DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0156
146 ANCIENT CLASSICS. [Florence; 1496.
The foregoing epigram, and a table, are beneath : the latter has this
prefix:
niNAH TOT nAPONTO^ BIBAIOT.
occupying the remaining thi'ee pages; and terminating the volume
on the reverse of xx vij. The last title in the Index or Table is
EIII3TOAAI KPONIKAI.
The last line and word in the volume is TEA02.
Thus much for a description of the typographical arrangement. We
now renew the subjects hinted at in the opening of this article. In the
first place, it has been said (on the authority of Maittaire) that the
title page was printed ‘ many years after the execution of the body of
the workbut there seem two solid objections against adopting this
conclusion. The one is, if the volume did not contain the works of
Philostratus and Callistratus, why insert them in the title ? The other
is, although this first leaf has no signature, and the second leaf begins
on AI, yet, on counting the gatherings, it is evident that there was a
mistake in tbis omission of signature; as each signature has eight
leaves, and A, to be complete, must comprehend this first leaf. For
my own part, I conceive that the printer had, at first, intended to
print these works of Philostratus and Callistratus, and therefore inserted
their titles in tlie general title to the book; but that finding, on the
completion of Lucian, they would render the volume too bulky, he had
abandoned his original intention, and neglected to cancel the title-
page. Wewill now, in the second place, say a few words respecting
the press from which this magnificent volume is supposed to have
issued.
Mr. Beloe has justly observed, in his Anecdotes of Literature, &;c. vol. iv.
p. 348, tliat, in my Introd. to the Classics, vol. ii. p. 54-5, I have
‘ omitted to give any information concerning the printer.’ He him-
self thus continues: ‘ Maittaire and others have assigned it to the
Junta Press; but we have two books by these printers at a period
very near, which, with respect to the type, bear no kind of resem-
blance to the Lucian. These books are the Zenobius of 1497 and the
Orpheus of 1500. There is also another objection (continues Mr.
Beloe), which to me seems insuperable. The Greek type used by these
printers in tlie following century, has no resemblance to the Lucian.
The first. Greek book, after the Orpheus, from this press, bears the
date of 1515; and it certainly appears remarkable, that, possessing
The foregoing epigram, and a table, are beneath : the latter has this
prefix:
niNAH TOT nAPONTO^ BIBAIOT.
occupying the remaining thi'ee pages; and terminating the volume
on the reverse of xx vij. The last title in the Index or Table is
EIII3TOAAI KPONIKAI.
The last line and word in the volume is TEA02.
Thus much for a description of the typographical arrangement. We
now renew the subjects hinted at in the opening of this article. In the
first place, it has been said (on the authority of Maittaire) that the
title page was printed ‘ many years after the execution of the body of
the workbut there seem two solid objections against adopting this
conclusion. The one is, if the volume did not contain the works of
Philostratus and Callistratus, why insert them in the title ? The other
is, although this first leaf has no signature, and the second leaf begins
on AI, yet, on counting the gatherings, it is evident that there was a
mistake in tbis omission of signature; as each signature has eight
leaves, and A, to be complete, must comprehend this first leaf. For
my own part, I conceive that the printer had, at first, intended to
print these works of Philostratus and Callistratus, and therefore inserted
their titles in tlie general title to the book; but that finding, on the
completion of Lucian, they would render the volume too bulky, he had
abandoned his original intention, and neglected to cancel the title-
page. Wewill now, in the second place, say a few words respecting
the press from which this magnificent volume is supposed to have
issued.
Mr. Beloe has justly observed, in his Anecdotes of Literature, &;c. vol. iv.
p. 348, tliat, in my Introd. to the Classics, vol. ii. p. 54-5, I have
‘ omitted to give any information concerning the printer.’ He him-
self thus continues: ‘ Maittaire and others have assigned it to the
Junta Press; but we have two books by these printers at a period
very near, which, with respect to the type, bear no kind of resem-
blance to the Lucian. These books are the Zenobius of 1497 and the
Orpheus of 1500. There is also another objection (continues Mr.
Beloe), which to me seems insuperable. The Greek type used by these
printers in tlie following century, has no resemblance to the Lucian.
The first. Greek book, after the Orpheus, from this press, bears the
date of 1515; and it certainly appears remarkable, that, possessing