NOTES

Xtcolaus Fakutms and Nicolaus Nicoli

Nicolaus Falcutius, or Falcuccius (Niccolo Fal-cucci) must be the one medieval author whoholds the record tor having been wrongly cata-logued in the largest number of modern Euro-pean libraries. In ihe hope that he may becorrectly catalogued in the future, I will here listthe printed editions of his major writings onh,the seven huge volumes otSer?nones (which aremedieal, not theological), .md show what hasbeen their fate in the printed catalogues of theKnglish-speakine; world: for no one has ever gothim quite right. Vov lack of space I will notenter into the question of his fortuua in conti-nental libraries, btil will restrict m\self toBritain and America.

Falcucci was a I'lorenline doctor who diedabout 1412, at what age I cannot say. The firstedition ot his huije, indigestible, unreadablemass of medical writings was printed in sevenfolio parts by Damianus de Gonfaloneriis atPavia between 1481 and 1484, and a glance atthe Gesamthutahg (GW 9704) shows that manymodern libraries, including the British Library,possess only a partial set of these volumes. It israre to find the entire work in one place.

The only other incunable edition of the col-lected works was issued by Bernardinus Stagni-nus de Tridino at Venice between December1490 and October 1491 {GW^-jO'^), and of thisthe British Librar\ does have a complete set.Trouble begins for the modern cataloguer whenwe reach the sixteenth-centurv editions. The

first edition which has caused confusion is thatprinted by Lucantonio Giunta at Venice, sinceit contains the somewhat ambiguous date in thecolophon 'M.D. xv. Kal. Maij'. This was at firstcorrectly interpreted as 1515 when the BritishMuseum bought Dr. Georg Kloss's imperfectset in March 1835; but at the end ofthe nine-teenth ccntur: the cataloguers (evidently Proc-tor himself) changed their minds, translated thedate as 17 April 1500, and placed these volumesamong the incunabula as IC. 24250. But it wassoon recognized by the wise Victor Scholderer,when preparing the Venice volume of B.M.C.which came out in 1924, that the true date ofthis edition is indeed 1515, and so these bookswere once again transferred to the generallibrary. The erroneous date of 1500 for this edi-tion persists in the old printed catalogue oftheBodleian Libtary of 1843, while Hain 11769,dated 1500, is also an error for the same 1515edition. 1500 is a ghost edition.

But between the 1491 and the 1515 editionsthere is one other which deserves mention, astor some unknown reason it appears to be therarest ot them all: it is not represented, forexample, in the British Library. It was printedby Bonetus Locatellus for the heirs of Octavi-anus Scotus at Venice in 1507. There is acomplete set in the National Library of Medi-cine at Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., there isone odd volume of it in the Wellcome HistoricalMedical Library in London, and one other oddvolume in Pembroke College, Cambridge. Nodoubt others could be traced, but it is very rare

198

in the major libraries. The last edition to be pub-lished lit Venice (or anywhere else) was that pro-duced by L. A. Giunta in 15,^^ although theeolophonot pt. i of this reads 'In edibus AureliiPineij sumptibus Luce Antonii Iunte', with thedate 1531, showing that Pincio was the actualprinter, and that the edition took over two yearsto eomplete. Of this edition the British Libraryhas a lull set. I have had oceasion to write aboutit in another context, when discussing the typo-graphical material of the printer Aurelio Pincio.'After 1533 Falcucci's ponderous tomes merei-fully went out ot tashion and were never againreprinted.

It is not, however, the dating of the editionswhieh has caused major confusion in modernlibraries, but the form of the author's name.Nowhere in all the massive volumes of thesefour eoilected editions (as far as I have ob-ser\ ed) is the author's surname Falcutius actu-ally found in print. He is always called 'NieolausNieoli Florentinus', in the customary medievalway, the family surname not being consideredimportant. It evidently means that he was theson of another Nicholas, but the form of patro-n\Tiiie is regularly 'Nieoli' and not 'Nieolai'. Itis not elear when the real family surname wasdiscovered, but I have traced it back to at least1779. The result is that in almost alt cataloguesthe ineunable editions have been entered underFALCUTILS, Nicolaus, while the sixteenth-eentury editions have been entered underNicOLi, Nicolaus; and it has not been realizedthat these two authors are the same man.

Mairtaire's index of 1741 has the heading'NicoLAi Nieoli sermones medicinales', andquotes the editions o f Venice 1500'[i.e. 1515],Venice 14Q1, and Venice 1533- Maittaire docsnot know the name of Falcutius, or at least doesnot use it. He wrongly enters the Anlntolanumof Nicolaus Salernitanus under our author.'Miehael Denis in 17H9 indexes him as NicolausFalcutius Florentinus.' It seems to have been in177Q when the learned Mittarelli provided thetrue name: 'Nicolaus Florentinus Medicus,cuius cognomen erat Falcuccius, distin-

guendus proindc a Nicolao Nieoli celebriCodicum & librorum eollectore, deiunctusest anno 1412. C um hoc postremo conlunditFabritius Vol. XII Bibliothecae Graecaepag. 447 . . .'

Panzer in his index of 1797 has him underNicoi.ALis l''aleutius. Medic. Florentinus, butwrongly includes under his name (as hadMaittaire) the works of Nicolaus Salernitanus, atotally different author. All this was copied byHain, who in 182(1 enters him under 'NICOLAUS

Falcutius', with seven entries (Hain 11763-9).In taet Hain 11763-6 are really b\ NicolausSalernitanus, Hain 11769 is not an ineunable atall but a 'ghost' of the 1515 edition; and so nos.11767 and 11768 arc the only entries left in Hainwhich correctly represent ineunable editions ofNicolaus Falcutius.

Confusion has continued to reign throughthe ages with regard to this author, who himselfcannot be blamed for any of it. The Bodleianprinted catalogue of 1843 has the horrid h\brid'Nicoi.US (Nicholay) P'lorentinus', and theBritish Librar\ (formerly British Museum)General Catalogue has always carried the twoheadings F"AI,CXTILS, Nicolaus, and Nic.oi.i,Nieolaus. The Hunterian Museum catalogue(Glasgow, 1930) has the two headings FA[.-CUCCIUS (Nicolaus) for the I*a\ia edition of 1484and NICOLAS (Nieolaus) for the Venice editionof 1515. The Wellcome Library catalogue(London, 1962) has FALCUTIUS (Nicolaus), butalso has an entry under NicoLUS (Nicolaus) anddeclares that he flourished about 1515, when weknow that he died about 1412. R. J. Durling, inhis detailed catalogue of the sixteenth-centurybooks in the National Library of Medicine inthe U.S.A., published in 1967, has correctly putall the editions together in the right place, buthas made one small slip in giving to NicolausFlorentinus the dates 1428 1324, whieh turnout to be the dates of the next author in his list,Nicolaus Leonicenus. The new National UnionCatalog of America has a large number ofentries under the name of Falcutius, but un-happil) makes one mistake in including among

199

them the Miliin 1479 cdilion of ihc , lululohn-nitn of Nicolaiis Sakrnitaniis.^

The linu- has surel) arrived when ihis un-fortunate metiieval aulhor should be cataloguedeorrectly in all libniries. The lesson to he learntis that whether the cataloguers are working inthe earl\ eighteenth cen(ur\ or in the late twen-

1 n . K. Rhodes, 'An Unidentified Edition of Galcn\Fcsnihiijl jur Chius Nisscti, ed. I',. Geek andG. Prcsslcr (Wicshadcn. 197,0, PP- 575-8,1, cspcei-all\ al p. 5S2.

2 Michael MiUttaire, .Inini/iiiin

hirnns ijiinuus (London, 1741), p.

3 Auihihinii lypogiiip/iitfitutn r . c/. Muhuclis

liiirc. Supplcmculum^ Adornavit Michael Denis(\ icnna, i7'S()), p. <S43.

4 Johannes Benedictus Mittarelh, Bibhothciii tmh-i'lii'i ithiniisiripiiinmi .Winutslcni S. Atichni'/is Vcnc-

liarutu propf Muriiiniini^ clc. (Venice, 1779),

tielh, they should be very careful what they dowhenever ihey discover the true surname of aneiirly author who never used it in his own writ-ings and was never credited with it by the prin-ters of the fifteenth or the early sixteenthcenturies.

DENNIS E. RHODES

Appendix., cols. 293-5. ^^ Mittarelli rightly warnsus, we must not confuse Nicolaus Nieoli (Faleu-tius) with the famous hutnanist and hook-collectorof I'lorcnce, Niccolo Niccoli, who died in 1437.But the latter did not write any books.

5 For a useful summary of the work of NicolausI'alcutius see George Sarton, huroductinn to theHistory oj Siiencc, vol. iii, pt. 2 (Carnegie Institu-tion, Washington, tg48)., pp. 1194 5. This tells usthat his full name was Nicolaus Falcutius deFalconiis.

RhhiiiJ Ihn/gcs and Slowc Miiniiscnpf / j

This note is intended to explain the relationshipbetween Stowe Manuscript 15 and RichardHodges., whose name appears on tolio t2^ withthe date 1545. The manuscript is .1 small volumeof ninct)-two \ellum folios containing di\crscsubjeets dating from the twelfth to the sixteenthcenturies.' It was originalh begun as a twelfth-century Latin cop\ of the four gospels and thisoccupies the majority of the text (fols. 26 <S4).Howexer, at an carl\ date the manuscript cameto be associated with the English Exchequerand it was used to record miscellaneous notesfrom Kdward Ts reign to that of Henry \ I I ,frequently copied from the Red Book of theExchequer. Memoranda of a political naturewere also chronicled; among the latest were twocopies of the oath of fealty to Henry XTII andQueen Jane Seymour. A bronze-gilt crucifix isattached to the outside cover of the \olume andit is likely that this manuscript is the 'little bookw ith crucifix' w hich was among the records heldby the King's Remembrancer in the early seven-teenth ccntur\.- The book was apparentl\ usedto administer oaths in the Upper Exchequer.

Richard Hodges was the first known posses-sor of this manuscript. He apparently began hiscareer in 1543 as a London haberdasher and re-sided in Westminster and Highgate, Middlesex,before his death in 1572/3.' He possibly repre-sented the Cit\ of Westtninster in the Parlia-ment of 1559' B} 1554 he was closely associatedwith Sir Roger Cholmley (d. 1565), a formerRecorder of the City of London, Chief Baron ofthe I'Achequer, and Lord Chief justice.'' WhenCholmley established his grammar school inHighgate in t565 he nominated Hodges to beone of the six governors for the school.''

Hodges' connection with Stowe MS. 15 arosebecause of his employment in royal govern-ment. By t545 he was one of the ushers ot theUpper Exchequer and he eventually rose tobecome Chief Usher of the court during Queen['Elizabeth's reign." Concurrently, trom around1552 he served as the assistant Marshall in theExchequer.'' The usher had the custody of theExchequer chamber and all records kept there,and his duties included those performed by acrier in other courts, particularly the calling ofwitnesses in legal cases." It is apparent thatStowe MS. 15 was used by him in this work.

200