DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30697#0404
396
MISCELLANEOUS.
sAldusy
It is certain that these cuts, in the original, are in separate pieces;
since they appear individually detached towards tlie conclusion of the
work. The wood-cuts of the planets, from a 6 to b 2 inclusively, are
the same as those in the previous edition of 1485. On the reverse of
the last leaf, is the ensuing colophon:
ssorsi 3£!imma£ari£ txpiitit fdiciter*
€ri)artii ratbolt 3Cuffugten£i£ i?iri ^olertig
erimia in&u£tria: *r mira iniprimentii arte:
fftta nug benetij^: nue Ssuffitjste ta&riico2f
ercriiit nominatis^im'L xiiij* lias 7 ]0Decefiri$L
®$xttaxxmib
A beautiful copy; bound with the preceding.
719. Jamblichus. De Mysteriis, &c. &c.
Printed hy Jlldus. Venice. ] 4.97- Folio.
Editio Phinceps. Few of the earlier productions of the Aldine
press have been more frequently, or more correctly, described tlian the
one under consideration. A correct account of the various authors
contained in this volume, appeared in the Bibl. Heinsiana, (16‘8-|) p.
204, n°. 193; and at the sale of that library, a copy was sold for a
sum eomparatively high with the prices given for the other books.
Maittaire iias noticed an apparent error in the same catalogue, n°. 194;
where tlie Pimander and Asclepius of Mercurius Trismegistus, with
some opuscula of Marsilius Ficinus, together with Jamblichus, are
specified as distinct and diflferent publications: ‘ Lector autem monendus
est, (says Maittaire) ne hanc Mercurii Trismegisti editionem, uti &c.
paulo ante memoratam Exposit. Priscian. & Marsil. in Theophrast. &
pro distinctis editionibus accipiat: quippe quae unh cum pluribus aliis
pliilosophicis tractatibus hoc anno emissae sunt ex Aldino praelo, et
a me prihs svide p. 632] enumeratae ; at in vidgatis librorum catalogis
et distractae et confu6ae.’ Annal. Typog. vol. i. p. 653-4, note 12.
Maittaire then refers to the Bibl. Bodl. vol. i. p. 251; Fabric. Bibl.
Grcec.xol. i. p. 48 ; and Le Long’s Bibl. Sacra, p. 725, for other examples
of the same confusion. His own account of the contents of the volume,
at p. 632, is full and correct.
MISCELLANEOUS.
sAldusy
It is certain that these cuts, in the original, are in separate pieces;
since they appear individually detached towards tlie conclusion of the
work. The wood-cuts of the planets, from a 6 to b 2 inclusively, are
the same as those in the previous edition of 1485. On the reverse of
the last leaf, is the ensuing colophon:
ssorsi 3£!imma£ari£ txpiitit fdiciter*
€ri)artii ratbolt 3Cuffugten£i£ i?iri ^olertig
erimia in&u£tria: *r mira iniprimentii arte:
fftta nug benetij^: nue Ssuffitjste ta&riico2f
ercriiit nominatis^im'L xiiij* lias 7 ]0Decefiri$L
®$xttaxxmib
A beautiful copy; bound with the preceding.
719. Jamblichus. De Mysteriis, &c. &c.
Printed hy Jlldus. Venice. ] 4.97- Folio.
Editio Phinceps. Few of the earlier productions of the Aldine
press have been more frequently, or more correctly, described tlian the
one under consideration. A correct account of the various authors
contained in this volume, appeared in the Bibl. Heinsiana, (16‘8-|) p.
204, n°. 193; and at the sale of that library, a copy was sold for a
sum eomparatively high with the prices given for the other books.
Maittaire iias noticed an apparent error in the same catalogue, n°. 194;
where tlie Pimander and Asclepius of Mercurius Trismegistus, with
some opuscula of Marsilius Ficinus, together with Jamblichus, are
specified as distinct and diflferent publications: ‘ Lector autem monendus
est, (says Maittaire) ne hanc Mercurii Trismegisti editionem, uti &c.
paulo ante memoratam Exposit. Priscian. & Marsil. in Theophrast. &
pro distinctis editionibus accipiat: quippe quae unh cum pluribus aliis
pliilosophicis tractatibus hoc anno emissae sunt ex Aldino praelo, et
a me prihs svide p. 632] enumeratae ; at in vidgatis librorum catalogis
et distractae et confu6ae.’ Annal. Typog. vol. i. p. 653-4, note 12.
Maittaire then refers to the Bibl. Bodl. vol. i. p. 251; Fabric. Bibl.
Grcec.xol. i. p. 48 ; and Le Long’s Bibl. Sacra, p. 725, for other examples
of the same confusion. His own account of the contents of the volume,
at p. 632, is full and correct.