University of Virginia Library



The De concilio and the Reformatio Angliae are here treated as a unit, though the Roman editions were so printed that they could be sold either separately or together. In the other two editions, the two tracts form a single book with continuous pagination. The editions and their sigla are:

Rome: Paulus Manutius, 1562
— R1 (for both texts)
Rome: Paulus Manutius, 1562
— R2 (for both texts)
Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1562
— V
Dillingen: Sebald Mayer, 1562
— D
See also Antoine Augustin Renouard, Annales de l'imprimerie des Alde (1834), pp. 185-186, and Otto Bucher, Bibliographie der deutschen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts: I, Dillingen (1960), pp. 96-97, no. 158.


DNB, XLVI, 45.


Johann Jakob Herzog and Albert Hauck, Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (1896-1913), XV, 504, lists the Dillingen edition first.


See the entries in the Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in Italy and of Italian Books Printed in other Countries from 1465 to 1600 now in the British Museum (1958), pp. 529-530.


This has led to the remark: "the British Museum Catalogue lists it in the first place" (William Salloch, Catalogue 235 [1966], no. 1095).


It includes the De concilio, De baptismo Constantini, and Reformatio Angliae. In R1 and R2 the De baptismo Constantini is printed with the De concilio.


For further remarks on these Roman editions, see my "Paulus Manutius and his first Roman Printings," PBSA, 46 (1952), 209-214.


The errata of R1 were incorporated in R2.


See Bühler, pp. 213-214.


In the De baptismo Constantini, the errata of R1 suggests that (in 60.b.23) "semper professus" should be corrected to read "semper est professus." However, R2 prints "semper professus est." Since both V and D follow the correction as in R1, it may be assumed that they did not use R2 as their copy.


In 59.a.13, R1 has been altered, by means of pen and ink, so that "conciliorum" reads "consiliorum." D follows uncorrected R1, while R2 and V adopt the new reading of R1.


R1 (60.b.11) corrects "acta" to read "actae" by an ink emendation. Again D follows the original reading of R1, while R2 and V both make the correction. See Bühler, p. 212.


By following the erasure in R1 of the "n" in "ante," R2 and D read (59.b.15) "iam a te dictum est." V, however, preserves the uncorrected text of R1; see Bühler, p. 212, no. 11. Since V sometimes accepts the corrections and at other times prints the original text where D does the direct opposite, it seems certain that D and V must be quite independent of one another. Sometimes V differs from the three other texts. Thus, in 13.b.1 in the De concilio, R1 has "cum eum principium" in common with R2 and D — but V omits "eum." In 2.a.15 of R1 and R2 (and so in D), we read: "legatis sunt communes" but V omits the "sunt." Similarly, in the Reformatio Angliae, R1 (26.b.21) in common with R2 and D has "an eorum bona" where V (127.a.14) alone prints "an uerò bona."