DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30696#0372
362
ANCIENT CLASSICS. \_Without Date.
436. Solinus. Without Name of Printer, Place,
or Uate. Octavo.
The Abbes Boni and Gamba (the Italian editors of Harwood) are
somewhat strenuous and elaborate in giving chronological precedency
to the present impression ; which they conceive to have been executed
at Milan, by Philip Lavagna, even as early as t.lie year 1465. This con-
clusion is evidently erroneous. If the bibliographers here referred to
(Bibl. Portat.vol. ii. p. 164-5) liad only consulted Saxius, or had been
better versed in the history of early printing, they would not have
entertained so improbable an opinion. It is admitted that this pub-
lication exhibits t.he earliest fruits of the literary labours of Mombri-
tius : indeed the verses, below quoted, are an incontrovertible demon-
stration of it.. But Saxius, who had taken great pains to collect every
thing—‘ ex impressis per ea tempora codicibus epistolisque, utpote
minus obuiis, ad illustrandam ejusdem [scil. Mombritii] uitam’—
seems deeisive that the present work, and the Liber Summularum Pauli
Veneti (printed by Valdarfer in 1474) were the first publications from
the pen of Mombritius. Consult the Hist. Lit. Typog. Mediol. col.
cxlvii, p. dcix. Denis refers to the latter page only in Saxius, and
to the brief and superficial account of De Bure, vol. v. n°. 4205.
But whether Saxius be correct or not in the foregoing position, it
seems almost conclusive that the present volume was never executed
by Lavagna; whose type is dissimilar—being firmer, and stouter, and
more proportionate—and from whose press we have nothing, to my
knowledge, whicli exhibits so (appai’ently) early a specimen of print-
ing. Neither does Valdarfer appear to have been the printer of it;
but the type rather resembles that with which the Florus, Horace, and
Lucan (pp. 30-1, 62-6, 139, ante) are executed ; yet itis more regular.
Thi= point therefore must still be left open to discussion. The volume
itself has certainly the marks of considerable antiquity upon it, and
may probably be of equally ancient date with either of the preceding
ones. We will now describe it particularly. On the recto of the first
leaf we read as follows :
B oninus Mobritius reueredo I christo pri
8c dno Antonio Triulcio iurispontifi
cii doctori Clarissimo ac diui Antonii
cSmedatori optime merito . s . d .
ANCIENT CLASSICS. \_Without Date.
436. Solinus. Without Name of Printer, Place,
or Uate. Octavo.
The Abbes Boni and Gamba (the Italian editors of Harwood) are
somewhat strenuous and elaborate in giving chronological precedency
to the present impression ; which they conceive to have been executed
at Milan, by Philip Lavagna, even as early as t.lie year 1465. This con-
clusion is evidently erroneous. If the bibliographers here referred to
(Bibl. Portat.vol. ii. p. 164-5) liad only consulted Saxius, or had been
better versed in the history of early printing, they would not have
entertained so improbable an opinion. It is admitted that this pub-
lication exhibits t.he earliest fruits of the literary labours of Mombri-
tius : indeed the verses, below quoted, are an incontrovertible demon-
stration of it.. But Saxius, who had taken great pains to collect every
thing—‘ ex impressis per ea tempora codicibus epistolisque, utpote
minus obuiis, ad illustrandam ejusdem [scil. Mombritii] uitam’—
seems deeisive that the present work, and the Liber Summularum Pauli
Veneti (printed by Valdarfer in 1474) were the first publications from
the pen of Mombritius. Consult the Hist. Lit. Typog. Mediol. col.
cxlvii, p. dcix. Denis refers to the latter page only in Saxius, and
to the brief and superficial account of De Bure, vol. v. n°. 4205.
But whether Saxius be correct or not in the foregoing position, it
seems almost conclusive that the present volume was never executed
by Lavagna; whose type is dissimilar—being firmer, and stouter, and
more proportionate—and from whose press we have nothing, to my
knowledge, whicli exhibits so (appai’ently) early a specimen of print-
ing. Neither does Valdarfer appear to have been the printer of it;
but the type rather resembles that with which the Florus, Horace, and
Lucan (pp. 30-1, 62-6, 139, ante) are executed ; yet itis more regular.
Thi= point therefore must still be left open to discussion. The volume
itself has certainly the marks of considerable antiquity upon it, and
may probably be of equally ancient date with either of the preceding
ones. We will now describe it particularly. On the recto of the first
leaf we read as follows :
B oninus Mobritius reueredo I christo pri
8c dno Antonio Triulcio iurispontifi
cii doctori Clarissimo ac diui Antonii
cSmedatori optime merito . s . d .