'*^ not only because he supplied him with certain facts, 
 but " because he is older than Polydore Vergil." I do not know 
 on what ground Lessing could have made such a statement, for 
 surely he must have known that Vergil's book appeared in 1499, 
 twenty-one years before that of Mattha^us. 
 
 34. The only other scrap of biography is what he himself tells 
 us. While staying at Padua he saw a Sicilian surgeon, named 
 Baltazar Pavonus, making an artificial nose, and helped him in his 
 operations sometimes, to the best of his ability. This surgeon was 
 a pupil of Branca, also a Sicilian, who invented a method of renewing 
 ears, noses and lips, which had been lost or cut off.'*^ These were 
 
 *^ A'ollektaiieoi ztir Litera/iir, Berlin 1790, II. p. 144. 
 *'^ De Rertim IiiTeiitorilnts, 1613, p. 37.
 
 Prof. 1'"kR(;u.son on Joaiuics Aratllurus and His Tract. 15 
 
 prior to Tagliacozzi, who lived between 1546 and 1599. Branca 
 used the skin (jf the forehead, while Tagliacozzi used that of 
 the arm. 
 
 35. The bibliography of the works of Joannes Mattha^us, if 
 limited, is very far from simple, and it is hardly possible 10 
 disjoin the consideration of the two books concerned. 'I'he 
 main difficulty arises in connection with the reputed first editions 
 of each, and incidentally as to which of them appeared first. 
 
 36. Giustiniani, who, as literary executor and editor, must cer- 
 tainly have known best, states clearly in his preface to the Libellus 
 Dc Rerum Invoitoribus, dated 1520, that it was this tract which 
 was going to appear first, to be followed at an early date by the Opus 
 Dc Mulieribus Claris : " Is ille est, qui librum edidit de mulieribus 
 Claris, quem nos propediem communem studiosis omnibus 
 faciemus. In eo enim praster erudiiionem non vulgarem, est 
 et'am non iniucunda rerum varietas. Aggressus insuper fuerat 
 Joannes Matthceus noster opus de rerum invcntoribus, quod 
 ([uamvis imperfectum reliquerit, libuit nihilo minus illud studiosis 
 impertire, ne aniici hominis labores omnino deperirent." 
 
 37. In Gesner's I-iibliotheca^ where only the treatise Dc Mulicrilnis 
 Claris is mentit)ned, it is assigned to the year 1^20 : Joa tun's 
 Matihcci Lmw/isis opus dc mulieribus claris . . . cxcusum /\i?-isiis, 
 1520; and then it is said to contain not only "uncommon learn- 
 ing, but a pleasing variety of matter :" " in eo prseter eruditionem 
 non v,ulgarem est etiam non iniucunda rerum varietas," which are 
 exactly the words employed by Giustiniani. 
 
 The edition of 1520 is mentioned also by Draudius and by 
 Teissier (supr. >$ 12). The title, however, as given by Draudius 
 (I. p. 1 198) runs thus : Mulicrum commendationcs historicte. 
 
 Beckmann,'*'' who is usually accurate, commits, when quoting 
 Gesner's Bibliothcca, p. 394 b, the error of dating it Paris, 1523. 
 Gesner makes no such statement. 
 
 38. With regard to this book I can find no information that 
 shows either its scope or extent, beyond what I have just quoted. 
 
 I know of no copy ; I have never seen one for sale ; it is in no 
 library catalogue which I have consulted; it is not mentioned by 
 writers on rare books. The reference to it in Gesner may ha\e 
 been from an actual copy ; but I doubt it, because the description 
 which he adds is in the veiy words used by Giustiniani in the 
 
 ^'- Bcytriii^i- 'Air (.:,.«hiihtc da- E!fiiHiuii:^cii, Leipzig, 1792, III. p. 559.
 
 16 Royal Philosophical Society of G/asgo-w. 
 
 preface to the other. If this book exist, and I question whether 
 'Giustiniani ever carried his promise into effect, it must be the 
 rarest of the rare. So far as I know there was no reissue of it at a 
 ilater date. 
 
 39. As to the LibeUus De Reriim Invetitoribus, it may have been 
 printed in 1520 ; at all events that is the date of the Epistle. Of 
 this book also I can find no copy in the catalogue of any library, 
 or any description of it by bibliographers. It is not in the British 
 Museum, and the author is omitted by Ebert, Brunet, and 
 'Graesse. All this is, of course, no proof of its non-existence, but 
 it is a proof of its rarity. 
 
 40. Curiously enough Gesner makes its existence possible, 
 although he omits it from his list, by couching his remarks about 
 IMatthceus' other tract in Giustiniani's own words. 
 
 This coincidence, which really introduces mucli difficulty, seems 
 to me to be accounted for only in one of four ways : — 
 
 1°. Gesner must have copied the remark from the original MS., 
 < r a transcript thereof, of Giustiniani's ])reface to the tract De 
 Rerum I/ive/iforilms ; or, 
 
 2°. He must have taken it from a printed copy of that preface. 
 It could not be from the edition of 1613, and that of 1520 is the 
 only other presumptive one. This is therefore an indirect proof of 
 its existence ; or, 
 
 3°. After having seen a copy of the 1520 edition of the Opus De 
 Mulieribus Claris which he records, he contrived to express 
 independently, the very same opinion of it as Giustiniani 
 — its intending editor — did, and in exactly the same words as 
 <liustiniani used about it in the preface to the Libellus De Rerum 
 Inventoribus, written before the Opus De Mulieribus Claris had 
 appeared ! or, 
 
 4°. In the 1520 edition of the Opus De Mulieribus Claris, 
 Oiustiniani repeats the opinion he had already expressed about it 
 in the preface to the previously edited Libellus De Rerum 
 luventoribtis and Gesner copied it as a convenient description. 
 
 On these alternatives the following observations may be offered : 
 The first is possible, but not very probable. The second i.s 
 obviously both possible and probable, but cannot be confirmed 
 for want of a copy. The third is conceivable only on the assump- 
 that Gesner had not Giustiniani's remark before him. The 
 improbability of such a coincidence occurring under the circum- 
 stances (or under any circumstances), is so great, that this alterna-
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joafwes Matthcciis and His Tract. 1 7 
 
 tive may be dismissed without consideration. Gesner must have 
 copied the remark from some source. The fourth alternative is 
 possible, but, for want of a copy of the books, neither can it be 
 substantiated. It seems also less probable than the second. For, 
 while we know that Giustiniani made the remark in 1520 in the 
 Epistle to the LibeUus De Rerum Inventoribus, we know nothing 
 whatever about any edition of the other. The anomaly in the 
 whole matter is that Gesner should quote definitely a Paris, 1520, 
 edition of the Opus De Mulieribus C/aris, and should describe it 
 in terms which appear in the preface of the same date to a work 
 presumably published sooner, which he does not quote. 
 
 All this difificulty and confusion, however, would doubtless dis- 
 appear if copies of these 1520 editions could be got. In the 
 meantime one can only draw the best conclusions possible from 
 the very imperfect data available. 
 
 Those subsequent to Gesner who refer to the 1520 edition of 
 the tract £)e Rerum I?iventoribus, may have seen actual examples 
 of it, but of that there is no evidence, and they may have just 
 copied from one another. 
 
 41. If this 1520 edition ever existed it too has become hopelessly 
 
 rare. It seems to have been as unprocurable in Reimmann's 
 
 time, 1709. For after saying that it appeared at Paris in 1620 
 
 (which is a mistake by him for 1520) he adds: "aber anit/o 
 
 allhie bey uns nicht wol zu iiberkommen ist."'*' Fortunately there 
 
 was the reprint in 1613, and it is really the source of all we know 
 
 about the author, as it contains Giustiniani's preface. This edition 
 
 may now be described : — 
 
 lohannis ^MaUha-i ] Lvnensis | Lil)cllvs | Do Kcrvm In- [ venloriljvs | 
 Ex reiOi^nilione yiiit^. Iujli)iiaiti \ Epijcopi Ncbicii/is. \ M. ^Vntonii 
 Sabcllici | De Rorvni cl Artivni | iiivontoribus Poema. | 
 llanilnryi, | In Bihliopolio Michaelis 
 Ilcringii. [ ANNO C/3 IDC XHI. \ 
 Small 8vo. Siys. A to E in eights; or pp [2] 76, which is an error 
 for 78, as pp. 61-62 arc repealed. 
 (A) Title leaf. 
 (A 2) ;• Aug. Ivstinianvs Episcopvs Isebiensis, Rol)crto Gedvino. 
 
 Regis Francorum ii secretis, ends A 3 ;■, pp. (l)-3. 
 A 3 V ,MaUh;eus' Tract begins, and ends E 2 ;•, j)p. 4-63 (sic). 
 E 2 /• Jacobus Winiplielingius in Epitonia (lerman. : (description 
 of the invention of cannon and of printing) ends E 3 z\ pp. 
 63-66 (sk). 
 E 4 )■ Sabellicus' poem begins, and ends E 8 -', pp. 67-76 (sic). 
 
 42. Of this edition there is a copy in the British Museum (721 
 ^•23 (3) ) and it is both in the Barberini Catalogue, Teissier's 
 
 ■*'.See § 13 and note.
 
 18 Royal PJdlosophical Society of G/asgoiv. 
 
 list, Zedler's and Jocher's Lexiioiis, and in Graesse's history. 
 Draudius (I. p. 1 155) quotes an edition of 1614, of which I know- 
 nothing. Reimmann gives the date 1620, but that seems to be a 
 misprint for 1520. I have seen or heard of no edition of 1620. 
 The edition of 1520 is referred to by Hallervord, Konig, Zedler^ 
 Jocher and Grresse. 
 
 43. Pertinent to this edition there is a question which may be 
 considered here. From what source was it taken? Was it 
 printed from the original MS. which would be a hundred years 
 old ? If so, where had it been ? How did it get to Hamburg ? 
 Where is it now? Or was it from a transcript of this MS.?' 
 Or had the printer a copy of an earlier edition — say of 1520 — to 
 work from ? 
 
 To these questions the book itself gives no response, and as far 
 as appearances go, this might quite well be the actual first printed 
 edition. If that were so, Gesner's quotations could have been 
 made only from a MS. as stated in the first alternative {^ 40). 
 But if this were reprinted from an earlier copy, where is that copy- 
 now ? It is wanted to clear up some of the doubts which cluster 
 round the subject. 
 
 This may be the right place for a notice of the editor. 
 
 44. Augustino Giustiniani was born at Genoa in 1470.- He re- 
 ceived a careful education and wanted to join the friars preachers. 
 His parents tried to turn him from this design and sent him ta 
 Valence. After a rapid course of dissipation which ended in a 
 elangerous illness he returned home and ultimately joined the 
 order in 1488. He devoted himself to the study of the Oriental 
 languages, and in 15 14 began a Polyglot Bible, of which the 
 Psalter was published at Genoa in 1516.-*^ In 15 14 he was pro- 
 moted to the see of Nebbio, in Corsica, by Leo X., which he at 
 
 ^^ As I have a copy of this rare book and know of no description of it, the 
 following may be useful : — 
 
 Psalterium, Hebreum, Grecu, | Aralticu, & Chaldeu, cu tribus | latinis^ 
 iterptatoibus & gloss'is. | with" corresponding titles in Hebrew, Greek, Arabic 
 and Chaldee, printed in red and black alternately, and surrounded by a broad 
 wood-cut border. The versions, in parallel columns, occupy both pages and 
 run in the following order : — 
 
 On the verso : Hebrew, Latin Translation, Vulgate, Greek ; on the recto 
 opposite : Arabic, Chaldee, Latin version and notes or Scholia. At the end" 
 is a table of errata with the colophon in the five languages, the printer's mark 
 and the Registrum. 
 
 The Latin colophon runs thus : — 
 
 Impressit miro ingenio, Petrus Paulus ] Porrus, genure in scdibus Nicolai 
 lusti I niani Pauli, prtesidente reipub. genuensi | pro Serenissimo FrancoBt
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes Matthccus and His Tract. 10 
 
 once visited. He was present at the fifth Council of the Lateran 
 in 1516-17. 
 
 Francis I. induced him to settle in Paris as his private 
 chaplain and as teacher of Hebrew. He stayed there four years, 
 and he also journeyed into Holland and England, where he was 
 received by Henry VHI. He returned to France, then went to 
 (lenoa where he was wounded in a riot in 1522. He paid 
 another visit to Rome, and finally in 1536, on a third voyage he 
 perished with the ship when sailing from Genoa to Corsica. He 
 was the author of several works of importance, especially the 
 Annals of his native place published in 1537, a work to which 
 allusion is made in the extract below from the Pcplus Italia.'^^ 
 
 Just to bring the three persons chiefly concerned in the present 
 research into touch with one another, it may not be out of place, 
 if I give here what Toscanus says about Giustiniani (Matthgeus' 
 editor) in the Peplus Ifa/ice, Paris, 1578, p. 65 ; or in Fabricius' 
 edition, p. 456. 
 
 AUGUSTINUS lUSTINIANUS. 
 CVIII. 
 
 Historiam Ligurum prisco dum texis ah rcvo, 
 
 Gratus es in patriam lusliniane tuani. 
 At Solymre et Syra: rcseras mysteria lingua;, 
 
 Sacraque das Arabis dum monimenta notis, 
 Non paUiam modo, non Italos, non denique solum 
 
 Christicolum certas demeruisse genus : 
 Scd gelidique Scytlmc, et quos India tosta colorat, 
 
 Acceptum refcranl quod libi, munus habent. 
 
 Aug. lustinianum Dominicani instituti Monachum edidit Genua, Ilcbraiccc, 
 SyrcE, Arabica\ et Gia:ca; lingua; peritia clarum, quibus conscriptos sacros 
 I rcbr;x;orum libros, additis suis non incrudilis annolalionibus ex Rabbinorum 
 fontibus deiivatis publicavit : scripsil el I'atiia' historian). 
 
 45. As the present investigation is due solely to my interest in 
 the LibcUus De Rcrtim Inveiitonhiis as connected with the bibli- 
 ography of inventions, I may turn now to the consideration of thai 
 
 Rege, prestan | ti viro Oclauiano Fulgoso, anno chiistia | nc salulis, millesimo 
 <|uingentesimo sex | todecimo mense. V'lIIIbri. | 
 
 There is no pagination, hut signatures : A in ten, 15 to Z in eiglUs, & in 
 eight, 3 in six. 
 
 ".\part from its rarity and from its being the first published polyglot edition of 
 .any part of the .Scriptures, this book is sought after on account of the note ap- 
 peiuled to I's. xix. referring to the autlior's fellow-townsman, CoUunbus. 
 
 "*" Biographic Uiiivcrselle, Paris, 1S56, T. xvi. pp. 605-6.
 
 ■20 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgotv. 
 
 book and the place it occupies in the hterature of the subject with 
 which it deals. 
 
 The first published work in modern times on the history of inven- 
 tions, was compiled by Polydore Vergil in three books, and was 
 printed in 1499 at A^enice, in a small quarto volume. It is not to 
 be expected that either the matter or the treatment of it by him 
 would satisfy a present-day reader. Much that Vergil says is 
 traditional and uncritical : traditional, because the statements 
 had been handed down from the ancients by one writer after 
 another ; uncritical, because there were no facts to contradict 
 them, and because there was no ground to doubt the accuracy 
 and the good faith of those who made them. Vergil did his best 
 to give a readable and reliable narrative, one that would convey 
 the information he had amassed to those who were curious in 
 such questions, and cared to give his book a perusal. He had 
 his reward. For twenty years he held undisputed possession of 
 the field. His book was a revelation to the students of his day, 
 who knew nothing of the subject till he had discovered it and put 
 it systematically before them. Then they saw what they had 
 been in need of, and were grateful. During those twenty years it 
 passed through eighteen editions, proving that it had created a 
 want which it alone could supply. At the end of this period the 
 author took it once more in hand, and, adding other five books, 
 published the completed work in a small folio volume, dated 
 1521. 
 
 Even when later authors had tried to marshal the old facts 
 anew and to add what had been invented after A'ergil's age, his 
 book still remained an unrivalled authority for upwards of 
 eighty years, and edition after edition during that time 
 appeared. Long after this, down even into last century, its in- 
 fluence was acknowledged, and if we can see the gradual waning 
 of its sway, it was not because it was ever superseded on its own 
 lines, but because the critical method had arisen, and the subject 
 could no longer be viewed from Vergil's standpoint. So the 
 book of more than one hundred editions, of which three and four 
 sometimes came yearly from the press, after serving its purpose 
 as well as most books, ceased altogether, and has become finally 
 a mere curiosity to be reprinted in a few copies for the members 
 of an American book club ! 
 
 46. It lies outside the scope of this paper to consider the writers 
 on the topic, subsequent to Vergil. I have enumerated them
 
 Prof. Ferguson 07i Joannes Mattfncus and His Tract. 21 
 
 and their works elsewhere,^" and it is quite enough to mention 
 here Pastregicus, Sardus, SabelHcus who wrote a poem De Itiven- 
 toribiis Renan^ printed along with Vergil in many editions, as 
 well as with Matthteus, Panciroli, whose book was published in 
 1599, a hundred years after Vergil, Almeloveen, Paschius, 
 Michael Maier, Goguet, and so on, down to the present time, 
 when it is necessary to bring out yearly reports in bulky volumes, 
 so as to keep pace with the advances in scientific discovery and 
 technical applications. 
 
 With these I do not meddle. The present enquiry is intended 
 to make more definite the personality of Joannes Mattha^us and 
 the individuality of his work. 
 
 47. In 1520, the year preceding the publication of Vergil's 
 completed work, may have appeared Mattha^us' tract with the 
 same title, for as has been shown, the evidence of publication is 
 not quite conclusive. This, so far as I know, was the next 
 attempt to deal with the history of discovery, and thus to trespass 
 on Vergil's domain. The encroachment, indeed, was so small, 
 that it has passed unnoticed, and except to the searcher into the 
 nooks and corners of literature and history, both the book and 
 the author are unknown. The omission of the author's name 
 from recent biographical dictionaries, the rarity of his works, the 
 defective information about him and his writings, when his name 
 does happen to be mentioned in the older compilations abundantly 
 attest the oblivion into which he has fallen. 
 
 Compared with ^^ergi^s work, this libellus, or booklet, is not 
 even an outline ; it is merely a series of short notes. Even so, 
 however, it enumerates a few things not included by Vergil, so 
 that it deserves consideration. 
 
 48. The book, as one knows it in the 161 3 edition, contains 
 twenty-four chapters. They treat of the following topics : — 
 
 I. The firsl people. 
 
 II. The invention of letters. 
 
 III. The invention of paper. 
 
 I\'. The inventors of arts. 
 
 \'. The inventors of sonys and tales. 
 
 \\. In\cnlii)ns of the heathen gods. 
 
 \' 1 1 . I in enlions of kings and chiefs. 
 
 \ 1 1 1. Inventions of philosophers. 
 
 ^" "Notes on Histories of Inventions and Books of Secrets," 1882-1S9S in 
 t le 7'raiisaiiions of lite .Inlucolopcal Society, Glasgow.
 
 22 
 
 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgoiv. 
 
 IX. Inventions of poets. 
 
 X. Inventions of different nations. 
 
 XI. Inventors of ships and their belongings. 
 
 XII. Inventions of Christians. 
 
 XIII. Inventors of implements of war. 
 
 XIV. Inventors of metals, various arts, fabrics and tools. 
 XV. Inventors of musical instruments. 
 
 XVI. Inventions of painters. 
 
 XV^II. jNIedicines discovered by animals. 
 
 XVIII. Inventors of the uses of plants. 
 
 XIX. Discovery of certain fruits. 
 
 XX. The use of animals. 
 
 XXI. Inventors of games. 
 
 XXII. Inventors of crimes and punishments. 
 
 XXIII. Inventors of foods. 
 
 XXIW Inventions and ordinances first made at Rome. 
 
 These, which are probably the author's own divisions of the 
 subject, are followed in the 1613 edition by two paragraphs on 
 the discovery of fire-arms and of printing respectively, taken from 
 the Epitome Germanicarum Renim, by Wimpheling. 
 
 49. The accounts given are the briefest possible, seldom going 
 beyond two or three lines, and they are mere headings, or texts 
 that could be, and in some cases have been, amplified by others. 
 One merit that Matthaeus has is that he adds the authorities for 
 most of his statements. They are not what we should call critical 
 or reliable at the present day, but they were all that could be had 
 four hundred years ago. A list of them may be given, partly to 
 show who were considered good authorities, partly to illustrate the 
 nature and extent of Matthceus' research. They may be arranged 
 alphabetically for convenience : — 
 
 Acron. 
 
 Gellius. 
 
 Ovidius. 
 
 Aquinas. 
 
 Heraclides Ponticus. 
 
 Plato. 
 
 Aristotle. 
 
 Herodotus. 
 
 Plinius. 
 
 Ausonius. 
 
 Hieronymus. 
 
 Politianus. 
 
 Bracelleus. 
 
 Horatius. 
 
 Priscianus. 
 
 Callimachus. 
 
 Hyginus. 
 
 Plutarchus. 
 
 Capella. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 <^)uintilianus. 
 
 Cicero. 
 
 Justinus. 
 
 Seneca. 
 
 Columella. 
 
 Juvenalis. 
 
 Servius. 
 
 Cyprianus. 
 
 Lactantius. 
 
 Strabo. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus. 
 
 Lampridius. 
 
 Tacitus. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius. 
 
 Livius. 
 
 Theophrastus. 
 
 Donatus. 
 
 Lucanus. 
 
 ^'alerius Maximus. 
 
 Eusebius. 
 
 ]\Iacrobiu«. 
 
 Varro. 
 
 Festus. 
 
 Martialis. 
 
 ^'egetius. 
 
 Florus. 
 
 :Mela. 
 
 Mrgilius.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes Matihceus and His Tract. 23 
 
 50. Consideration of these authorities will give one a fair notion 
 of the information Mattha^us had. As they, with one or two 
 exceptions, are Greek and Latin, obviously he could do no more 
 than repeat what he finds in them. As they in turn, and the 
 <}reeks more particularly, ignored other nations, and, founding on 
 their own traditions, claimed as far as might be all inventions for 
 themselves, any approach to a reasonable insight into antiquity, 
 as would be demanded now, is not to be looked for ; in fact it 
 could not have existed, and the various statements must be judged 
 of with this proviso. 
 
 In these authorities there is no idea of the growth or develop- 
 ment of an art or science from small beginnings till it reaches a 
 fully developed state, but to some definite personage, or it may be 
 vaguely or comprehensively to certain tribes or nations, various 
 inventions are said to be due. The course of events was in this 
 wise : nothing of a given kind existed until a certain person 
 appeared, the inventions followed, and forthwith it was adopted 
 generally. There are claims for inventions on behalf of this or 
 that deity or hero, king or warrior, priest or philosopher, states- 
 man or poet, which, in so far as the personage is mythical or 
 symbolical, could be hardly substantiated as matter of fact. The 
 first discovery, whatever it was, must be looked for in a different way. 
 
 On the other hand there are inventions, or modifications of 
 those already known, which might be quite well due to individuals, 
 -and even to those mentioned. That is a question of evidence. 
 
 51. ^Vhen Mattha^us comes nearer to his own time and gets 
 out of the range of classical influence, he refers to some novelties 
 in such a way as to make us regret he had not included more of 
 them, and left the poetical and legendary discoveries of Pliny, 
 Ovid, and others for the edification of the schoolboy, instead of 
 recording them as authentic and worthy of consideration as 
 historical facts. 
 
 That grammar, for example, logic, rlieloric, music, ethics, and 
 so forih were invented by specified individuals, usually of (Ireek 
 nationality, shows how rudimentary the motions were with which 
 Matthieus had to be content. Even in certain instances there 
 was a want of agreement, as when it was stated that the hexameter 
 was first used by Knnius, or b) Moses : or that Solomon wrote 
 the first I'4)ithalamium, though elsewhere Apollo is named as the 
 authorof the first nuptial song, on the occasion of the marriage of 
 I'eleus and Thetis.
 
 24: Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 The invention of medicine, again, is ascribed to half-a-dozen' 
 different persons. 
 
 Joseph was the first interpreter of dreams. 
 
 Sardanapalus was the first to make a bed of feathers. 
 
 Endymion was the first to understand the nature of the moon ;. 
 Parmenides to show the identity of the evening and morning star. 
 
 Cnssar first ordained that the daily acts of the senate and people 
 should be drawn up and published. 
 
 Sergius Grata first invented oyster ponds, and gave the pre- 
 eminence to the Lucrine oyster for flavour. 
 
 Neptune was the first breaker-in of horses and taught the art of 
 riding. 
 
 Publius Malleolus (good name) having killed his mother, was 
 the first to be sewn in a leather bag and thrown into the sea. 
 Some other ingenious tortures are described. 
 
 The Cyclopes were the first builders of towers, says Aristotle, 
 but Theophrastus, the Phoenicians. 
 
 These, taken at random, and many similar statements, are not 
 all of like character, do not rest on similar evidence, and are not 
 of the same degree of probability. 
 
 52. Even in the works of the ancients themselves, as of Pliny, 
 whose very words Matthreus transfers to his pages, one must 
 distinguish between wlmt they repeated as legends and what they 
 knew as matters of fact, possibly because they fell out during their 
 own life time. There is not much of a difference perhaps between 
 the statements that a reed pipe was made by Pan and that purple 
 was used for the toga prretexta by Tullus Hostilius, but it is more 
 reasonable to believe that M. Agrippa was the first to receive a 
 naval crown, than that Pluto invented navigation and was made 
 admiral of a fleet by Saturn. It is more credible that Caius 
 Gracchus first put up milestones, and " louping-on stanes " ^^ than 
 that a snake, after hibernating, restores its sight by rubbing itself 
 with fennel, or if scales have grown over its eyes picks them off 
 with juniper spines. A person of the name of Mercury may have 
 invented the lyre, but there is much stronger evidence that another 
 person, Pompeius Magnus, was the first to complete the building 
 of a permanent theatre of hewn stone in Rome. 
 
 But to begin to review the contents of this booklet would be to 
 
 ■"* Lessing {KoUektaneeii, Berlin, 1790, II. p. 149), says lie does not know the 
 authoritv for th's. His editor shows that it is PhUarch.
 
 Prok. Ferguson on Joannes Matthceus and His Tract. 25 
 
 undertake not a criticism of Matthaeus — for after all he only 
 copied what he read — but a criticism of his authorities ; in short 
 to compile a treatise on Antiquities. To what extent that would 
 run at the present day it would be hard to say, no one person 
 could survey it all ; the field is so vast, and the knowledge, imper- 
 fect though it be still, is so specialised. Anyone, however, who 
 has the curiosity to see what could be said on the subject by one- 
 person, a century ago, can refer to RoUin or lo Goguet. 
 
 53. It may not be out of place, however, to refer very briefly to 
 the inventions which were post-classical and in certain cases con- 
 temporaneous with Matthceus himself. These, indeed, merit special 
 attention for, according to Lessing, they seem to have been 
 chronicled by Matthseus for the first time. They occur in chapter 
 xii., and are the following : — 
 
 Albertus Magnus invented fire arms and artillery.^'' Branca, a 
 Catanian, introduced the method of restoring noses, lips and ears. 
 His pupil was Baltazar Pavonus, a Sicilian, who practised this art 
 at Padua, and Matthaius when there, assisted him, as has been 
 said above (§ 34). 
 
 To a woman named Saint Cita, of Lucca, he ascribes the 
 invention of putting gold on leather, so as to make what were 
 called auripelles ; for which her festival is observed annually with 
 the greatest honour. This leather was used for wall decoration 
 and for covering chairs. ^^ 
 
 He refers to a modification of this art, in which plates of silver 
 were fastened on skins and then coloured yellow to resemble gold. 
 These were also called auripelles^ and the invention, a new one, 
 was claimed by the Messenians. 
 
 Michael Scotus the famous astrologer, invented an iron skull- 
 cap. He alludes to this also in cap. xiii., p. 44 under tlie 
 
 *'■* 'Hs.\xdi(ApoIo:pe pour fous les ,s;raiids J^ersonnages . . . soupconiiez dc 
 Magic, Paris, 1625, p. 518), (|Uotes this statement as opposed to current 
 opinion, from " lean Malhieu de Iawio., IJ/k de rei-wn iiivcntorih. caf^. 12, J. 
 10,"' one of the few references to our author I have fallen in with. Unfortun- 
 ately, Naude lias omitted the dale of the edition he used, and I do not know 
 precisely what he meant by "7- lo." It is natural to suppose that the 1613 
 edition, not long published, would be in his possession. Hut if "f. lO " mean 
 ^' fo/io 10," it does not apply to the 1613 edition, in which the reference to 
 Albertus is on p. 37, and that to Wimphelingius is on p. 64. Can Naude have 
 l)een referring to the 1520 edition, or to a MS. ? 
 
 ■''" Lessing, KoUektanccn, Berlin, 1790, I. p. 94. He refers to Cardan /'<• 
 Ker. Var. lib. XIII. c. 56. [Imitations of this "Venetian" leather hav 
 been introduced within the last dozen or twenty years. May, 1900].
 
 26 Royal PJiilosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 inventors of arms. Lessing ''^ is much puzzled as to what this 
 galea ferrea could have been or for what purpose. It was also 
 called cervilermm, and Michael contrived and wore it so as to 
 ward off the fate which he had forseen was to befall him. The 
 legend is that he knew he should be killed by the fall of a stone 
 upon his head, so as a protection he wore this head guard. But 
 in vain. For being in church and uncovering at the mass, a small 
 stone fell from the roof and striking his head caused his death. 
 The legend seems therefore to have been known when the iron 
 cap is mentioned as a discovery of Michael's. 
 
 A timepiece with a striking arrangement was a Christian 
 invention, like that of Iclls, which were first cast at Nola, in 
 Campania. The ancients had only water and solar timekeepers. 
 
 Stirrups, which are not seen on Roman statues, flails, and the 
 rest in which the lance was put, are all modern inventions. 
 
 Water mills are modern, but wind mills are much more recent. 
 The ancients had only hand mills and mills driven by asses. 
 
 Angelus Barroellus, a Venetian, made colours and pictures of 
 glass and crystal. As Lessing points out (//. si/pr. I. p. 213), this can 
 apply only to the revival of an art in which the ancients w^ere skilful. 
 
 The use of the magnetic needle is modern. It is curious that 
 while aware of its importance for navigation he should have made 
 no reference to contemporary geographical discovery, though he 
 was living in the very midst of it, and Luna is not far from Genoa. 
 
 Printing was found out in Germany "after the Christian era,"' 
 Prior to that Saturnus taught the Italians to print letters, as 
 Cyprian narrates in his book Dc idolis, and Matthseus alludes to 
 the same thing in cap. II. 
 
 Wooden platters on which to cut meat were first devised in the 
 days of Frederick^ the Roman King, and of Pope Gregory, who 
 also placed the divine Dominic, ounder of the order of preachers, 
 among the saints. 
 
 Not long after arose the Flagellants, who went about in pairs 
 or in bands and scourged each other with whips. They were 
 founded by a Cardinal, Jacobus Columna. 
 
 At this same time, by divine judgment, it was caused that all 
 the French in Sicily, religious and secular, perished " una die^ 
 unaque voce Dei." In such reticent terms Matthjeus refers to 
 the Siciliafi Vespers. 
 
 ^^ Lessing, KoUektaneen, Berlin, 1790, II. p. 351.
 
 Pro I'. Ferguson <»i Joanucs Matthccus and His Tract. 27 
 
 At this time, also in Sicily, was the fish-man, Nicolaus, a ]\Ies- 
 senian, who lived in the sea, and revealed many of its secrets to 
 men. " He chose this inhuman mode of life after being cursed 
 by his mother." He was quite a well-known personage, and is 
 noticed by Lessing (H. p. 193). 
 
 The fabricating of paper, sails, and clothes from cotton is a 
 a recent discovery. 
 
 A ball full of air for playing with, which might be called an 
 " air ball," is a recent invention, although we read that boys of 
 old played with a " foUis " or leather skin full of wind ; but that 
 (he thinks) was different, for modern " air balls " were devised by 
 Marchio of Ferrara. But it is difficult to see in what the differ- 
 ence consists. 
 
 Tallow candles were first made in Ferrara. They were un- 
 known to the ancients. 
 
 The training of birds for hunting, such as different kinds of 
 owls, is a Christian invention ; for the ancients used dogs for 
 bird catching. 
 
 The making of spectacles, or eye-glasses, from glass, or crystal, 
 or beryl, Matthieus thinks, is an ancient rather than a modern 
 discovery. 
 
 A spear-shaft drilled longitudinally, through which little clay 
 pellets sufficient to kill birds, could be shot by blowing, is a 
 recent discovery. He begs pardon of the learned for proposing 
 to call it tuba aiiciipaforia on the analogy of area auciipaforia, per. 
 tica aucKpa/oria^ calami aiiciipatorii, rcte auaipatorium. A\'e could 
 translate it " fowling-tube,'' having already fowling-piece. It is 
 analogous to the " blow-pipe " for shooting darts employed by the 
 Indians of the Amazon. There is a note by Lessing on the 
 Italian name, Ciarl'oftana, of this contrivance, in the Kollckaiitccii, 
 I. p. iiy. 
 
 These observations have so far the merit of originality, and 
 in that respect differ from the rest of the book. In the very 
 general terms, too, employed, Mattha:us unconsciously recognises 
 the difficult)- of assigning an invention to its author, and this, too, 
 is in marked contrast to the rest of the book. 
 
 54. In attempting to estimate Mattha^us' work fairly and to do 
 him justice, certain considerations have to be borne in mind. 
 
 a. The time at which it was composed, when tliere was no 
 possibility of systematic encjuiry into the subject of invention and 
 discover)-, and when every statement was based for want of better
 
 28 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgmv. 
 
 upon mere authority, classical or other. It may be questioned if 
 anyone, compiling a book of origins at the present day, would not, 
 in many instances at least, give expression to opinions as vague, 
 contradictory, and controvertible, as anything to be found in 
 Matthceus. 
 
 b. As Giustiniani warns us this is not a complete or finished 
 work, but only the author's first notes, put down very briefly 
 under their respective heads, sometimes with the names of the 
 authorities, sometimes without them, but often in the latter case 
 easily traceable. 
 
 c. The apparent ascription of the same inventions to several 
 persons may be due solely to the unfinished condition of the 
 work. Matthaeus, very properly, took note of everything he found, 
 and he may have meant to discuss, subsequently, the authority 
 for the various statements and decide in accordance with the 
 evidence. From variety of recorded opinion it must not be in- 
 ferred that Matthffius had drawn no definite conclusions, or was 
 incapable of doing so. 
 
 d. Although, in most instances, the statements are mere memo- 
 randa, yet to have obtained even these displays an amount of 
 research, of examination, and of knowledge of what had been 
 written on the subject, both professedly and incidentally by Greek 
 and Latin authors, which reflects credit upon Matthx'us. I think 
 one is quite entitled to be grateful to Giustiniani for not allowing 
 the work to perish. 
 
 55. The question may be fairly asked to what extent — if any — 
 may Matthaeus have been indebted to earlier writers on the same 
 topic, One can hardly judge of this little pamphlet without com- 
 paring it with those which preceded it, and singularly enough all 
 the early histories which I know are by Italians, and they cover 
 so nearly the same ground that it is difficult not to believe that 
 one took the idea from another. 
 
 The earliest writer was Pastregicus whose work Dc Orii^inibus 
 Rerum, though not printed till 1547, was written in the first half 
 of the fourteenth century. Matthseus may have seen this in M.S., 
 and may have used it, but there is no evidence on the point. 
 There is a great difference in the arrangement of the two, for 
 while the order in the older work is alphabetical by the names of 
 the inventors, that in Matth^us' is by groups of inventions, as 
 can be seen by the index of chapters. But in both cases we are 
 furnished with mere notes and authorities.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on foatnies MattJuzus and His Tract. 29 
 
 The next is Zacharias Lilius who published a volume in 1496 
 at Vicenza, which includes the history of the Arts. He confines 
 himself, however, to the seven liberal arts, the triviuni and 
 quadrivium and their adjuncts, and says nothing about practical 
 inventions. Even supposing Matthreus had been guided by Lilius 
 in the former section, he must have gathered his details respecting 
 the practical arts from other sources. 
 
 Polydore Vergil's book followed in 1499, and making every 
 allowance for its more elaborate character there is sufficient 
 resemblance between these two books of all but identical title, to 
 make one think that Mattha^us may have had Vergil's work beside 
 him when he was drawing up his own tract. 
 
 ]}oth Vergil and Matlhaius, although it does not appear 
 obtrusively, follow to a certain extent the trivium and quadrivium, 
 and there is hardly anything in Matthjeus which could not be 
 found in Vergil, often in nearly the same words. But that by no 
 means implies direct copying on Matthaeus' part, but really the 
 use of the same authorities. Such repetition is common to all the 
 historians referred to above, so that it is not possible to attach 
 importance to it. Whether Matthaius copied not only the words 
 but the references as well, so as to make it appear a reference of his 
 own is a question which could be discussed, if it were necessary. 
 
 56. The remarks now made may be sufficient to give a notion 
 of the scope of this " libellus," all that remains of its author's 
 labour and learning. What may have been his ultimate design, 
 one can hardly conjecture. Perhaps, like Gregory Feisch, his 
 contemporary, he had simply made notes for his own use without 
 any intention of printing them, and his name might have passed 
 into absolute oblivion. Thanks to Giustiniani he has been 
 rescued from forget fulness, and the tiny vessel which has success- 
 fully floated his name down to us after its perilous voyage across 
 four centuries, has been seen and " spoken with " by others at 
 intervals of fifty or a hundred years. 
 
 Michael Heringius who printed or re-printed the book in 1613, 
 Almcloveen ''- who in 1684 reported it as a history c\ professo, 
 Lessing who in 1790 used it as an authority, Heckniann who 
 in 1792 included it in his list of histories of inventions, and a few 
 more, some with clear observation, others confusedly, have all 
 helped to give Matthajus his place. After the lapse of another 
 
 ''- A'crum Iiivcutontm Oiuvitasliccii, Amslclxclanii, 16S4, Mpistle, hn verso.
 
 30 Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 century, during which time the frail craft had passed completely 
 out of sight, it has come once more to land and I hope the 
 attempt to recognise its character and identify its owner has not 
 been unsuccessful. 
 
 57. After what has been said it is not difficult to understand 
 how confusion between the two men has arisen : — the similarity 
 of the name ; the supposition that Lunensis and Toscanus were 
 place epithets, and were practically the same, because Luna is in 
 Tuscany ; their both belonging to the same century ; their works 
 being nominally edited by others ; a certain analogy between their 
 subjects, for while Matth.xus Lunensis wrote about distinguished 
 women, Toscanus in his Peplus recites the achievements of notable 
 Italian men. But though the mistake of identification may be 
 palliated by such explanations or excuses as the preceding, any of 
 the following equally patent considerations should have been 
 sufficient to raise a doubt at least as to identity being possible or 
 even probable. 
 
 a. There is an interval of nearly fifty years between the two sets 
 of publications. 
 
 Giustiniani, in 1520, speaks of Lunensis as dead, and having left 
 his historical notes behind him. One can conceive it possible 
 that the Latin poems might have lain in manuscript till Dorat dis- 
 covered and published them. But that is untenable, for Toscanus 
 was a personal friend of Dorat's, and his poem on Turncbus was 
 written and published in 1565. Moreover in the Peplus, first pub 
 lished in 1578, Toscanus has the above quoted laudatory poem on 
 Oiustiniani, who was drowned in 1536, and this fact alone is quite 
 enough to show that Matthreus and Toscanus are different. The 
 obituary runs thus: Matthreus died before 1520, Giustiniani in 1536, 
 Toscanus after 1578 (?) Dorat in 1588. 
 
 b. There is no reference — as, indeed, how could there be ? — 
 by Giustiniani to writings by Matthreus except the two already 
 specified, and on the other hand there is no allusion t(j either of 
 the earlier works in those connected with Toscanus. For the 
 identification, therefore, by Hallervord, and later by Zedler and 
 others, there is no support in the works themselves, or in any 
 observation of their respective editors. 
 
 c. Lunensis is an epithet from Matth^us' birthplace. Toscanus, - 
 whatever it may have meant originally, is a family name, and has 
 nothing to do with the birthplace of the person.
 
 Prof. Ferguson on Joannes MattJums and His Tract. 31 
 
 d. While certain authorities liave confused the two, others have 
 distinguished them with more or less precision. 
 
 It is certain now to my mind that the two writers were different 
 persons. I myself following my guides without sufficient exam- 
 ination repeated their mistake. , I am glad of this opportunity to 
 state what is really the correct view of the matter, and to amend 
 my former account. 

 
 JOANNES MATTH^US 
 AND HIS TRACT 
 
 ** De Rerum Inventoribus/' 
 
 Part II. 
 
 JOHN FERGUSON, 
 
 M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.SA, 
 Professor ok Chemistry in the University of Glasgow. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 rklNTED FOR THE ROYAL PHILOSOrillCAL SOCIl-TV 
 OF GLASGOW. 
 
 1916.
 
 J O A N N E S M ATT H /E U S 
 AND HIS TRACT 
 
 " De Rerum Inventoribus." 
 
 Part IE 
 
 JOHN FERGUSON, 
 
 M.A., LI..1)., l-.K.S.K.. F.S.A., 
 I'KOKEisOK Ul' (jllE.MI^TKV 1 .N I'llK L'.MVKKSITV OV Gi.Am'.OW. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 PRINTKD I'(JR IHE ROVAL FMIUJSUPIIICAL SOCILTV 
 OF GLASGOW. 
 
 1916.
 
 [trom the pkoceedlxcs of the royal phu.osophical society 
 of glasgow.] 
 
 Joannes Matthceus Lunensis and his tract "2)e Rerwn Inven- 
 toribus." Part II. By Joiix Ferguson, LL.D., Emeritus- 
 Professoi' of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow. 
 
 [Read before the Society, Wednesday, December 15th, 1915.] 
 
 1. To a meeting of the Society on December 4th, 1901, 
 everything that T had been able to discover about Matthseus was 
 commttnicated.^ Jt will be necessary to recall two or three 
 particulars which have a bearing on the position which the 
 subject has recently acquired. 
 
 2. Matthreus compiled two l)ooks, one on notable women, 
 which he had fiuishefl, the other ti])on inventors, the completion 
 of M-hich was interrupted b}' hi.s death. Thereupon the books 
 were taken in hand by a personal friend, Agostino Giiistiniani, 
 bishop of Nebbio in Corsica, lie first revised the tract on 
 inventors, in order, as he says, that it might not be lost to 
 scholars, prefixed a dedication to Robertus Geduinus, secretary 
 of the French King, containing a short biographical notice of the 
 author, and referred incidentally to the book about illustrious 
 women, which on account of its interest and learning he expressed 
 his intention shortly to publish, but in the meantime begged the 
 dedi(;atee to accept the present work. This dedication is dated 
 April 15th, 1520. 
 
 3. In the original paper two questions had to be left over for 
 consideration. They were these : — 
 
 r Was the tract "De IJerum Inventoribus" printed in 1520? 
 2" Was the tract " De IMulieriljus Claris" printed in 1520, 
 
 or was it printed at all ? 
 The re;ison for not answering these questitms was that no copy 
 of either work of that date was at Ihe time known by me to exist. 
 
 4. With regard to the first question certain indications of the 
 book about inventors having been printed in 1520 were detailed. 
 They may now be recapitulated. 
 
 ' riOiCcJinp-, \'>->l. WXIII., p.igc 180.
 
 4 The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 (a) There are the dedication and date, 1520, as of an actually 
 printed book. 
 
 (6) There is Gesner's quotation in 1545 (referred to below §11), 
 from this same dedication, which he could hardly have taken 
 except from a copy of that edition. 
 
 (c) There is the Hamburg edition of 1613, with Giustinianis 
 dedication dated 1520. It might be suggested that it was the 
 first edition, but this raises so many problems, of which there is 
 no solution, that the supposition will not bear examination 
 (see Part I., §43). 
 
 It is more reasonable to belie\e that Micliuel lltsring, the 
 publislicr, was lucky enough to acquire somehow a copy of a 
 1520 edition, and had it reprinted. 
 
 (d) There arc references by .sevi-ral authorities to a 1520 
 edition, but not much weight can l>e attached to that fact. 
 None of them seems to have had personal acquaintance with it, 
 and tliey may have repeated one another. 
 
 (e) The most curious and, at the same time, the most con- 
 clusive proof of the existence of an edition different from that 
 of 1613, and possibl}', therefore, of 1520, is the reference by 
 Gabriel Naude to the book of inventors by Matthoeus, "/. 10." 
 As T pointed out in the first paper (§53), if this signify '•'•folio 10," 
 it does not apply to the 1613 edition, in which the passage 
 quoted occurs on pay 37. Naudd gives no date, but only a 1520 
 edition is probable. 
 
 5. With these proofs and possibilities, but without the con- 
 clusive evidence of an actual copy of a book which I pronounced 
 as "hopelessly rare," the subject has lain dormant for the last 
 fourteen years, so far as I have been concerned. 
 
 6. A few weeks ago when turning over the sheets, now 
 printing, of the catalogue of the Hunterian Library in the 
 University,- I came upon the entiy : Joannes Matthseus, De 
 
 - Had I examined this library in 1901, the book to be now described would 
 have been discovered. It would have saved some speculation, but this result 
 has followed from ihe omission, that the discussion has been justified by the 
 book itself and the deductions have been confirmed. 
 
 My excuse— and it is not a valid one — for neglecting a library which was 
 immediately accessible to me, must be its catalogue which did not invito 
 consultation, and. what was almost a corollary, tlie assumption — quite 
 unjustifiable — that the book was not one likely to be present, and there was 
 therefore no need to look for it. But for the new printed catalogue, therefore, 
 the book might never have come to my knowledge.
 
 DE RERVM INVENTORIRVS AVRB 
 
 usUfcfcU^* V^ loannes Ma«:tir<£U5 Lunefis, cudcbat. 
 ■ Exrccogmtionc. AIurtirianiEpifcopi 
 NebienOsc 
 
 y«nalisfub fignodiui loannis Baptiita? e tc^ 
 \y gione Collegi j Langbardorum
 
 " De Rerum Iiiventorihun." 5 
 
 Rcnim Iiiventoribus aureus libellus . . . Parisiis . . . 1520, 
 which gave at once a cato.i;orical affirmative to the first question. 
 Immediate reference' to "/! 10,'" settled definitely that it was the 
 1520 edition that had been used by Naude in 1625. 
 
 7. If it be asked how the work of an Italian author, even if 
 composed in Latin, edited by an Italian bishop, came to be 
 printed in Paris, a reply has been already given in the first paper, 
 §44. Giustiniani had published the polyglot Psalter at Genoa, in 
 1516, and had won the reputation of being an Oriental linguist 
 and scholar, when he was invited to Paris by Francis I. to act as 
 his chaplain and to teach Hebrew. When there he put the 
 present work through the press, which explains the dedication to 
 the French King's secretary, the date 1520, and Paris as the 
 place of printing. 
 
 8. A description of the book follows. 
 
 DE RERVM INVENTORIBVS AVRE- 
 
 us libellus, f|ue loannes IMatthfeus Lunefis cudebat. 
 
 Ex recognitione. A. luftiniani Epifcopi 
 Nebienfis. 
 
 [Printei's Device.] 
 
 Vpenalis fub figuo diui loannis Baptiftre e re- 
 gione Collegij Langbardorum 
 
 4' Size of tlie i)age, 7|-" x 5;J-" ; size of tlie printed portion, 
 6'q " X •>;'". .V to J) in fcjurs ; or, Ff. xvi., nmnberefl ; but D.i.j., 
 wliich is Fo. xiv., is inisiiuiiibcixMl Fo. xiii., and l>.iij. (<>r Fo. xv.) 
 is misnumbered Fo. xii. i. D.iiij. is cdrrectly muiibered F<i. xvi. 
 Roman lettei'. barge, medium and small sized ornamental 
 eai)itals. 'M lines to the jiage, exeluiHng tlie runnini,' title and 
 the signature line. 'I'licic ai-e no catdiwords. 'I'licre an- ;i few 
 contractions. 
 
 The tloiid titlr-]iage with the fleviee of Nicole De La Barrc 
 will be better understood In' the accompanying fac-similo, than 
 by any description. A copy of this form of the device is given 
 in L.-C Silvestres AMnnpies Tt/pof/raphiqiiea, Paris, 185.*?, No. 3o5. 
 .\ variation is seen in No. 91, and in A. Claudins Ilisfoire <ie 
 rhnprinii'rir i-n Frrtyin^ nn w .' rf ,n< xvi.'' Siirle, Pari.s, 1900- 
 1904 : l!)(il, T. ii.. p. ;^(»1.
 
 6 The Royal Fhilosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 Collation. 
 
 (A.j. Fo. I. r) is the title-page. 
 
 (A.j. Fo. T. r) Epistola | Nuncupatoria. | Aug. luftinianus, 
 Epifcopus Nebienfis, Prober- | to Geduino, 
 Regio Fraiicoi-um a fecretis. | S. | 
 ends A.ij. Fo. ii. r dated : 
 Tale Parrhifijs. XYT. Calend. Maias. \ 
 MDXX. i 
 Aij. Fo. II. r. The text begins, and ends on D.iiij. Fo. xvr. r. 
 The verse is blank. 
 The book contains xxiiii. chapters. 
 D.iiij., or Fo. xvi. recto, ends with the entry about Agrippa 
 and the naval crown, and is followed by the word Finis. Then 
 come a few lines by Giustiniani to the reader, whirli m;iy be 
 quoted as giving some information about the book. 
 Ad Lectorem. 
 ^Nlemineris Candide lector, pU;i'aq ; k muea I hoc opcre, it 
 imperfecta relicta ab author(\ ticiiti T liininari epiftola de 
 ductu eft. Inter q fe(|ur-tin iii;i.\imc aiiimaduertas, licet, Nc 
 pe i capite. xiiij. ^ bi de uictalHs agitur, iStunu, Argetii \ iuii, 
 Criftallu, marmor, iiitni, coridlu, ai-gilla, il' i-eliqua id ge- 
 n", in albo, (|uafi tela ordieiis. i-('li(|ii(M-at. nifi iiii>i-tc' juirtus 
 fuisset, denuo abfoHtur". Id (piod i\: i nudtis factu coperies. 
 Ca^teru, In cap. x\ij. argt'to cetadi) exciifu eft, lege c^'laiido 
 
 Vale. 
 Jn Barrana Clialcograpliia fnb idus maias. M. I). XX. 
 This note is omitted in the edition of Hanibui-g, Kii-'i, }). 01, 
 and ill it the text is suceceded iiiiiiiediatciv bv tlie cpitoiiie of 
 (Icrman inventions by Wimphrlingius, lo \k '•'') '''"^ then by the 
 poem on inventors bv Sabellicus, pp. (i7-7G, whicli finishes the 
 volume. 
 
 9. Of this 1520 edition I know at pi'e.sent onh' the copy in 
 the Hunterian Library'. From past experience, howes er, I exj)ect 
 that now that it is known to exist and has been described, other 
 copies will gradually make their appearance, Init at no time will 
 it ever be an3'thing else than very rare. A copy may l,)e found 
 in one or more of the Paris libraries, an<l possibly also in some of^ 
 those in Italy. 
 
 10. As for the Flamburg edition there arc three copies that I 
 know of, so that it is not much more plentifid than the first. 
 These are : one in the British ^Ius(>iini. one in the Hamilton
 
 if ~— ^--^A. 
 
 t lOHANNIS MATTH^I 
 
 LVNENSIS 
 
 L I B E L L V S 
 
 DE RERVM IN. 
 
 :, VENTORIBVS 
 
 £x recogniiione Aug. lufiiniani 
 Epifcopi NthUnfis^ 
 
 ANTONII SABELLICI 
 
 DE RERVM ET ARTIVM 
 
 invctitoribui Pocma* 
 
 m-. 
 
 \ 
 
 Hambvroi, 
 
 I r? Bibliopolio Mich a b us Hering . 
 
 -^:
 
 " De Rerum Iavent.(iribu!<." 7 
 
 Collection, one in the Hiinterian Collection, the last two in 
 Glasgow Univci'sity. This book was described in the j»revious 
 paper. I now add a fac-simile of its title page, so as to complete 
 the survey. 
 
 11. The second cjuestion still i-eniains unanswei(.'<l : was the 
 work Dc Mulievibus Claris ])nnted in loi'O, or was it ever j)rinted f 
 
 We know i;o\v for certain that in April, 1520, Giiistiniani, in 
 his dedication to the tract De Reruvi TnventorU)u>i refen-cd tu 
 the other as learned and interesting (Part T. i^^-H, 30). and 
 promised that he would publish it befoi-e long. This anticipatory 
 estimate of the work is put by Gesner under liis entry of it 
 as if it were already published in 1520, though the book which 
 contains the desci'iption in its dedication is not mentioned by 
 Gesner at all. Supposing that the book De ^hdierihus Claris 
 did appear subsequently in 1520, that does not account for Gesner 
 quoting from and yet omitting all mention of Matthajus' earlier 
 woi'k, unless on another assumption that the book De Mtdierihus 
 Claris repeats the description of itself in the very words printed 
 already in Giustiniani's dedication to the previous work.^ It is 
 much more likely, both from what Gesnei- has included and still 
 more from what he has omitted, that he has somehow confused 
 the two works and misapplied or misunderstood Giustiniani's 
 remark. Perhaps he never saM' the dedication, but got the 
 quotation from it at second hand and mistook its application. 
 
 12. AVhatever the explanation be, Gesner "s entry, so far as T 
 know, is the sole authoi'ity for a 1520 edition of the work De 
 Mulie7'ibv!< Claris, and as it is enveloped in doubt and uncertainty 
 T am unable to accept his statement as evidence that Giustiniani 
 carried out his intention of printing the book, or of the existence 
 (^f an edition of 1520, or that it was pi'inted at any subsequent 
 period. 
 
 13. Reference to this edition by Teissier and Draudius (Part 
 1. §§12, 37) gives it no support, for both, Teissier certainly, have 
 copied Gesner and show no personal knowledge of it. Noi' is 
 there anywhere a reference to it, or quotation from it, similar to 
 that of Naude already referred to. The only sufficient demonstra- 
 tion now of its having been printed would be the production of 
 a copy of whatever date, only, to justify Gesnei-, it would have 
 to be anterior to 1545. 
 
 * For want of a copy we cannot tell whether it so describes itself or not ; if 
 we bad a copy of 1520 there would be no need for any discussion I
 
 8 Tht Rayal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 
 
 14. There is nothing so hable to be proved erroneous as the 
 affirmation that a given book does not exist, but, so far as I am 
 able to judge, I do not expect that I shall ever meet with and 
 have to describe a copy of the work Be Mulierihus Claris, 
 composed by Joannes Matthanis Lunensis, edited by Augustinus 
 Justinianus, Episcopus Nebiensis, and printed at Paris in 1520. 
 But I do not say that it is impossible. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 Printed by A. Bryson & Co., Ltd., 92 Trongate. 
 
 19^6.
 
 De Rerum Iiivpntorilyns LihcUtix. 
 
 Joannes Matthams '■'■ De Rertmi Inventorihns Lihelhts." 
 
 POSTSCRIII : 2nd October, 191fi. 
 
 Since printing the second part of this paper, I liave recovered 
 a reference to Mattha^us's book, which I noted some years ago 
 after the first part had appeared, and which, had it been at hand, 
 I should have used in confirmation of the argued existence of 
 the 1520 edition long prior to my becoming acquainted with 
 an actual example of it. 
 
 The reference occurs in Crofts's Catalogue, ^ and is as 
 follows : — 
 
 5287. De Rerum Invciitorihus anren.s lihcUns 
 Jo. Maltha'i Lunensis, ex Recexjiiltiime 
 Aug. Justiniani Episcopi Nebiensis, 
 4to. in Barrana Chalcographia MDXX. 
 
 In §9 of the paper, Part II. above, it was remarked that, 
 in all likelihood, another copy would appear sooner or later. 
 Crofts's copy may perhaps claim the distinction of being the 
 first to appear, unless it be suggested that it was the same 
 wliicli passed into Hunter's possession. That, however, did 
 not happen for the following reason. 
 
 Hunter's death took place on Marcli 30, 1783, but Crofts's 
 sale did not begin till April 7, 1783. Hunter, of course, might 
 have given directions to have the tract purc'liase<l for his 
 libraiy. In that case, if it was bought, the volume in which 
 it is contained would correspond with Ko. 52^7 in Crofts's 
 
 ' A Catalogue of the Curious and Distinguished Library of the late Reverend 
 and Learned Tiiomas Crofts, A. ^L, Chancellor of the Diocese of Peter- 
 borough, . . . which will be sold by auction, by Mr. I'atorson, at his Great 
 Room, No. 6 King-Street, Covent-Cjarden, Loi.don, on Monday, April 7, 
 1783, and the forty-two following days . . . 8vo.
 
 10 The Royal Philosophical Sociefy of Glasgow. 
 
 Catalogue. As a matter of fact, however, there is no agree- 
 ment between the two volumes. That lot contains not only 
 Matthjvus's work, with which it opens, but half-a-dozen other 
 tracts. 
 
 On the other hand. Hunter's copy forms the second item in 
 a volume along with the Lucnbrationes of Jacobus Bi'acelleus, 
 Genuensis, printed at Paris in 1520 by Josse Badius, with his 
 usual vignette of the Ascensian press, of which book also 
 Augustinus Justinianus was editor, an office which he discharged 
 for his fellow-townsman. These two tracts are bound in one 
 volume, in brown calf blind-tooled, contemporary, or nearly 
 so, with the printing. 
 
 They were, therefore, two different copies, whatever may have 
 become of that which belonged to Crofts. I have no doubt 
 that the volume containing it is still in existence. It would 
 bo worth a search. 
 
 J. F.
 
 
 ■:^I^M^x3A 
 
 i^- 
 
 
 
 ■m.^