2
in the outset^ that these two works^ although
frequently confounded, are really distinct — at
least, as portions under the general denomina-
tion.
The first author, who may Le considered to
have examined this subject critically, and to
any extent, is doubtless the celebrated Bayle,
in his Dictionary, under the articles, Banck,
Pinet, Tuppius. The first French edition,
indeed, of a form of the Taxae by Antoine du
Pinet, in 1564, under the title of Taxe des
Parties Ctisiceiles, &c. and the re-impressions
previous to the time of Bayle, although accom-
panied with prefaces, contain nothing to sa-
tisfy almost necessary curiosity. The edition
of 1744 has a preface of large dimensions : and
so have the respective reprints of another form
of the Taxae by Banck in 1651, and by Du
Mont in 1664. Charles Chais, in his valuable
Lettres sur les Jnbiles, &c. published in 1753,
has, in the XXVIth Lettre, given the subject
the best form which the existing materials
would allow. But by none of the editors of
these editions have we the information, either
for kind or degree, which most of them pos-
sessed, and which it was obviously of most
importance to communicate. Evidently, the
