DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30695#0116
24
THEOLOGY.
[Hailbrun, Ven. 1475.
had imagined. Laire has been sufficiently copious ; referring us to
Seemiller’s treatise upon the two ancient Mentz editions of the Latin
Vulgate Bible. La Serna Santander conceives, not without reason,
that the present impression is as scarce as its precursor of 1462. Con-
sult the Annal. Typog. (Maitt.) vol. i. p. 311: Bibl. Curieuse; vol. iv. p.
91 : (Bibl. Biblica, Braunschweig, 1752, 4to. p. 43-4) : Bibl. Mogunt. p.
103-4: Bibl. Sacra; vol. iii. p. 101-2 : Index Libror. vol. i. p. 264-5 :
Dict. Bibliog. Choisi; vol. ii. p. 189: Cat.de Gaignat; vol. i. n°. 21.ele-
gant in morocco: Bauer’s Bibl. Libror. Rarior. vol. i. p. 90: (on the
authority of Bibl. Anon. Hag. P. i. p. 1.—also quoted by Clement).
Bibl. Soubise, n°. 81; and Panzer’s Annal. Tijpog. vol. ii. p. 122.
De Bure observes that there is no copy of this work in France,
printed upon vellum; and thinks, with great probability, that the en-
tire impression was upon paper. Bibl. Instruct. n°. 30. I believe no
vellum copy of it is known. It may be worth mentioning, on the autho-
rity of Le Long,that, sucli was the infantine state of bibliograpliy in tlie
middle of tlie seventeenth century, that Brian Walton conceived this
edition to be the first printed bible—on the authority of Lucas Bru-
gensis : yet he adds ‘ some affirm to have seen an anterior impression.’
Sir Mai’k Masterman Sykes has a fine copy of this edition; and one
was inserted in the catalogue of the late Mr. Mackinlay’s books, valued
at 40?., wliich is now in the libi’ary of the Duke of Devonshire.
14. Biblia Latina Yulgata. Printed hy
Francis Hailhrun and JVicolas de Frankfordia.
Venice. 1475. Folio.
According to Masch, Lorckius was the first who gave an aecurate
account of this edition; which lie thouglxt was rnore conformable to
the text of the Mentz, than of the Roman, impressions. It is rather
sti’ange that Crevenna, in the first catalogue of his libraiy, should
obsei've that neither Le Long nor Maittaire knew any thing about
this edition, when the latter positively describes it in the first volume
of his Typographical Annals ; p. 351. Crevenna notices his owncopy
as illuminated, and in good condition ; and bound in red morocco, with
gilt leaves. But our chief object is to describe tlie volume.
It begins on tlie recto of the first leaf with St. Jerom’s epistle, as
usual: and concludes with the Apocalypse, thus :
THEOLOGY.
[Hailbrun, Ven. 1475.
had imagined. Laire has been sufficiently copious ; referring us to
Seemiller’s treatise upon the two ancient Mentz editions of the Latin
Vulgate Bible. La Serna Santander conceives, not without reason,
that the present impression is as scarce as its precursor of 1462. Con-
sult the Annal. Typog. (Maitt.) vol. i. p. 311: Bibl. Curieuse; vol. iv. p.
91 : (Bibl. Biblica, Braunschweig, 1752, 4to. p. 43-4) : Bibl. Mogunt. p.
103-4: Bibl. Sacra; vol. iii. p. 101-2 : Index Libror. vol. i. p. 264-5 :
Dict. Bibliog. Choisi; vol. ii. p. 189: Cat.de Gaignat; vol. i. n°. 21.ele-
gant in morocco: Bauer’s Bibl. Libror. Rarior. vol. i. p. 90: (on the
authority of Bibl. Anon. Hag. P. i. p. 1.—also quoted by Clement).
Bibl. Soubise, n°. 81; and Panzer’s Annal. Tijpog. vol. ii. p. 122.
De Bure observes that there is no copy of this work in France,
printed upon vellum; and thinks, with great probability, that the en-
tire impression was upon paper. Bibl. Instruct. n°. 30. I believe no
vellum copy of it is known. It may be worth mentioning, on the autho-
rity of Le Long,that, sucli was the infantine state of bibliograpliy in tlie
middle of tlie seventeenth century, that Brian Walton conceived this
edition to be the first printed bible—on the authority of Lucas Bru-
gensis : yet he adds ‘ some affirm to have seen an anterior impression.’
Sir Mai’k Masterman Sykes has a fine copy of this edition; and one
was inserted in the catalogue of the late Mr. Mackinlay’s books, valued
at 40?., wliich is now in the libi’ary of the Duke of Devonshire.
14. Biblia Latina Yulgata. Printed hy
Francis Hailhrun and JVicolas de Frankfordia.
Venice. 1475. Folio.
According to Masch, Lorckius was the first who gave an aecurate
account of this edition; which lie thouglxt was rnore conformable to
the text of the Mentz, than of the Roman, impressions. It is rather
sti’ange that Crevenna, in the first catalogue of his libraiy, should
obsei've that neither Le Long nor Maittaire knew any thing about
this edition, when the latter positively describes it in the first volume
of his Typographical Annals ; p. 351. Crevenna notices his owncopy
as illuminated, and in good condition ; and bound in red morocco, with
gilt leaves. But our chief object is to describe tlie volume.
It begins on tlie recto of the first leaf with St. Jerom’s epistle, as
usual: and concludes with the Apocalypse, thus :