DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0252
242
ANCIENT CLASSICS.
[ Venice ; 1491.
354. Plato. Opera. Latine. Printed by B.
de C. de Cremona, and Simon de Luero. Veyiice.
1491. Folio.
Editio Secunda. Latine. De Bure, vol. iii. p. 156-7, has merely
alluded to a supposed earlier impression of tliis version of Plato, exe-
euted at Florence ; without venturing to decide upon tlie chronologieal
priority of eit.her the Florentine or tlie Venetian edition". If he had
examined the Amcenitates Literaricc of Schelhorn, vol. i. p. 89-90, he
would have found it most probable that the Florentine impression
preceded, the one which we are about to describe.* It is well known
that Marsilius Ficinus was the first translator of Plato:— ‘ eminet
inter ea [Marsilii Ficini scripta] PJatonis editio’—are the words of
Scheliiorn; wliose aecount of the studies and works of Ficinus is well
deserving of the scholar’s attention. Nor sliould the critical care and
correction of Maiicus Musurus, in this same translation, be unno-
ticed. In regard to the rarity, or bibliographical value, of the pre-
sent impression, I am not aware that either the one or the other
entitles it to a more copious account than that which here ensues:
On the recto of the first leaf, are the verses of * Naldvs Nandivs
Florentinvs,’ in praise of the work: beneath, we read the words
* Diuus Plato.’ The proheme of Ficinus immediately commences on
* * Quo autem anno, Ficino obstetricante, Platonis Opeea, Latine reddita, publicam
lucem primo viderint, praecise determinare liaud possum. Quamvis enim jam versare ma-
nibus, Bibliotheca Memmingensium publica eam mihi suppeditante, primam illam editionem
mihi liceat, anni tamen indicio ea destituta est, his tanturn in fine verbis adjectis—‘ Im-
pressum Florentie per Laurentiu Venetum.’ Schelhorn adds a strong corroborative passage,
from the version of Plotinus, by tlie same translator, to tliis effect:—When Picus Miran-
dula first came to Florence, between tbe years 1480 and 1490, lie immediately enquired of
Ficinus ‘ how he went on witli Plato?’ to which Ficinus replied—‘ Plato noster—liodie
liminibus nostris est egressus.’ The entire passage, from the preface to the version of
Plotinus of 1492, may be seen in Schelhorn. But from this passage, tlie above version of
Plato may liave appeared in 1491. The principal question tlierefore is, to know at what
precise time Mirandula made the enquiry of Ficinus ? If immediately on his arrival at
Florence, which Ficinus bimself seems to intimate,—[‘ me statim post primam salutationem
de Platone rogat’]—and that arrival took place before the year 1490, then there can be no
doubt about thepriority of the Florentine impression. This inference seems strengthened
from the very particular description of the Florentine impression by Fossi: Bibl. Magliabech.
vol. ii. col. 366-7; and Braun, Notit. Hist. Lit. pt. ii. p. 21. Seemiller, Incunab. Typog.
fasc, iv. p. 124, refers to Schelhom and Braun.
ANCIENT CLASSICS.
[ Venice ; 1491.
354. Plato. Opera. Latine. Printed by B.
de C. de Cremona, and Simon de Luero. Veyiice.
1491. Folio.
Editio Secunda. Latine. De Bure, vol. iii. p. 156-7, has merely
alluded to a supposed earlier impression of tliis version of Plato, exe-
euted at Florence ; without venturing to decide upon tlie chronologieal
priority of eit.her the Florentine or tlie Venetian edition". If he had
examined the Amcenitates Literaricc of Schelhorn, vol. i. p. 89-90, he
would have found it most probable that the Florentine impression
preceded, the one which we are about to describe.* It is well known
that Marsilius Ficinus was the first translator of Plato:— ‘ eminet
inter ea [Marsilii Ficini scripta] PJatonis editio’—are the words of
Scheliiorn; wliose aecount of the studies and works of Ficinus is well
deserving of the scholar’s attention. Nor sliould the critical care and
correction of Maiicus Musurus, in this same translation, be unno-
ticed. In regard to the rarity, or bibliographical value, of the pre-
sent impression, I am not aware that either the one or the other
entitles it to a more copious account than that which here ensues:
On the recto of the first leaf, are the verses of * Naldvs Nandivs
Florentinvs,’ in praise of the work: beneath, we read the words
* Diuus Plato.’ The proheme of Ficinus immediately commences on
* * Quo autem anno, Ficino obstetricante, Platonis Opeea, Latine reddita, publicam
lucem primo viderint, praecise determinare liaud possum. Quamvis enim jam versare ma-
nibus, Bibliotheca Memmingensium publica eam mihi suppeditante, primam illam editionem
mihi liceat, anni tamen indicio ea destituta est, his tanturn in fine verbis adjectis—‘ Im-
pressum Florentie per Laurentiu Venetum.’ Schelhorn adds a strong corroborative passage,
from the version of Plotinus, by tlie same translator, to tliis effect:—When Picus Miran-
dula first came to Florence, between tbe years 1480 and 1490, lie immediately enquired of
Ficinus ‘ how he went on witli Plato?’ to which Ficinus replied—‘ Plato noster—liodie
liminibus nostris est egressus.’ The entire passage, from the preface to the version of
Plotinus of 1492, may be seen in Schelhorn. But from this passage, tlie above version of
Plato may liave appeared in 1491. The principal question tlierefore is, to know at what
precise time Mirandula made the enquiry of Ficinus ? If immediately on his arrival at
Florence, which Ficinus bimself seems to intimate,—[‘ me statim post primam salutationem
de Platone rogat’]—and that arrival took place before the year 1490, then there can be no
doubt about thepriority of the Florentine impression. This inference seems strengthened
from the very particular description of the Florentine impression by Fossi: Bibl. Magliabech.
vol. ii. col. 366-7; and Braun, Notit. Hist. Lit. pt. ii. p. 21. Seemiller, Incunab. Typog.
fasc, iv. p. 124, refers to Schelhom and Braun.