DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0077
HORACE.
67
Without Date.~]
but tbere is, altogether, throughout the arrangement of the press-
work, an appearance of the printer’s having availed himself of the
labours of his predecessors. The introduction of Titles, and the con-
clusion of the Satires, to say nothing of tlie absolute variations of
text—evidently imply the revision of preceding impressions. It is
seldom, if ever, that first impressions afford such a termination.
The reader will draw his own conclusion ; and may, after all, imagine
that I have consulted my own prudence—and done wisely—by placing
this edition in its present order.
The next question is, who is the probable Printer of this edition ?
De Bure, in his Bibliogr. Instruct. vol. iii. p. 312-313, has a particular
notice of it, from a copy which was in the Valliere collection. His
extracts, confined to the head pieces and conclusions of the several
tracts, are not quite literally correct; but, he conceived the impression
to be similar to that of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius of *1472,
which the reader, on consulting vol. i. p. 294-6, will perceive to be
generally given to the press of Vindelin de Spira. Count Reviczky, in
his ms. remarks, differs entirely, and with justice, from this conclusion.
He thinks the volume has rather the character of the Milan press.
Maittaire, vol. i. p. 766, note 4, conceived the types to resemble those
of John de Colonia, in the edition of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius
of 1475 (see vol. i. p. 297); but this conclusion is not happier than
that of De Bure. Maittaire adds, that he saw two editions of
Horace printed in this character; in one of which tlie Epistles—in
the other, the Satires—concluded the volume :— c so exactly resembling
each other (says he), that without an attentive examination, they
would be thought one and the same.’ But Count Reviczky justly
remarks, that, ‘ this altogether wants confirmation : the difference of
the arrangement of the pieces being no proof of a different impression:
similar variations occurring in the same editions of the early printed
philosophical pieces of Cicero.’ Maittaire thought that one of these
impressions was much more correct than the other. It may be worth
noticing, that the bottom of the capital L is comparatively short; and
that the horizontal stroke or line to receive the top of the e, is (as it
were) angularly upright.
Whenever, and by whomsoever, printed, are perhaps secondary
considerations. That the present is a very rare, ancient, and estim-
able edition, requiring a particular description, must be admitted by
every one interested in the early impressions of this popular poet. On
67
Without Date.~]
but tbere is, altogether, throughout the arrangement of the press-
work, an appearance of the printer’s having availed himself of the
labours of his predecessors. The introduction of Titles, and the con-
clusion of the Satires, to say nothing of tlie absolute variations of
text—evidently imply the revision of preceding impressions. It is
seldom, if ever, that first impressions afford such a termination.
The reader will draw his own conclusion ; and may, after all, imagine
that I have consulted my own prudence—and done wisely—by placing
this edition in its present order.
The next question is, who is the probable Printer of this edition ?
De Bure, in his Bibliogr. Instruct. vol. iii. p. 312-313, has a particular
notice of it, from a copy which was in the Valliere collection. His
extracts, confined to the head pieces and conclusions of the several
tracts, are not quite literally correct; but, he conceived the impression
to be similar to that of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius of *1472,
which the reader, on consulting vol. i. p. 294-6, will perceive to be
generally given to the press of Vindelin de Spira. Count Reviczky, in
his ms. remarks, differs entirely, and with justice, from this conclusion.
He thinks the volume has rather the character of the Milan press.
Maittaire, vol. i. p. 766, note 4, conceived the types to resemble those
of John de Colonia, in the edition of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius
of 1475 (see vol. i. p. 297); but this conclusion is not happier than
that of De Bure. Maittaire adds, that he saw two editions of
Horace printed in this character; in one of which tlie Epistles—in
the other, the Satires—concluded the volume :— c so exactly resembling
each other (says he), that without an attentive examination, they
would be thought one and the same.’ But Count Reviczky justly
remarks, that, ‘ this altogether wants confirmation : the difference of
the arrangement of the pieces being no proof of a different impression:
similar variations occurring in the same editions of the early printed
philosophical pieces of Cicero.’ Maittaire thought that one of these
impressions was much more correct than the other. It may be worth
noticing, that the bottom of the capital L is comparatively short; and
that the horizontal stroke or line to receive the top of the e, is (as it
were) angularly upright.
Whenever, and by whomsoever, printed, are perhaps secondary
considerations. That the present is a very rare, ancient, and estim-
able edition, requiring a particular description, must be admitted by
every one interested in the early impressions of this popular poet. On