Nyerup, who in 1784 published an “Account of such books as were read in schools in Denmark prior to the Reformation,”[II-61] objected to the title “Biblia Pauperum,” as he had seen portions of a manuscript copy in which the drawings were richly coloured. The title which he preferred was BIBLIA TYPICO-HARMONICA. In this objection, however, Camus does not concur: “It is not from the embellishments of a single copy,” he observes, “that we ought to judge of the current price of a book; and, besides, we must not forget to take into consideration the other motives which might suggest the title, ‘Bible of the Poor,’ for we have proofs that other abridgments of greater extent were called ‘Poor men’s books.’ Such is the ‘Biblia Pauperum’ of St. Bonaventure, consisting of extracts for the use of _preachers_, and the ‘Dictionarius Pauperum.’ Of the last the title is explained in the book itself: ‘Incipit summula omnibus _verbi divini seminatoribus pernecessaria_.’” It is surprising that Camus did not perceive that the very titles which he cites militate against the opinion of the “Biblia” being intended for the use of poor _men_. St. Bonaventure’s work, and the Dictionary, which he refers to as instances of “Poor men’s books,” both bear on the very face of them a refutation of his opinion, for in the works themselves it is distinctly stated that they were compiled, not “ad usum pauperum _hominum_;” but “ad usum pauperum _predicatorum_, et _verbi divini seminatorum_:” not for the use of “poor _men_,” but for “poor _preachers_ and _teachers of the divine word_.” Camus has unwittingly supplied a club to batter his own argument to pieces. [Footnote II-61: “Librorum qui ante Reformationem in scholis Daniæ legebantur, Notitia. Hafniæ, 1784;” referred to by Camus, Notice d’un Livre, &c. p. 10.] Of the “Biblia Pauperum Predicatorum,” there are, according to Heineken, five different editions with the text in Latin. Four of them contain each forty leaves, printed on one side only from wood-blocks by means of friction, and which differ from each other in so trifling a degree, that it is not unlikely that three of them are from the same set of blocks. The other edition,--the fifth described by Heineken--contains fifty leaves, printed in a similar manner, but apparently with the figures designed by a different artist. Besides the above, there are two different editions, also from wood-blocks, with the text in German: one with the date 1470; and the other, 1471 or 1475, for the last numeral appears as like a 1 as a 5. There are also two editions, one Latin, and the other German, with the text printed from moveable types by Albert Pfister, at Bamberg, about 1462.