DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30697#0019
Milan; 14/5.]
HISTORIANS.
11
526. Augusm Histori^ Sckiptores. Printed
hy Philip de Lavagna. Milan. 1475. Folio.
Editio Princeps. Before we describe this exceedingiy elegant
volume, it may be as well to give a brief account of the blunders whicli
have been committed, by the older bibliographers, in regard to the
date of it. Happening to possess two of tlie earlier editions of the
Bibliotheca Latina by Fabricius, as well as the last and best impression
of it by Ernesti, 1 consulted the edition of 1721, 3 vols. 8vo.—as
referred to by Saxius, in his Hist. Lit. Typog. Mediol. p, dlix, note (a)
—and there I discovered that Fabricius, in vol. i. p. 551, had adopted
the error of Salmasius (Edit. Script. Aug. Hist. Paris, 1620,) in sup-
posing that the Editio Princeps of this work liad been published in
1465. This error arose from Salmasius having possessed an imperfect
copy of it, in which the colophon was wanting; or, as Ernesti suggests,
Salmasius might have possessed the very copy of it wliich was sold at
the sale of Henry Justice’s library, at the Hague, in 1763, in old
French binding; with the ms. memorandum. ‘ Hist. Aug. Scriptores
Mediolani, 1465.’ In fact, this identical copy also is in the present
Library, and contains only a part of the work.
Mollerus, who wrote a dissertation upon Spartianus, (one of the
Historians of the Augustan age, and contained in this impression,) was
not content with the antiquity of the date assigned by Salmasius, but
affirmed that this volume was put forth in 1455.* Fabricius and
Ernesti properly correct so gross an error. J. Casaubon had supposed
the first edition to have been printed in 1480. Meerman presents us
with a copious note respecting the genuine date of the present im-
pression ; in which he tells us, that he had examined the libraries of
William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire—Charles Spencer, Earl of
Sunderland—Thomas Herbert, Earl of Pembroke—and Edward Harley,
Earl of Oxford—and that no Milan impression, with the date of 1465,
could be found in them. Meerman is strenuous in opposing tlie
inference which may be drawn from the Prolegomena of Saxius,
p. lxxxviii, that the Milan press was exercised as early as 1465. But
Saxius is himself the best opponent of this assertion. Whoever reads
the first three articles in the List of Books (see p. dlix.) published at
* Dissert. de Spartiano, Altorf. 1687, p. 15. Fabr. Bibl. Lat, vol. ii. p. 6, edit.1728,4to.
HISTORIANS.
11
526. Augusm Histori^ Sckiptores. Printed
hy Philip de Lavagna. Milan. 1475. Folio.
Editio Princeps. Before we describe this exceedingiy elegant
volume, it may be as well to give a brief account of the blunders whicli
have been committed, by the older bibliographers, in regard to the
date of it. Happening to possess two of tlie earlier editions of the
Bibliotheca Latina by Fabricius, as well as the last and best impression
of it by Ernesti, 1 consulted the edition of 1721, 3 vols. 8vo.—as
referred to by Saxius, in his Hist. Lit. Typog. Mediol. p, dlix, note (a)
—and there I discovered that Fabricius, in vol. i. p. 551, had adopted
the error of Salmasius (Edit. Script. Aug. Hist. Paris, 1620,) in sup-
posing that the Editio Princeps of this work liad been published in
1465. This error arose from Salmasius having possessed an imperfect
copy of it, in which the colophon was wanting; or, as Ernesti suggests,
Salmasius might have possessed the very copy of it wliich was sold at
the sale of Henry Justice’s library, at the Hague, in 1763, in old
French binding; with the ms. memorandum. ‘ Hist. Aug. Scriptores
Mediolani, 1465.’ In fact, this identical copy also is in the present
Library, and contains only a part of the work.
Mollerus, who wrote a dissertation upon Spartianus, (one of the
Historians of the Augustan age, and contained in this impression,) was
not content with the antiquity of the date assigned by Salmasius, but
affirmed that this volume was put forth in 1455.* Fabricius and
Ernesti properly correct so gross an error. J. Casaubon had supposed
the first edition to have been printed in 1480. Meerman presents us
with a copious note respecting the genuine date of the present im-
pression ; in which he tells us, that he had examined the libraries of
William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire—Charles Spencer, Earl of
Sunderland—Thomas Herbert, Earl of Pembroke—and Edward Harley,
Earl of Oxford—and that no Milan impression, with the date of 1465,
could be found in them. Meerman is strenuous in opposing tlie
inference which may be drawn from the Prolegomena of Saxius,
p. lxxxviii, that the Milan press was exercised as early as 1465. But
Saxius is himself the best opponent of this assertion. Whoever reads
the first three articles in the List of Books (see p. dlix.) published at
* Dissert. de Spartiano, Altorf. 1687, p. 15. Fabr. Bibl. Lat, vol. ii. p. 6, edit.1728,4to.