DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0340
330 ANCIENT CLASSICS. \Without Date.
On. the recto of the ensuing leaf we read this prefix, followed by the
matter to which it relates :
Caii Crispi Salustii in. M.
Tullium inuectiua incipit/
The reply to this invective begins on the 5th page from this prefix;
and three leaves beyond, commences the ‘ sharp invective’ of Cicero
against Lucius Catiline—beginning * [N]on est amplius tempus’ &c.
The reply of Catiline follows on the 4th page from the commencement
of the preceding: concluding the volume on the reverse of fol. 101,
from the beginning, thus :
Inuectiuarum Finis/
It is pretty certain that, with the exception of the present work, and
Laire’s Index. Libror. vol. i. p. 179-180, this rare and curious impression
will be found described in no publication. Panzer, La Serna Santander,
and Brunet, rely upon Laire exclusively; who conceives the volume
to have been executed in 1473. This involves in it a point concern-
ing the printers, which it may be necessary briefly to state. Chevillier
tells us that Cjesaris and Stol printed together at Paris, and that
they learnt the craft of printing under Gering. The colophon of the
Manipulus Curatorum of 1473, proves Peter Caesaris to have been a
c Master of Arts,’ and c a skilful workman;’ and tlie eolophon to the
Speculum Vitce Humance of Zamora, without date, (of which latter
Chevillier saw a copy) also proves that the above artists printed in
conjunction. See I.'Orig. de L'lmprim. de Paris, p. 55-6. I have
consulted Naude’s Additions ct VHistoire deLouisXI. (in the Monumenta
Typographica of Wolfius, vol. i. p. 486 — 536,) as referred to by
Chevillier, but find nothing in them deserving of quotation respecting
the printers of this volume. La Serna Santander, in his first and third
volumes, is sufficiently superficial. In regard to the type, it is essentially
different—as the fac-simile from the Seneca's Epistles of 1475: vide
post, will clearly prove—from that with whicli Gering, Crantz, and
Friburger were in the habit of using: see p. 221 ante. Nor do some
of the capital letters quite correspond with those in the subsequent fac-
simile here referred to; but most of them are similar, and the lower-
case letter is precisely of the same character ; which is much superior
to that. adopted by the Master of these printers. Why Csesaris and
Stol did not subjoin a date to the edition, is a little unaccountable, as
On. the recto of the ensuing leaf we read this prefix, followed by the
matter to which it relates :
Caii Crispi Salustii in. M.
Tullium inuectiua incipit/
The reply to this invective begins on the 5th page from this prefix;
and three leaves beyond, commences the ‘ sharp invective’ of Cicero
against Lucius Catiline—beginning * [N]on est amplius tempus’ &c.
The reply of Catiline follows on the 4th page from the commencement
of the preceding: concluding the volume on the reverse of fol. 101,
from the beginning, thus :
Inuectiuarum Finis/
It is pretty certain that, with the exception of the present work, and
Laire’s Index. Libror. vol. i. p. 179-180, this rare and curious impression
will be found described in no publication. Panzer, La Serna Santander,
and Brunet, rely upon Laire exclusively; who conceives the volume
to have been executed in 1473. This involves in it a point concern-
ing the printers, which it may be necessary briefly to state. Chevillier
tells us that Cjesaris and Stol printed together at Paris, and that
they learnt the craft of printing under Gering. The colophon of the
Manipulus Curatorum of 1473, proves Peter Caesaris to have been a
c Master of Arts,’ and c a skilful workman;’ and tlie eolophon to the
Speculum Vitce Humance of Zamora, without date, (of which latter
Chevillier saw a copy) also proves that the above artists printed in
conjunction. See I.'Orig. de L'lmprim. de Paris, p. 55-6. I have
consulted Naude’s Additions ct VHistoire deLouisXI. (in the Monumenta
Typographica of Wolfius, vol. i. p. 486 — 536,) as referred to by
Chevillier, but find nothing in them deserving of quotation respecting
the printers of this volume. La Serna Santander, in his first and third
volumes, is sufficiently superficial. In regard to the type, it is essentially
different—as the fac-simile from the Seneca's Epistles of 1475: vide
post, will clearly prove—from that with whicli Gering, Crantz, and
Friburger were in the habit of using: see p. 221 ante. Nor do some
of the capital letters quite correspond with those in the subsequent fac-
simile here referred to; but most of them are similar, and the lower-
case letter is precisely of the same character ; which is much superior
to that. adopted by the Master of these printers. Why Csesaris and
Stol did not subjoin a date to the edition, is a little unaccountable, as