DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30695#0407
Ulric Zel; no dcite.)
CICERO.
307
In regard to the second Mentz impression of 1466, much that has
been said of the preceding one may justly apply to this latter. That
there are many variations between it and the previous one, has been
admitted : although, as De Bure observes that he has compared three
copies of this same impression (of 1466) with each other, and found
no variation, it is probable that there never was but one text of this
latter date. Schwarz is ratlier copious and interesting in his account
of this edition: Prim. Quced. Doc. &c. pt. ii. p. 1S-19. Wurdtwein,
although unpardonably brief, subjoins a very curious piece of informa-
tion, which he borrows from Sehoepflin. The latter, after properly
ridiculing the tricks of magic supposed to have been played off by
Fust at Paris—and clearly shewing, on the authority of Bierling, that
the printer had no relation or connection whatever with a man of the
same name, who lived in the 15th century in the Duchy of Wirtem-
berg—says, that he saw, in the public library of Geneva, a copy of the
Ofhces ofCicero, of the present date (1466), at the end of which was
a ms. note, attesting that “ the original owner of this copy received
it as a present from Fust himself, at Paris, in July 1466; when the
owner resided there “ pro generali reformatione totius Francorum
Regni.” Schoepflin adds that, in the same year, the plague raged in
Paris, and carried off 40,000 persons in the months of August and Sep-
tember. He supposes that Fust perished in this general calamity; as
his name has never yet been found in any colophon after this period—
but only that of his son-in-law. This point shall be elsewhere discussed
at large; meanwhile the reader may consult the Vindic. Tijpog. p. 61,
note Z.
It only remains to subjoin, that this copy is of equal beauty, and of
somewhat superior size, to the foregoing. It is printed ufon vellum
of the same perfection; and the first page is illuminated with taste
and elegance. In our own country several other vellum copies of
both impressions are known.
158. Cicero. Officia. Without Date, Place,
or Printer s JVame ; hut unquestionahly printed
hy Ulric Zel. Quarto.
It has been observed, in the preceding article, that from courtesy to
long established opinion, the Mentz editions of 1465-6 have been
inserted in the first place in the account of impressions of Cieero’s
CICERO.
307
In regard to the second Mentz impression of 1466, much that has
been said of the preceding one may justly apply to this latter. That
there are many variations between it and the previous one, has been
admitted : although, as De Bure observes that he has compared three
copies of this same impression (of 1466) with each other, and found
no variation, it is probable that there never was but one text of this
latter date. Schwarz is ratlier copious and interesting in his account
of this edition: Prim. Quced. Doc. &c. pt. ii. p. 1S-19. Wurdtwein,
although unpardonably brief, subjoins a very curious piece of informa-
tion, which he borrows from Sehoepflin. The latter, after properly
ridiculing the tricks of magic supposed to have been played off by
Fust at Paris—and clearly shewing, on the authority of Bierling, that
the printer had no relation or connection whatever with a man of the
same name, who lived in the 15th century in the Duchy of Wirtem-
berg—says, that he saw, in the public library of Geneva, a copy of the
Ofhces ofCicero, of the present date (1466), at the end of which was
a ms. note, attesting that “ the original owner of this copy received
it as a present from Fust himself, at Paris, in July 1466; when the
owner resided there “ pro generali reformatione totius Francorum
Regni.” Schoepflin adds that, in the same year, the plague raged in
Paris, and carried off 40,000 persons in the months of August and Sep-
tember. He supposes that Fust perished in this general calamity; as
his name has never yet been found in any colophon after this period—
but only that of his son-in-law. This point shall be elsewhere discussed
at large; meanwhile the reader may consult the Vindic. Tijpog. p. 61,
note Z.
It only remains to subjoin, that this copy is of equal beauty, and of
somewhat superior size, to the foregoing. It is printed ufon vellum
of the same perfection; and the first page is illuminated with taste
and elegance. In our own country several other vellum copies of
both impressions are known.
158. Cicero. Officia. Without Date, Place,
or Printer s JVame ; hut unquestionahly printed
hy Ulric Zel. Quarto.
It has been observed, in the preceding article, that from courtesy to
long established opinion, the Mentz editions of 1465-6 have been
inserted in the first place in the account of impressions of Cieero’s