DUTCH BIBLE.
71
Delft; 1477-]
The present is the first impression of the Dutch Bible; and,
as such, it will not fail to be interesting to every owner of a copy
of it. Maittaire, vol. i. p. 371, note 6.7, has a short account, referring
to foreign bibliographers; but he does not appear to have ever seen the
work itself. Freytag, Analect. Literar.vol. i. p. 100, is interesting con-
cerning the reprint of this impression at Gouda in 1479; but Clement
has a long and valuable note: giving, inter alia, Meerman’s and Adriaan
Pars' accurate descriptions of these volumes. Bibl. Curieuse, vol. iii.
p. 461. Marchand tells us, that Le Long and other bibhographers talk
of an impression of this date in a quarto form ; but it is only the pre-
sent edition with the margins mucli cut. Hist. cle Vlmprim. p. 69.
The authorities of Hallervod, and Bibl. Huls. are hardly worth quoting;
and the recent editor of Vogt’s Catalog. Libror. Rarior. 1793, p. 125-6.
is in error when he corrects Vogt for calling this tlie first Dutch im-
pression. Hulse’s account of an edition of 1473, is too vague to be
relied upon; see the Bibl. Huls. vol. iv. pt. 1, n°. i, 2. Also Panzer’s
Annal. T?jpog. vol. i. p. 370. La Serna Santander; Dict. Bibliogr.
Choisi, vol. ii. p. 206; and Bibl. Crevenn. vol. i. n°. 147, edit. 1789;
where a fine copy of it was sold for 102 florins. The present copy is
elegantly bound in hog’s-skin.
71
Delft; 1477-]
The present is the first impression of the Dutch Bible; and,
as such, it will not fail to be interesting to every owner of a copy
of it. Maittaire, vol. i. p. 371, note 6.7, has a short account, referring
to foreign bibliographers; but he does not appear to have ever seen the
work itself. Freytag, Analect. Literar.vol. i. p. 100, is interesting con-
cerning the reprint of this impression at Gouda in 1479; but Clement
has a long and valuable note: giving, inter alia, Meerman’s and Adriaan
Pars' accurate descriptions of these volumes. Bibl. Curieuse, vol. iii.
p. 461. Marchand tells us, that Le Long and other bibhographers talk
of an impression of this date in a quarto form ; but it is only the pre-
sent edition with the margins mucli cut. Hist. cle Vlmprim. p. 69.
The authorities of Hallervod, and Bibl. Huls. are hardly worth quoting;
and the recent editor of Vogt’s Catalog. Libror. Rarior. 1793, p. 125-6.
is in error when he corrects Vogt for calling this tlie first Dutch im-
pression. Hulse’s account of an edition of 1473, is too vague to be
relied upon; see the Bibl. Huls. vol. iv. pt. 1, n°. i, 2. Also Panzer’s
Annal. T?jpog. vol. i. p. 370. La Serna Santander; Dict. Bibliogr.
Choisi, vol. ii. p. 206; and Bibl. Crevenn. vol. i. n°. 147, edit. 1789;
where a fine copy of it was sold for 102 florins. The present copy is
elegantly bound in hog’s-skin.