DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30695#0069
dntichrist.-] THE INFANCY OF PRINTING.
XXXI
From the preceding fac-simile the reader may have some notion of
the terrific nature of these cuts. The figures are in general tall, and
seem to have been executed by the artist wlio composed those for the
* Birth and Acts of Antichrist.’ The wliole is struck off in a dark
brownish ink. It would seem that Heinecken had never inspected a
copy of this work, which is perhaps of even rarer occurrence than the
preceding ones. His description of it is brief, and appended to that
of the ‘ Birth and Acts of Antichristand for this description he
was indebted to M. Schlaeger, who sent him an account, from a copy
of it (subjoined to the Antichrist) in the library of Saxe-Gotha.
Iclee Generale, &c. p. 390-1: but, from this account, it appears that
the present copy wants the last cut of the Day of Judgment, and one
leaf of the subsequent text. It, is, undoubtedly, a singularly rare and
curious treasure. Heinecken has not given any fac-simile from it.
Bound in blue morocco.
6. Enndkrist. [Antichrist.] Germanice. Folio.
This extraordinary volume is a compilation from a popular work
in its day, entitled Compendium Theologiae ;* as a reference is gene-
rally made to this work, or to the Apocalypse, at the end of each sen-
tence, by way of explieation to the cut beneath. It was probably
attached to the * Quindecim Signa/ &c. as it seems to begin abruptly at
* Heinecken’s observations, are well worth subjoining: ' Tlie work appears to be more
ancient than the author of the Curiosities of Vienna supposes. It is true that the ‘ Com-
pendium Theologiae,’ printed in 1473, is cited in it; as well as the * Golden Legend ’
of Iacobus Yoraginis, printed in 1470. But we must not conclude from thence, that the
work called Anti-Ciirist was a subsequent production; for the MSS. of the two first-named
works were in existence before the conclusion of the 13th century.’ Idee Gdndrale, &c. p. 386.
This is the substance of liis observations. In his notes subjoined, Heinecken thinks the
above aut’uor has confounded the ‘ Compendium Theologiae ’ witli the ‘ Compendium
Tiieologicae Veritatis’ — which latter work has been, in his opinion, erroneously
attributed to Thomas Dorniberg; whereas, on the authority of Oudin, Script. Eccles. vol. iii,
p. 2555, edit. Lips., it was in existence 200 years before. Heinecken supposes that * the
Inventor or Designer of tlie tigures in Anticiirist, had in view the Compendium Theologiae
of Robert Bacon, of the order of the Minorites:—a work singularly curious,which he had
seen in MS., and which lie believed never to have been printed.’ Ibid.
It may be worth adding, that, if Heinecken alludes to our Robert Bacon, the work he
mentions has escaped the researches of Gesner and Pits. The latteris comparatively copious
and particular. See Bibl. Gesneri, p. 728, edit. 1583: and Pitseeus de Rebus Britann.
p. 318,1619, 4to. Neither Du Fresnoy nor Baillet give the least account of Robert Bacon;
and in the Bibl. Med. et Inf. JEtat. of Fabricius, vol. vi. p. 268, there is a superficial and
inaccurate reference to Pits.
XXXI
From the preceding fac-simile the reader may have some notion of
the terrific nature of these cuts. The figures are in general tall, and
seem to have been executed by the artist wlio composed those for the
* Birth and Acts of Antichrist.’ The wliole is struck off in a dark
brownish ink. It would seem that Heinecken had never inspected a
copy of this work, which is perhaps of even rarer occurrence than the
preceding ones. His description of it is brief, and appended to that
of the ‘ Birth and Acts of Antichristand for this description he
was indebted to M. Schlaeger, who sent him an account, from a copy
of it (subjoined to the Antichrist) in the library of Saxe-Gotha.
Iclee Generale, &c. p. 390-1: but, from this account, it appears that
the present copy wants the last cut of the Day of Judgment, and one
leaf of the subsequent text. It, is, undoubtedly, a singularly rare and
curious treasure. Heinecken has not given any fac-simile from it.
Bound in blue morocco.
6. Enndkrist. [Antichrist.] Germanice. Folio.
This extraordinary volume is a compilation from a popular work
in its day, entitled Compendium Theologiae ;* as a reference is gene-
rally made to this work, or to the Apocalypse, at the end of each sen-
tence, by way of explieation to the cut beneath. It was probably
attached to the * Quindecim Signa/ &c. as it seems to begin abruptly at
* Heinecken’s observations, are well worth subjoining: ' Tlie work appears to be more
ancient than the author of the Curiosities of Vienna supposes. It is true that the ‘ Com-
pendium Theologiae,’ printed in 1473, is cited in it; as well as the * Golden Legend ’
of Iacobus Yoraginis, printed in 1470. But we must not conclude from thence, that the
work called Anti-Ciirist was a subsequent production; for the MSS. of the two first-named
works were in existence before the conclusion of the 13th century.’ Idee Gdndrale, &c. p. 386.
This is the substance of liis observations. In his notes subjoined, Heinecken thinks the
above aut’uor has confounded the ‘ Compendium Theologiae ’ witli the ‘ Compendium
Tiieologicae Veritatis’ — which latter work has been, in his opinion, erroneously
attributed to Thomas Dorniberg; whereas, on the authority of Oudin, Script. Eccles. vol. iii,
p. 2555, edit. Lips., it was in existence 200 years before. Heinecken supposes that * the
Inventor or Designer of tlie tigures in Anticiirist, had in view the Compendium Theologiae
of Robert Bacon, of the order of the Minorites:—a work singularly curious,which he had
seen in MS., and which lie believed never to have been printed.’ Ibid.
It may be worth adding, that, if Heinecken alludes to our Robert Bacon, the work he
mentions has escaped the researches of Gesner and Pits. The latteris comparatively copious
and particular. See Bibl. Gesneri, p. 728, edit. 1583: and Pitseeus de Rebus Britann.
p. 318,1619, 4to. Neither Du Fresnoy nor Baillet give the least account of Robert Bacon;
and in the Bibl. Med. et Inf. JEtat. of Fabricius, vol. vi. p. 268, there is a superficial and
inaccurate reference to Pits.