1521, or perhaps I should say an injured 1520, appears on the Badian Device
in the third impression of the same treatise (the second with the
_expositio_), though it was set forth "postridie Cal. April 1528."

(15.) Is it owing to the extreme rarity of copies of the first edition of
the Pagninian version of the Scriptures that so many writers are perplexed
and ignorant concerning it? One might have expected that such a very
remarkable impression in all respects would have been so well known to
Bishop Walton, that he could not have asserted (_Proleg._ v.) that it was
published in 1523; and the same hallucination is perceptible in the
_Elenchus Scriptorum_ by Crowe (p. 4.) It is certain that Pope Leo X.
directed that Pagnini's translation should be printed at his expense
(Roscoe, ii. 282.), and the Diploma of Adrian VI. is dated "die, xj. Maij.
M.D.XXIII.," but the labours of the eminent Dominican were not put forth
until the 29th of January, 1527. This is the date in the colophon; and
though "1528" is obvious on the title-page, the apparent variation may be
accounted for by remembering the several ways of marking the commencement
of the year. (_Le Long_, by Masch, ii. 475.; _Chronol. of Hist._, by Sir H.
Nicolas, p. 40.) Chevillier informs us (_Orig. de l'Imp._ p. 143.) that the
earliest Latin Bible, in which he had seen the verses distinguished by
ciphers, was that of Robert Stephens in 1557. Clement (_Biblioth._ iv.
147.) takes notice of an impression issued two years previously; and these
bibliographers have been followed by Greswell (_Paris. G. P._ i. 342.
390.). Were they all unacquainted with the antecedent exertions of Sante
Pagnini (See Pettigrew's _Bibl. Sussex._ p. 388.)

(16.) Why should Panzer have thought that the true date of the _editio
princeps_ of Gregorius Turonensis and Ado Viennensis, comprised in the same
small folio volume, was 1516? (Greswell, i. 35.) If he had said 1522, he
might have had the assistance of a misprint in the colophon, in which