Marie semper Virginis_, by Albertus Magnus, first printed? I do not mean
the supposititious work, which is often confounded with the other one; but
that which is also styled _Super Evangelium_ Missus est _Quæstiones_. And
why are these Questions invariably said to be 230 in number, when there are
275 chapters in the book? Beughem asserts that the earliest edition is that
of Milan in 1489 (_Vid._ Quetif et Echard, i. 176.), but what I believe to
be a volume of older date is "sine ullâ notâ;" and a bookseller's
observation respecting it is, that it is "very rare, and unknown to De
Bure, Panzer, Brunet, and Dibdin." {324}

4. Has any discovery made as to the author of the extraordinary 4to. tract,
_Oracio querulosa contra Inuasores Sacerdotum?_ According to the Crevenna
_Catalogue_ (i. 85.), the work is "inconnu à tous les bibliographes."
Compare Seemiller, ii. 162.; but the copy before me is not of the
impression described by him. It is worthy of notice, that at signature A
iiiij the writer declares, "nostris jam temporibus calchographiam, hoc est
impressioram artem, in nobilissima Vrbanie germe Maguncia fuisse repertam."

5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or a love of conjectures was
the source of Chevillier's mistake, not corrected by Greswell (_Annals of
Paris. Typog._, p. 6.), that signatures were first introduced, anno 1476,
by Zarotus, the printer, at Milan? They may doubtless be seen in the _Opus
Alexandride Ales super tertium Sententiarum_, Venet. 1475, a book which
supplies also the most ancient instance I have met with of a "Registrum
Chartarum." Signatures, however, had a prior existence; for they appear in
the _Mammetractus_ printed at Beron Minster in 1470 (Meermau, ii. 28.;
Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the impression of 1476. Dr.
Cotton (_Typ. Gaz._, p. 66.), Mr. Horne (_Introd. to Bibliog._, i. 187.
317), and many others, wrongly delay the invention or adoption of them till
the year 1472.