DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30697#0208
200
MISCELLANEOUS
sVenice ; 1476,
646. Bonifacius YIII; Papa. Liber Sextus
Decretaeium. Printed hy Ienson. Venice.
1476. Folio.
Although three editions of this work were printed in the above year—
(the other two at Mentz and Basil) and although this impression he
onlyareprint ofthe earlierones fromtheMentz press—yet, in point of
beauty, and probably of rarity, neither of them can vie with the volume
before us. In typographical splendor, and curious workmanship, it is
deserving of high praise. Panzer refers only to Denis and Gras : and
Sardini, (Storia Critica di N. Ienson, lib. iii. p. 43-4,) although suffi-
ciently particular in his bibliographical description, was ignorant of
any copy upon vellum—the singular distinction of the one under
description. Where the vellum is unsoiled, it is impossible for the
most experienced typographical antiquary to behold a more beautiful
and interesting specimen of the art. But this copy has another claim
to the admiration of the curious. After the first three leaves, treating
of genealogical subjects, as before, we observe—on the recto of the 4th
leaf, and at the commencement of the text of the work—one of the
most brilliant illuminations that is to be seen. The subjoined fac-
simile l’epresents only the graceful outline of the original:
MISCELLANEOUS
sVenice ; 1476,
646. Bonifacius YIII; Papa. Liber Sextus
Decretaeium. Printed hy Ienson. Venice.
1476. Folio.
Although three editions of this work were printed in the above year—
(the other two at Mentz and Basil) and although this impression he
onlyareprint ofthe earlierones fromtheMentz press—yet, in point of
beauty, and probably of rarity, neither of them can vie with the volume
before us. In typographical splendor, and curious workmanship, it is
deserving of high praise. Panzer refers only to Denis and Gras : and
Sardini, (Storia Critica di N. Ienson, lib. iii. p. 43-4,) although suffi-
ciently particular in his bibliographical description, was ignorant of
any copy upon vellum—the singular distinction of the one under
description. Where the vellum is unsoiled, it is impossible for the
most experienced typographical antiquary to behold a more beautiful
and interesting specimen of the art. But this copy has another claim
to the admiration of the curious. After the first three leaves, treating
of genealogical subjects, as before, we observe—on the recto of the 4th
leaf, and at the commencement of the text of the work—one of the
most brilliant illuminations that is to be seen. The subjoined fac-
simile l’epresents only the graceful outline of the original: