Norwich bulletin., 1922-08-07

man fiction for close to a century. But then came a fine around which clings much mystery.
 This find was made by Statileus. In library said to belong to Nicholas Cippi- GUS, at Trau, in Dalmatia, in volume containing also manuscript copies of Ca- tullus, Tibullus and Proertius, he found that additional episode in the Petronian story which is known as the Supper of Trinrnalehio," and referred to by John of Salisbury.
 Statileus brought the manuscript he had found to Lueius of Trau, who urged him to print it just as it was flor the honor of the country" He could not prevailed upon to do so, and when he left Frau in 1854 Lucius told certain learned men n Padue and Rome of the discovery and vainly exhorter Statileus and Cippicus to have 1t printed.
 By this it would seem that this manu- script was found some time before 1854. This is much earlier date than is us- ually supposed. It proved that ,Stati- leus was at Padue between 1885 and 1645, so that he must have found the manuscript before the end of that period which would leave some twenty years between its discovery and its first print ed appearance in 1884.
  dated December 2, 1883, alt Padua. In the year following it was published both at Padua and at Paris, the preface be- ing preixed to both editions. This pre- face gives the story of Statileus and Of his taking counsel about it with the i learned men of Venice and Holland, and more especially with John Rhodius, who i died at Rome in 1859.
 l Statileus here takes the place subse- uuently claimed by Lucius himself in the matter of consulting the learned world. statileus. after pressure from | the Venetian ambassador at Rome. had
 manuscript to Rome for examination. after which Frsmbotti at Padua. having obtained it from Statileus, offered 1t to 1 the perusal cf the public in the exact
 form In which he had received 1t from 1 Statileus
 This edition, though 1t had been sub. nitted to the approval Of the learned was full of the most astounding words ! and phrases In March, 1885. the cru
 diae Frenchman, Adrian de Valois boldly declarad that every page of i
 bore palpable marks of forgery and i'm posture. Such monstrous words abound ed in It that If Petronius wrote 1t hi must have been ignorant of Latin. | Genders cases and declensions wer all hopelessly wrong and the incident
 of the feast ciashed at many point
 with Roman customs. It was stroni
 case that he made. He was supported , by young critic. a German called Wa gensell. who unhesitatingly pronounce' 1t a forgery. Many of it's words wer
 more than barbarous; they were no even human The work was clearly , very recent absorption by some misera ble man.
 l A vigorous reply to these critics an peared in the 'Responsio," claimed { 7 have been written by Statileus. bu = though contemporaries accepted that . was writtenb him. such was not tn s case. Its real author was supposed r have been Dr. Peter Petit, of Paris. H S may have writie it. but there is no clea . proof. The tradition that he did writ Q 1t Is probably responsible for the errc l neous statement by many subsequer s writers that Petit was the actual discov a erer of the manuscript.
 t It was sent to Rome in 1868. where p was examined my experts. who foun f | 1t similar in writing and naper to ths :. of an original work of Petrarch. T = this day no one has been able to ascel
 tain who wrote this literary forgery