DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0210
200
ANCIENT CLASSICS. [Augshourg; 1471.
Spec. Hist. Typog. Rom. p. 166, had made some gross blunders in his
account of this impression, concerning a supposed copy of it in the
Vatican Library. Audiffredi searched the Vatican injrain for a com-
plete copy of it; nor was he furnished with sufficient materials for
his own description of it, till the imperfect copies in the Vatican,
Casanatensian, and Cassali libraries, had supplied him with the same.
Laire, Index Libror. vol. i. p. 161-2, does not notice AudifFredi’s cor-
rection in the Edit. Rom. p. 77-9. Neither the Harleian, Gaignat,
Askew, Crevenna, nor Lomenie copies appear to have been perfect:
yet De Bure is correct, altliough not sufficiently particular, in his
Bibliogr. Instruct. vol. iii. n°. 2744. See too the Introd. to the Classics,
vol. ii. p. 105-7: and the note, in the preceding page, connected with
this last reference. The present may be called a large and fine copy
of this desirable impression. A few leaves in the Metamorphoses, and
fewer in the Fasti, are inlaid. It is handsomely bound in red morocco.
325. Ovidius. De Arte Amandi. DeRemedio
Amoris. Printed hy Gunther Zainer. Alugs-
hourg. 1471. Folio.
This is the first impression of the above pieces, separately pub-
lished: for although the date be that of February 1471, yet, as is
justly observed by the Noble Owner of this copy, * the year was
reckoned to begin at the vernal equinox, or in the middle of March,
and therefore the preceding impression, executed in August 1471,
was printed six months before this edition of Zainer; and the Bologna
Ovid, which has no date of the month, but only of the year, has at
least a probable chance of being also anterior.’ Rare as is this fine
impression, it has been correctly, although briefly, described by several
bibliographers; and Seemiller is therefore in error when he says ‘ it
was unknown to the greater number of the ancient bibliographers/
Incunab. Typog.fasc. i. p. 26. It had been before well described by
Freytag, in his Adparat. Literar. vol. i. p. 476-7; who, previous to
giving three specimens of its Various Readings from the established
text, observes— ‘ Quod ad lectionem codicis adtinet, ille, si pauca quae-
dam leviora exceperis, ab editionibus recentioribus raro discedit.’
Schelhorn had also noticed it in his Miscell. Lips. vol. xii. p. 66, as
supplemental information to Maittaire: see Zapfs Augsburgs Buch-
druckergeschichte, pt. i. p. 12. Nor has De Bure neglected to notice
ANCIENT CLASSICS. [Augshourg; 1471.
Spec. Hist. Typog. Rom. p. 166, had made some gross blunders in his
account of this impression, concerning a supposed copy of it in the
Vatican Library. Audiffredi searched the Vatican injrain for a com-
plete copy of it; nor was he furnished with sufficient materials for
his own description of it, till the imperfect copies in the Vatican,
Casanatensian, and Cassali libraries, had supplied him with the same.
Laire, Index Libror. vol. i. p. 161-2, does not notice AudifFredi’s cor-
rection in the Edit. Rom. p. 77-9. Neither the Harleian, Gaignat,
Askew, Crevenna, nor Lomenie copies appear to have been perfect:
yet De Bure is correct, altliough not sufficiently particular, in his
Bibliogr. Instruct. vol. iii. n°. 2744. See too the Introd. to the Classics,
vol. ii. p. 105-7: and the note, in the preceding page, connected with
this last reference. The present may be called a large and fine copy
of this desirable impression. A few leaves in the Metamorphoses, and
fewer in the Fasti, are inlaid. It is handsomely bound in red morocco.
325. Ovidius. De Arte Amandi. DeRemedio
Amoris. Printed hy Gunther Zainer. Alugs-
hourg. 1471. Folio.
This is the first impression of the above pieces, separately pub-
lished: for although the date be that of February 1471, yet, as is
justly observed by the Noble Owner of this copy, * the year was
reckoned to begin at the vernal equinox, or in the middle of March,
and therefore the preceding impression, executed in August 1471,
was printed six months before this edition of Zainer; and the Bologna
Ovid, which has no date of the month, but only of the year, has at
least a probable chance of being also anterior.’ Rare as is this fine
impression, it has been correctly, although briefly, described by several
bibliographers; and Seemiller is therefore in error when he says ‘ it
was unknown to the greater number of the ancient bibliographers/
Incunab. Typog.fasc. i. p. 26. It had been before well described by
Freytag, in his Adparat. Literar. vol. i. p. 476-7; who, previous to
giving three specimens of its Various Readings from the established
text, observes— ‘ Quod ad lectionem codicis adtinet, ille, si pauca quae-
dam leviora exceperis, ab editionibus recentioribus raro discedit.’
Schelhorn had also noticed it in his Miscell. Lips. vol. xii. p. 66, as
supplemental information to Maittaire: see Zapfs Augsburgs Buch-
druckergeschichte, pt. i. p. 12. Nor has De Bure neglected to notice