same conclusion: he expressly numbers Calini amongst the authors of the Roman Catechism.[1] The MSS. notes, to which Largomarsini refers in proof of this opinion, mention, itis true, the names of Galesinus and Pogianus with that of Calini: Pogianus, it is universally acknowledged, had no share in the composition of the work; and the passage, therefore, must have reference solely to its style. With this interpretation, the mention of Calini does not conflict; the orations delivered by him in the Council of Trent prove, that in elegance of Latinity he was little inferior to Pogianus himself; and the style, therefore, might also have employed the labour of his pen.
Other names are mentioned as possessing claims to the honour of having contributed to the composition of the Trent Catechism, amongst which are those of Cardinal Seripandus, Archbishop of Salerno, and legate at the Council to Pius the Fourth, Michael Medina, and Cardinal Antoniano, secretary to Pius the Fifth; but Tiraboschi omits to notice their pretensions; and my inquiries have not been rewarded with a single authority competent to impeach the justness of the omission. Their names, that of Medina excepted, he frequently introduces throughout his history; in no instance, however, does he intimate that they had any share in the composition of the Roman Catechism; and his silence, therefore, I am disposed to interpret as a denial of their claim.
The work, when completed,[2] was presented to Pius the Fifth, and was handed over by his holiness for revisal to a Congregation, over which presided the profound and judicious Cardinal Sirlet.[3] The style, according to some, was finally retouched by Paulus Manutius;[4] according to others, and the opinion is more probable, it owes this last improvement to the classic pen of Pogianus.[5] Its uniformity, (the observation is Lagomarsini's) and its strong resemblance to that of the other works of Pogianus, depose in favour of the superiority of his claim.[6] The work was put to press under the vigilant eye of the laborious and elegant Manutius,[7] published by authority of Pius the Fifth, and by command of the Pontiff translated into the lan-
- ↑ See Tiraboschi Storia della Letteratura Italiana, T. vii. part 1. p. 304, 308. vid. Script. Ordin Prædic. vol. 228. Romæ, 1784.
- ↑ It was finished anno 1564. Catechismum habemus jam absolutum, &c. Letter of S. Charles Borromeo to Cardinal Hosius, dated December 27th, 1564, Pog. 2. lvii.
- ↑ Ibid. To Cardinal Sirlet, Biblical literature owes the variæ lectiones in the Antwerpian Polyglot.
- ↑ Graveson Hist. Eccl. T. 7. p. 156. Ed. Venet. 1738. Apostolus Zeno. Anotat. in Bibl. Elog Ital. T. 11. p. 136. Ed. Venet. 1733.
- ↑ Lagomarsini Not. in Gratian. Epist. ad Card. Commend. Romæ, 1756
- ↑ Vol. 2. p. xxxiv.
- ↑ Pog. vol. 2. p. xxxix
