[Footnote 44: During the first centuries of printing in France, all engravers were also booksellers.]
[Footnote 45: He has an article in the _Biographie Universelle_, however.]
[Footnote 46: _Champ fleury_, fol. 4 recto.]
[Footnote 48: _Champ fleury_, fol. 12 recto and verso.]
[Footnote 49: For the Latin text, see Appendix X, _b_.]
[Footnote 53: [Twelfth-day, or Epiphany.]]
[Footnote 54: Cicero says that he borrowed this maxim from Plato: _Ut præclare scriptum est Platone._]
[Footnote 55: _Champ fleury_, fol. 1 recto.]
[Footnote 56: Ibid., verso of title-page.]
[Footnote 57: [As _Champ fleury_ is not among the works cited by French lexicographers to illustrate the historical development of the language, we search in vain for adequate explanation of some of the terms used by Tory therein. Littré defines as follows such of these varieties of letters as he includes in his dictionary: CADEAUX: _Grandes lettres placées en têtes des actes ou des chapitres dans les manuscrits en écriture cursive._--FORME: _Lettre de la belle écriture, des belles éditions, par opposition à la lettre cursive._--BÂTARDE: _Écriture ordinairement penchée, à jambages pleins, à liaisons arrondies par le haut, et à tetes sans boucles._--GOFFES: _Nom donné à une sorte de majuscules gothiques dans le commencement du XVI siècle._ See, also, for some of these alphabets, _Pantographia; Containing Accurate Copies of all the known Alphabets in the world_. By Edmund Fry. London, 1799.]]
[Footnote 58: See his introduction to Palsgrave's _Lesclaircissement de la langue françoise_. See also Appendix II.]
[Footnote 59: [_Escumeurs de latin._ Rabelais's word is _escorcher_, to flay.]]
[Footnote 60: One of the annotators of Rabelais (I do not now remember which one, but his name is of little consequence[62]) maintains that Tory intended to criticize in that epistle the author of _Pantagruel_, who had introduced him in his romance under the name of Raminagrobis. There is but one little flaw in this story, namely, that the dates are against it: _Champ fleury_ antedates _Pantagruel_, by several years. This fact, to be sure, does not prove that Rabelais did not make Tory a character in his work; but what foundation is there, I ask, for attributing the character of Raminagrobis to Tory? Simply the assertion of one of those seventeenth-century scribblers of marginal notes who lived on the great authors of the sixteenth as rats live on the most valuable manuscripts--by nibbling at them. What possible connection is there between Raminagrobis, canon and poet, whom Rabelais represents as dying about 1546, and Tory, layman and prose writer, who died twelve years earlier? Does it not remind one of the famous key to _Astrée_, of which I had occasion to prove, in my monograph upon the d'Urfés, that not a word was true? Almost the same course has been pursued with reference to the _Satire Menippée_, which has in our own day been ascribed to persons who would be greatly surprised, and far from proud of their alleged work. See what I had to say on this subject in the _Revue de la Province et de Paris_ of September 30, 1842.]