Jump to content

Talk:Editio princeps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments moved from article

[edit]

In the table, the editio princeps PUBLISHED of the Greek New Testament was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in the year 1516 (NOT 1522 - that was the third edition). It was PRINTED by Froben in Basel.

OR the editio princeps PRINTED (but not distributed!!) of the Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot in the year 1514.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbeef (talk • contribs)

Copyrighting ancient works

[edit]

The Nebra sky disk, despite being thousands of years old, is currently copyrighted because of this concept because it was "first printed" recently. Are there many other cases like this? Esn (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables problematic

[edit]

In many of these cases the translator/editor is listed as the publisher. Perhaps we need a translator/editor column, or to systematically move the translator/editors to the comment section.Gamonetus (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

[edit]

1. John Carter says "There is an old and respectable precedent for its use [editio princeps] ...simply as a synonym for first edition; but this is apt to sound a trifle affected today". Indeed - ed. princ. of a Harry Potter? Seems to me best to reverse this trend. "Purists restrict the use of the term to the first printed edition of a work which was in circulation before printing was invented". Why destroy the very useful original meaning?

2. Emphasis on the term applying only to the first printing in the language the work was written in, is important. Many, perhaps most, Greek classics were printed in Latin translation long before the first editions.Often in the preceding century.The 1488 Homer being a notable exception.Few early printers had decent Greek fonts.

3. The date 1455 for the ed. princ. of the Vulgate is conjectural, and should be both bracketed (since it is undated) and prefixed by 'circa'. It is not of course a first edition of the Bible; there is none, and it could be said that the Bible has never been printed. If it were to be attempted, such a work would need to be in Hebrew for the OT, but with a few passages in Aramaic.And the NT in Greek. Either in two volumes, or dos-a-dos bound, since the Hebrew portion would run what we would call backwards from the other cover.

Fair enough. I added the "ca." Gamonetus (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. First editions are dependant on printing, not publishing, dates. So there is no justification for calling Erasmus's edition of the NT athe first, in spite of this error being perpetuated in many otherwise scholarly works. The Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes was printed in 6 volumes, 1-4 in 1517, and 5-6 in 1514. The New Testament was vol. 5, and so is unarguably the ed. princ.

This is a complicated story with no easy winner on which text was first "published" (in the printed and published sense). I have linked the Complutensian Polyglot Bible article, which lays out the story quite well. Gamonetus (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. This Wikipedia chart of ed. princ's is an admirable beginning. The subject is of huge interest to both scholars and collectors, and the data difficult to collect.With a bit of expansion and more research, this article could become a definitive source. It should at least include all well-known classics, such as the Aldine Strabo of 1516, and the 1598 Longus "Daphnis and Chloe". And thence work out to lesser known (and hence more useful, because hard to find) minor authors such as Theophylactus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.241.123 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that this page has great potential. Please join in. best Gamonetus (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, editio princeps does mean "first edition", but as noted, it's hardly ever been used except for works that were originally pubblished in manuscript form, and mostly for ancient works. Going on, I fully agree with many of the observations made here, and propose to put a cutoff date at about 800 for the works inserted in the list, to avoid generating a higly subjective list. Another point should be to limit the number of languages to Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Armenian and Coptic, as if we start putting first editions of Indian, Arabic, Chinese etc. works the table will get completely out of control (and, more importantly, the term is used very rarely for literatures of the extra mediterranean world). Thus, we should cut some names on the list. Opinions?Aldux (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the way to go is to divide up the tables first, by languages. This gives the option of dividing up the page itself later, at some convenient point. It also would allow for greater clarity, for example in distinguishing editions of Latin works, of editions of Greek works in Latin translation, and so on. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable approach to divide by languages. But I wonder about Latin translations of Greek works, if it's better to remove them from the article completely or create a specific table for them (keeping them with Latin works may be confusing, as not all of these works are very well known and could be mistaken by readers as originally Latin-written).Aldux (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude would be to lose the minimum information from the encyclopedia as a whole. List of Renaissance Latin translations of Greek works or such like would seem to be a perfectly viable page, and could be created from this page without undue strain. If creating that list made it easier to divide this page into "Latin", "Greek" and "other" tables, I don't see why not at this point. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right: after all, it's very common in scholarship to call the first printed edition of a Greek classic an editio princeps even when published in Latin. For now, instead of a new list, I'll just create a new section which I may call "Latin translations".Aldux (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity of the last point is why I preferred the list in its prior incarnation. I liked the strictly chronological approach and thought it was more useful for Renaissance scholars. The current approach is workable, but the tables have gotten a little messy in the transition.Gamonetus (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a priori against restoring a purely chronological list, but I must admit it would be a bit of a pain to reorganize it like it was before (due to the refs and the new entries it can't be just done by reverting). Also, I would first like to hear Charles opinion, as he seems to tend in another direction. But could you detail beter what you mean when you say that it's "messy"?. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline is clearly best for some purposes; but what I was reading in the comments above suggested to me that this page had outgrown that approach. I don't know details, but I suspect that (for example) Cicero alone could add numerous entries to the Latin table, where just two are there at the moment; and Augustine is oddly absent.
I'd like to respond to the comments made in a flexible way, and to encourage further additions. I do think the chronological approach is valid; so if some discussion could clarify the sort of scope that would be helpful, we could actually think of forking the content. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this list is seriously incomplete, I do hope through time to eventually solve some of the most problematic absences, like, as you noted, Augustine and Cicero (working a bit on this one now; and yes, once Cicero is completed in the list with all the editiones principes it'll be pretty scary). As for the "scope", what would you mean exactly? What authors to put in, what time span to cover, or something else (sorry if I seem a bit dumb ;-))?Aldux (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that a timeline would be fairly crowded if (for example) all the Greek Church Fathers and every Latin poet had to be mentioned. My guess is that the "humanist" impetus was mostly spent by about 1540, having got going by 1480. So illustrating what that was about is actually a smaller venture. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding at least the Greeks, many high ranking writers were often published even after that for the lack of greek press pieces; also, key discoveries were made quite late, like Procopius' Secret History and Menander's comedies, so I'm a bit reluctant to put a "end" date. Also, classics and church fathers for humanists were often part of the same culture, as was with Rober Estienne, for example.Aldux (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was messy qua table as it had lost some of its prior organizational consistency, for example having each year only listed once in the column and all the books published that year taking up multiple rows. You (Aldux) seem to have cleaned it over the last couple of days. There is perhaps a missing separating border or two here or there (and I will confess to not being an expert on making wikipedia tables), but what we have now is perhaps better and more consistent than it was a couple of months ago.
I am content with the new Latin editions, Latin translations, and Greek editions scheme. It does have utility.
A firm limiting strategy is what we need now. Major classical works and Patristic authors will perhaps suffice. Did Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle get tossed off the bus? I seem to have missed that move though I don't dissent from it. Gamonetus (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite it being quite a lot me me being around in wikipedia I'm not all that good at them myself, really. As for the issue of rows, the problem in my view stood especially because of the refs: if, say, 1472 stood in the Latin column only once it became difficult to ref the specific works, so I breaked up that except where the original edition included multiple authors (see for example Columella, Varro and Cato for 1472 Jenson edition), there putting the ref only once as one was the volume (for a similar case see in the the Greek list the 1544 volume by Robertus Stephanus of Eusebius' HE, Socrates, Thodoret, Sozomen etc). The notes I added in the comments section should hopefully avoid misunderstanding. That said, I'm still working on this and will be for quite a time.
Regarding Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle I must confess cutting them off as part of my reducing the scope. Ciao,Aldux (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am content with the exile of the Barbarian guests. The project is moving along nicely. I wonder if we need to footnote the publication dates. Since the dates and texts are linked clearly at this juncture in the table's formatting, perhaps one footnote attached to the name of the classical author or text will suffice. In many cases needed additional footnotes will follow in the comment section. However footnotes placed on the date, author, location that all reference the same source now seem redundant to me, given how the table has been reorganized. Thoughts? Gamonetus (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding footnotes, the reason I feel a need to to source all that much is because often the sources I'm using clearly states which is the editio princeps but doesn't give the date (for example for Giovanni Andrea Bussi, alias Joannes Andreae, I've got a list of his editiones principes in collaboration with the famed Roman press, but without any dates given), other sometime forget to mention the editor (like is often, but not always, the case with Michael von Albrecht's History, a source I use quite a lot); other refs I need to integrate the comments, to clarify say Livy or Virgil or Apuleius. That's why I'm afraid there's no escape to sourcing all :-(Aldux (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Donatus

[edit]

It is somewhat revolutionary to posit a date for any of these these early Grammars earlier than [c.1453-4],as given by the ISTC bl. And perhaps more conventional instead to extend the 42-line Bible - usually termed 'the first real printed book' a few years earlier than 1455. Debatable, but needing an authoritative citation at least. This is a very useful page, involving obviously a good deal of effort, and worthy of a lot more to supply a really flawless result. A fine start.125.239.109.191 (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Donatus date is surely a mistake in the cited source. If not, I'd be interested to know what's Ciccolella's reasoning for such a date (she doesn't give any). Any alternative source?--WANAX (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Editio princeps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Editio princeps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Editio princeps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article / article size

[edit]

Hi, I was considering to split the article into two: Latin and non-Latin, to reduce article size. Any objections? zsteve21 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2021 (BST)

The list is very long, although if it were split, it would probably need to be split into four articles: 1) the main article, containing the text at the top, and perhaps a selection of important works from all three lists, with links to fuller lists; 2) a list of the editiones principes of Latin works; 3) those of Greek works; and 4) those of works in other languages. I can see no cogent reason for separating only Latin works, while combining Greek, Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, etc., seeing as the Greek list is long in itself, and the "other" category is long enough to support a stand-alone list. Each article would still need to have a brief summary and a link back to the main article at the top. P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the Latin and Greek sections are the largest sections, I don't feel like splitting the article into more than two or too many pieces. Hopefully, this doesn't suggest that I'm lazy. Also, as I found that the Greek sections is larger, I would probably combine other languages with Latin, so that the two article would be called: Editio princeps (Greek) and Editio princeps (Latin and other languages), because I like perfect splits. Your split suggestion would work, but the only problem is that the main article would be too small. zsteve21 (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2021 (BST)
The main article would still have some examples—just not ginormous tables of them. Perhaps pick twenty-five of the best-known works of literature from the existing tables and combine them, with an indication that there are many more. But the article would seem absurd if its tabulated contents included works from every possible origin except Greek or Latin, since it's more often used of Greek and Latin works than of others. Better to have a short article pointing at three long lists than one long list that simply excludes what you'd expect to find in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, while I start splitting the article in your style, I want you to confirm the consensus for the split. However, I don't really know the best-known works of literature and was hoping for someone else to do that task. Also, should I combine the main article and the other languages? zsteve21 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2021 (BST)
No, that's what I've been saying: "other languages" also represents a large table and should probably be split into a separate list—otherwise the main article would have only "other" and not "Greek and Latin", even though those are the chief examples when this concept is discussed. That wouldn't make any sense. I'll go through the existing lists right now and come up with ideas for an abbreviated list combining elements from the three existing ones, and post them here. P Aculeius (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are essentially list articles with a short lede (in the case of the split-off list, very short lede), wouldn't it be better to rename them to "List of editio princeps (Latin)", etc.? (or technically "List of editiones principes(...)" I guess) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "List of Latin editiones principes", "List of Greek editiones principes" for those two lists? I'm not sure what to call the third one—"List of editiones principes other than Greek and Latin" seems a bit wordy. P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a partial list of important Greek and Latin works excerpted from the existing tables, which probably should be edited down and placed in alphabetical order by author, rather than chronological order. I'll try to add examples from other languages later on today. P Aculeius (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Date Author, Work Printer Location Comment
c. 1455 Biblia Vulgata Johannes Gutenberg Mainz The 4th century translation of the Bible, two editions: 42 line and 36 line, see Gutenberg Bible.
1465[1] Cicero, De Oratore[1] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[1] Subiaco[1] This edition was published without date but it is believed to be before September 1465.[1]
1465–1470[2] Augustinus, Confessiones[2] Johannes Mentelin[3] Strasbourg[2] The second edition came out in Milan in 1475, followed by editions in 1482 and 1483. Other two incunable editions came from Strasbourg in 1489 and 1491, but the book was not separately reprinted until 1531.[4]
1467[5] Augustinus, De Civitate Dei[5] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[6] Subiaco[5] The following year Johannes Mentelin printed in Strasbourg another edition; it offered the earliest textual commentary, by Thomas Valois and Nicholas Trivet.[5] For the next two centuries, the De Civitate was the most often printed of all Augustine's works; 17 editions appeared in the 15th century and eight in the 16th century.[4]
1469[7][8] Livius[7] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[7] Rome[7] Edited by Joannes Andreas de Buxis.[9] The Rome edition included only Books 1–10, 21–32, 34–39 and a portion of 40. In a 1518 Mainz edition, the rest of Book 40 and part of 33 were published, while in a 1531 Basel edition, Books 41-45 were published, edited by Simon Grynaeus. He had discovered the only surviving manuscript of the fifth decade in 1527 while searching in the Lorsch Abbey in Germany. In 1616 the remaining part of Book 33 was published in Rome, by which all extant Livy had reached print.[8][10]
Periochae[11]
1469[12][13][14] Vergilius[9] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[9] Rome[12] Edited by Joannes Andreas de Buxis.[9] Together with the three standard Virgilian works, Busi included the Appendix Vergiliana and Donatus' Vita Vergilii. He also included the Priapeia, then attributed to Virgil.[13][14]
Priapeia[14]
Appendix Vergiliana[13]
Aelius Donatus, Vita Vergilii[13]
1469[15] Julius Caesar[9][15] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[9] Rome[15] Edited by Joannes Andreas de Buxis.[9]
1469[16] Plinius Maior[16] Johannes de Spira[16] Venice[16]
1469[17] Aulus Gellius[9][17] Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz[9] Rome[9] Edited by Joannes Andreas de Buxis[9][17]
1470[18] Sallustius, Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Iugurthinum[19] Vindelinus de Spira[18][19] Venice[18] In the same year an edition of Sallust was also printed in Paris.[18]
1470[20] Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum[21] Johannes Philippus de Lignamine[21] Rome[20] Edited by Johannes Antonius Campanus.[22]
c. 1470[23][24] Tacitus, Historiae, Annales, Germania and Dialogus[23] Vindelinus de Spira[24] Venice[24] This edition only has books 11–16 of the Annales. Books 1–6 were rediscovered in 1508 in the Corvey Abbey (now in Germany) and brought to Rome. There they were printed by Étienne Guillery in 1515 together with the other books of the Annales while the edition was prepared by Filippo Beroaldo.[23][25][26]
1471[27] Ovidius[27] Baldassarre Azzoguidi[28] Bologna[27] Edited by Franciscus Puteolanus. There is some dispute regarding the possibility it may have been preceded by the Roman edition printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz, which is without date but thought to be also from 1471.[9][27][28]
c. 1471[29] Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae[29] Hans Glim[29] Savigliano[29] Undated, others have suggested the incunable's date to be 1473 or 1474. This would probably make the editio princeps the lavish edition that came out in Nuremberg in 1473 from Anton Koberger's press, containg a commentary traditionally attributed to Thomas of Aquin and a German translation.[30]
1471–1472[31] Varro, De lingua latina[32] Georgius Lauer[32] Rome[32][31] Edited by Julius Pomponius Laetus[32]
1472[33] Plautus[33] Johannes de Colonia[34]-1470[35] Venice[33] Edited by Georgius Merula basing himself on the Codex Ursinianus. With a dedication to Iacopo Zeno, bishop of Padua.[33][36]
1472[37][38] Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis[37] and Saturnalia[38] Nicolaus Jenson[37] Venice[37]
c. 1475[39] Beda, Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum[39] Heinrich Eggestein[40][41] Strasbourg[39] The edition is undated, but it is agreed to have been printed between 1474 and 1482. It was followed in the same town in 1500 by a second edition, this time bounded with a Latin translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica.[39]
1475[42][43] Seneca Philosophus, Dialogi, De beneficiis, De Clementia and Epistulae morales ad Lucilium[42] Matthias Moravus[44] Naples[42] The first complete edition of Seneca's philosophical works. Due to a confusion between the son and the father the volume also includes Seneca the Elder's widely known epitomized version composed of excerpts from his Suasoriae et Controversiae; the complete surviving text was printed in 1490 in Venice by Bernardinus de Cremona together with the younger Seneca. Also in the edition is Publilius Syrus, whose Sententiae are in the so-called Proverbia Senecae. The mistake was corrected in 1514 by Erasmus when the latter published in Southwark in 1514 an edition of Publilius that is generally considered to be the real editio princeps. Erasmus was followed in Leipzig in 1550 by Georg Fabricius, who also added twenty new sentences to the print.[45][42][46][47]
Seneca Rhetor[45]
Publilius Syrus[48]
1475[49][50] Historia Augusta[49] Philippus de Lavagna[51] Milan[50] Edited by Bonus Accursius.[51]
1510[52] Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, Epistulae and Relationes[52] Johann Schott[52] Strasbourg[52]
1512[53][54] Gregorius Turonensis, Historia Francorum and De Gloria Confessorum[53] Jodocus Badius Ascensius[53] Paris[53]
Ado Viennensis, Chronicon[53]
1478[55]-1479[56] Aesopus, Fabulae[51][55] B. & J. A. de Honate[51] Milan[51] Edited by Bonus Accursius. Undated, the book contained also a Latin translation by Ranuccio Tettalo. These 127 fables are known as the Collectio Accursiana, the newest of the three recensions that form the Greek Aesopica. The oldest Greek recension is the Collectio Augustana, in 231 fables, that was published only in 1812 by Johann Gottlob Theaenus Schneider in Breslau. The last recension is the Collectio Vindobonensis, made of 130 fables, that was first edited in 1776 by Thomas Tyrwhitt.[57][56][58][59] Concerning The Aesop Romance, of it also three recensions exist: the one printed in this edition is the Vita Accursiana, while the second to be printed was in 1845 the Vita Westermanniana, edited in Braunschweig by Anton Westermann. The Last recension to be printed was the Vita Perriana, edited in 1952 in Urbana by Ben Edwin Perry.[51][60][61][62]
Vita Aesopi[51][60]
c. 1482[55] Hesiodus, Opera et dies[51][55] B. & J. A. de Honate[51] Milan[51] Edited by Bonus Accursius.[51] Undated, only Theocritus' first 18 idylls are contained in this edition.[55] A wider arrange of idylls appeared in the 1495–1496 Aldine Theocritus which had idylls I-XXIII.[63] A further amount of yet unpublished idylls were printed in Rome together with their old scholia by Zacharias Calliergis in his 1516 edition of Theocritus.[64]
Theocritus, Idyllia[51][55]
1488–1489[65] Homerus, Ilias and Odyssea[65] Florence[65] Edited by Demetrius Chalcondyles, the book was printed with the help of Demetrius Damilas [fr] that reelaborated the Greek types he had previously used in Milan. The editorial project was completed thanks to the financial support of Giovanni Acciaiuoli [it] and the patronage of Neri and Bernardo de' Nerli [it] together with, the latter also author of an opening dedication to Piero de' Medici. The edition includes also the previously printed Batrachomyomachia. As for the typography the volume has traditionally been attributed to the prolific printer Bartolomeo de' Libri [de], attribution denied by recent scholarship. The issue thus remains unresolved.[65][66][67]
Hymni Homerici[65]
Ps.-Herodotus, De vita Homeri[68]
Ps.-Plutarch, De vita et poesi Homeri[68]
Dio Cocceianus, De Homero[68]
c. 1494[69] Euripides,[70] Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis and Andromache[71] Laurentius de Alopa[70] Florence[70] Edited by Janus Lascaris. The volume, undated, was printed sometime before June 18, 1494.[70] The typographic font was, as usual with Lascaris, only made of capital letters.[69]
1495–1498[72][73] Aristoteles[72] Aldus Manutius[72] Venice[74] An edition in five volumes in folio of the complete works of Aristotle. The first volume was printed in November 1495 while the last came out in 1498. Theophrastus' works came out together in 1497.[74] Notably absent in this edition of Aristotle's works are the Rhetorica and the Poetica and also the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum.[75][76] Concerning the Problemata, they came out in 1497 in its shorter recension in two books; the longer recension in four books came out in Paris in 1857 due to Hermann Usener.[77] As for Theophrastus, all his published works came out in 1497 dispersed through the second, third and fourth volumes.[73]
Theophrastus, De signis, De causis plantarum, De historia plantarum, De lapidibus, De igne, De odoribus, De ventis, De lassitudine, De vertigine, De sudore, Metaphysica, De piscibus in sicco degentibus[73][78][79]
Porphyrius,[72] Isagoge[80]
Philo, De mundo[81]
Ps.-Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Problemata[82][77]
Diogenes Laërtius, Vita Aristotelis and Vita Theophrasti[83]
1499[65] Suda[65] I. Bissolus & B. Mangius[84] Milan[65] Edited by Demetrius Chalcondyles.[65]
1502[85] Sophocles[85] Aldus Manutius[85] Venice[85]
1502[86] Thucydides, Historiae[86] Aldus Manutius[86] Venice[86]
Dionysius Halicarnasseus, Epistola ad Ammaeum II[87]
1502[88] Herodotus, Historiae[88] Aldus Manutius[88] Venice[88]
1502[89] Stephanus Byzantinus, Ethnica[89] Aldus Manutius[89] Venice[89]
1503[71] Euripides[71] Aldus Manutius[71] Venice This edition included all of the dramatist's plays except for Electra. Generally thought to have been edited by Marcus Musurus.[71]
1503[90] Xenophon, Hellenica[90] Aldus Manutius[90] Venice[90]
1504[91] Demosthenes[91] Aldus Manutius[91] Venice[91]
1515[92] Aristophanes, Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae[92] Philippus Junta[92] Florence[92] First complete edition of all eleven Aristophanes' plays.[92]
1516[93][94] Strabo, Geographica[93][94] Aldine Press[94] Venice[93][94]
1516[95] Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio[95] Aldine Press[95] Venice[95] Edited by Marcus Musurus.[96]
1517[97] Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae[97] Philippus Junta[97] Florence[97]
1518[98] Aeschylus[98] Aldine Press[98] Venice[98] Edited by Franciscus Asulanus [it]. This edition contains only 6 of Aeschylus' 7 surviving tragedies: missing is the Choephoroe. This is because the manuscripts had fused Agamemnon and Choephoroe, omitting lines 311-1066 of Agamemnon, a mistake that was corrected for the first time in 1552 in the Venetian edition edited by Franciscus Robortellus. The separation was not fully successful as the text was not correctly divided, leaving it to the 1557 Paris edition by Petrus Victorius, printed with an appendix by Henricus Stephanus, to finally obtain an adequate edition of Aeschylus' plays.[98][99][100]
1530[101] Polybius, Historiae[101] Johannes Secerius[102] Hagenau[101] A part of Book VI had been already printed in Venice in 1529 by Johannes Antonio de Sabio [de], edited by Janus Lascaris with his Latin translation incorporated. The 1530 edition, edited by Vincentius Obsopoeus, only contained Books I–V together with their Latin translation made by Nicolaus Perottus. What survived of the rest of Polybius thanks to the excerpta antiqua of the other Books was first printed by Joannes Hervagius in Basel in 1549 together with a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus. Further Polybian excerpts came to light thanks to Fulvius Ursinus that in Antwerp in 1582 published Constantinus Porphyrogenitus' Excerpta de legationibus. All this additional material was incorporated in Isaac Casaubon's 1609 Polybius Paris edition.[101][103][104][105][106]
1533[94] Ptolemaeus, Geographia[94] Hieronymus Frobenius[94] Basel[94]
1539[95] Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica[107] Johannes Oporinus[107] Basel[107] Edited by Vincentius Obsopoeus. Only books XVI–XX were printed.[101] In 1559 Henricus Stephanus printed in Geneva all complete surviving books, that is I–V and XI–XX. To this Stephanus also added a summary left by Photius of the lost books.[108]
1544[109] Archimedes[109] Joannes Hervagius[110] Basel[109][110] Edited by Thomas Gechauff Venatorius.[110]
1544[111] Flavius Josephus[111][112] Hieronymus Frobenius & Nicolaus Episcopius[111] Basel[111] Edited by Arnoldus Arlenius. The volume also contained the 4 Maccabees, then attributed to Josephus.[112][113]
1548[114] Cassius Dio[114] Robertus Stephanus[114] Paris[114] Only contains Books 23 and 36–58.[114]
1551[82] Appianus[82] C. Stephanus[82] Paris[82]
1557[115] Joannes Zonaras, Annales[115] Johannes Oporinus[116] Basel[116] Edited by Hieronymus Wolfius.[115]
1559[117] Marcus Aurelius, Meditationes[117] Andreas Gesner[117] Zürich[117] Edited by Guilielmus Xylander. Both texts are translated in Latin, the Meditationes by Xylander. He also added some passages on evidence regarding Marcus Aurelius taken from the Suda and from Aurelius Victor.[117]
1610[118] Anna Comnena, Alexias[118] Ad insigne pinus[118] Augsburg[118] Edited by David Hoeschelius.[118]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Anthony Grafton et al. 2010, p. 142
  2. ^ a b c (in Italian) Franco Volpi (ed.), Dizionario delle opere filosofiche, Mondadori, 2000, p. 7
  3. ^ Brian Cummings and James Simpson (eds.), Cultural Reformations: Medieval and Renaissance in Literary History, OUP, 2010, vol. 2, p. 652
  4. ^ a b Harold Samuel Stone, St. Augustine's bones: a microhistory, Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 2003, p. 18
  5. ^ a b c d John Neville Figgis, The Political Aspects of St. Augustine's City of God, Forgotten Books, 1963 [1921], p. 91
  6. ^ Robert H. F. Carver, The Protean Ass: The Metamorphoses of Apuleius from Antiquity to the Renaissance, OUP, 2008, p. 162
  7. ^ a b c d M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 866
  8. ^ a b Gian Biagio Conte, Latin Literature: A History, JHU Press, 1999, p. 375
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Miglio, Massimo (1972). "Bussi, Giovanni Andrea". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 15: Buffoli–Caccianemici (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 565–572. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
  10. ^ M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 863
  11. ^ (in Italian) L. Bessone, "Le Periochae di Livio", vol. 29, 1984, pp. 42-55, in Atene e Roma, p. 43
  12. ^ a b M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 702
  13. ^ a b c d S. Füssel 1997, p. 78
  14. ^ a b c William Henry Parker, "Introduction" in Priapea: Poems for a Phallic God, Routledge, 1988, p. 32
  15. ^ a b c M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 429
  16. ^ a b c d S. Füssel 1997, p. 79
  17. ^ a b c R. H. F. Carver 2008, p. 171
  18. ^ a b c d M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 460
  19. ^ a b Osmond, Patricia J.; Ulery, Robert W. (2003). "Sallustius" (PDF). Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. 8: 199. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  20. ^ a b M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 1408
  21. ^ a b Alaimo, Carmelo (1988). "De Lignamine, Giovanni Filippo". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 36: De Fornari–Della Fonte (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 643–647. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
  22. ^ Paul A. Winckler (ed.), Reader in the History of Books and Printing, Greenwood Press, 1978, p. 285
  23. ^ a b c G. B. Conte 1999, p. 543
  24. ^ a b c Ronald H. Martin, Tacitus, University of California Press, 1992, p. 238
  25. ^ Paratore, Ettore (1967). "Beroaldo, Filippo, iunior". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 9: Berengario–Biagini (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 384–388. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
  26. ^ Ceresa, Massimo (2003). "Guillery, Stefano". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 61: Guglielmo Gonzaga–Jacobini (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 495–498. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
  27. ^ a b c d Contarino, Rosario (1986). "Dal Pozzo, Francesco, detto il Puteolano". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 32: Dall'Anconata–Da Ronco (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 213–216. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 1 April 2021.
  28. ^ a b Cioni, Alfredo (1962). "Azzoguidi, Baldassare". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 4: Arconati–Bacaredda (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 765–766. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 1 April 2021.
  29. ^ a b c d Leonardi, Claudio (1969). "Boezio, Anicio Manlio Torquato Severino". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 11: Boccadibue–Bonetti (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 142–165. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 2 April 2021.
  30. ^ Bastert, Bernd (2010). "Boethius unter Druck: Die Consolatio Philosophiae in einer Koberger-Inkunabel von 1473". In Glei, Reinhold F.; Kaminski, Nicola; Lebsanft, Franz (eds.). Boethius Christianus? Transformationen der Consolatio Philosophiae in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (in German). Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-3-11-021415-4.
  31. ^ a b M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 612
  32. ^ a b c d Veneziani, Paolo (2005). "Lauer, Georg". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 64: Latilla–Levi Montalcini (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 51–53. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 2 April 2021.
  33. ^ a b c d Daneloni, Alessandro (2009). "Merlani, Giorgio". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 73: Meda–Messadaglia (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 679–685. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
  34. ^ Julie Stone Peters. Theatre of the Book, 1480–1880: Print, Text, and Performance in Europe. Oxford: OUP, 2003, ISBN 0-19-926216-0, p. 316
  35. ^ A. Grafton et al. 2010, p. 930
  36. ^ De Melo, Wolfgang. "Introduction", Plautus, Amphitryon. the Comedy of Asses. the Pot of Gold. the Two Bacchises. the Captives: 1. W. De Melo (ed.). Harvard University Press, 2011, ISBN 0-674-99653-4, p. cxiii.
  37. ^ a b c d Veneziani, Serena (2004). "Jenson, Nicolas". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 62: Iacobiti–Labriola (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 205–208. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
  38. ^ a b Leighton D. Reynolds (eds.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, OUP, 1983, p. 222
  39. ^ a b c d J. Robert Wright, A companion to Bede: A Reader's Commentary on The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Eerdmans, 2008, p. viii
  40. ^ Laura Cooner Lambdin and Robert Thomas Lambdin (eds.), Arthurian writers: a biographical encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO/Greenwood, 2007, pp. 10-13
  41. ^ Bede, Ecclesiastical History, Books I-III, J. E. King (ed.), Loeb, 1930, p. xxiv
  42. ^ a b c d A. Grafton et al. 2010, p. 874
  43. ^ M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 1199
  44. ^ Scapecchi, Piero (2009). "Mattia Moravo". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 72: Massimo–Mechetti (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
  45. ^ a b Rodolphus Agricola, Letters, A. van der Laan and F. Akkerman (eds.), Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 2002, p. 338
  46. ^ R. A. H. Bickford-Smith 1895, pp. xxix, xxxii
  47. ^ M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 1253
  48. ^ R. A. H. Bickford-Smith (ed.), Publilii Syri sententiae, 1895, p. xxix
  49. ^ a b Vergil Polydore 2002, p. 615
  50. ^ a b David Magie, et al. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Loeb Classical Library) London: W. Heinemann, 1922, p. xxxvii
  51. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Ballistreri, Gianni (1969). "Bonaccorso da Pisa". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 11: Boccadibue–Bonetti (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 464–465. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
  52. ^ a b c d M. von Albrecht 1997, p. 1447
  53. ^ a b c d e E. P. Goldschmidt 1969, p. 73
  54. ^ E. Paratore 1992, p. 563
  55. ^ a b c d e f Edelheit, Amos (2008). Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2-1498. The Medieval Mediterranean. Vol. 78. Leiden: Brill. pp. 184–185. ISBN 978-90-04-16667-7.
  56. ^ a b Zafiropoulos, Christos A. (2001). Ethics in Aesop's Fables: The Augustana Collection. Mnemosyne: Supplements. Vol. 216. Leiden: Brill. pp. 23–26. ISBN 978-90-04-11867-6.
  57. ^ Botley, Paul (2002). "Learning Greek in Western Europe 1476-1516". In Holmes, Catherine; Waring, Judith (eds.). Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond. The Medieval Mediterranean. Vol. 42. Leiden: Brill. pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-90-04-12096-9.
  58. ^ Perry, Ben Edwin (1965). "Introduction". In Perry, Ben Edwin (ed.). Babrius and Phaedrus: Fables. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 436. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. xvi–xvii. ISBN 9780434994366.
  59. ^ Landfester, Manfred, ed. (2007). Geschichte der antiken Texte: Autoren- und Werklexikon (in German). Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler. p. 22. ISBN 978-3-476-02030-7.
  60. ^ a b Holzberg, Niklas (2002) [2001]. The Ancient Fable: An Introduction. Translated by Jackson-Holzberg, Christine. Bloomington: University of Illinois Press. pp. 72–74. ISBN 978-0-253-21548-2.
  61. ^ Holzberg, Niklas (1999). "The Fabulist, the Scholars, and the Discourse: Aesop Studies Today". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 6 (2): 236–242. doi:10.1007/s12138-999-0004-y. JSTOR 30222546. S2CID 195318862. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
  62. ^ Hansen, William (September 2004). "Reviewed Work: Grammatiki A. Karla, Vita Aesopi: Überlieferung, Sprache und Edition einer frühbyzantinischen Fassung des Äsopromans. Serta Graeca; Bd. 13. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Retrieved 31 January 2021.
  63. ^ N. Barker, The Aldine Press: Catalogue of the Ahmanson-Murphy Collection of Books by or Relating to the Press in the Library of the University of California, Los Angeles, Incorporating Works Recorded Elsewhere, University of California Press, 2001, pp. 51-52.
  64. ^ Mioni, Elpidio (1973). "Calliergi, Zaccaria". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 16: Caccianiga–Caluso (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 750–753. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6.
  65. ^ a b c d e f g h i Petrucci, Armando (1973). "Calcondila, Demetrio". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 16: Caccianiga–Caluso (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 542–547. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6.
  66. ^ Cioni, Alfredo (1964). "Bartolomeo de' Libri". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 6: Baratteri–Bartolozzi (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 728–729. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6.
  67. ^ Casetti Brach, Carla (1990). "Demetrio da Creta". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 38: Della Volpe–Denza (in Italian). Rome: Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. pp. 634–636. ISBN 978-8-81200032-6.
  68. ^ a b c Lamberton, Robert (1996). "Introduction". In Keaney, John J.; Lamberton, Robert (eds.). [Plutarch]: Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer. Atlanta: Scholars Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 0-7885-0260-3.
  69. ^ a b M. D. Lauxtermann, "Janus Lascaris and the Greek Anthology", in S. De Beer, K. Enenkel & D. Rijser (eds.), The Neo-Latin Epigram: A Learned and Witty Genre, Leuven University Press, 2009, pp. 53-54.
  70. ^ a b c d (in Italian) A. Mondolfo, "Alopa, Lorenzo", Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 2, 1960.
  71. ^ a b c d e Euripides, Alcestis, L. P. E. Parker (ed.), OUP, 2007, p. lxv.
  72. ^ a b c d A. Grafton, G. W. Most & S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition, Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 717-718.
  73. ^ a b c Schmitt, Charles B. (1971). "Theophrastus" (PDF). Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. 2: 239–322. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
  74. ^ a b (in Italian) M. Infelise, "Manuzio, Aldo, il Vecchio", Dizionario Biogafico degli Italiani, vol. 69, 2007.
  75. ^ W. W. Fortenbaugh & D. C. Mirhady (eds.), Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle, Transaction, 1994, p. 349.
  76. ^ A. Grafton, G. W. Most & S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition, Harvard University Press, 2010, p. 754.
  77. ^ a b Cranz, F. Edward (1960). "Alexander Aphrodisiensis" (PDF). Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. 1: 77–135. Retrieved 30 December 2020.
  78. ^ Theophrastus, Theophrastus of Eresus: On Weather Signs, C. W. Wolfram Brunschön (ed.), Brill, 2006, pp. 230-231
  79. ^ B. W. Ogilve, The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe, University Of Chicago Press, 2008, p. 296.
  80. ^ The Aldine Press: Catalogue of the Ahmanson-Murphy collection of books by or relating to the press in the Library of the University of California, Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2001, p. 50.
  81. ^ D. T. Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, 1995, p. 79.
  82. ^ a b c d e E. P. Goldschmidt [1955] 2010, p. 73.
  83. ^ W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby & A. A. Long (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work, Transaction, 1985, p. 1.
  84. ^ (in Italian) A. Cioni, "Giovanni Bissoli", Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 10, 1968.
  85. ^ a b c d K. Ormand (ed.), A Companion to Sophocles, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford,2012, p. 15.
  86. ^ a b c d E. P. Goldschmidt [1955] 2010, p. 82.
  87. ^ Rhys Roberts, William (2011) [1901]. "Introductory Essay on Dionysius as Literary Critic". In Rhys Roberts, William (ed.). Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Three Literary Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 978-0-521-72013-7.
  88. ^ a b c d D. Asheri, A. Lloyd & A. Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus: Books I-IV, O. Murray & A. Moreno (eds.), OUP, 2007, p. xv.
  89. ^ a b c d (in German) Stephanus, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica: Volumen II Δ-Ι, M. Billerbeck & C. Zubler (eds.), De Gruyter, 2011, p. xiii.
  90. ^ a b c d Marsh, David (1992). "Xenophon" (PDF). Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. 7: 81–82. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  91. ^ a b c d A. Grafton, G. W. Most & S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition, 2010, p. 261.
  92. ^ a b c d e E. Hall & A. Wrigley (eds.), Aristophanes in Performance 421 BC-AD 2007: Peace, Birds, and Frogs, Oxford, MHRA, 2007, p. 312.
  93. ^ a b c Jacopo Sannazzaro, Latin Poetry, Michael C. J. Putnam (ed.), Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 401
  94. ^ a b c d e f g h E. P. Goldschmidt, The First Cambridge Press in its European Setting, 2010, p. 81.
  95. ^ a b c d e E. P. Goldschmidt, The First Cambridge Press in its European Setting, CUP, [1955] 2010, p. 79.
  96. ^ (in Italian) P. Pellegrini, "Musuro, Marco", Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 77, 2012.
  97. ^ a b c d E. P. Goldschmidt [1955] 2010, p. 80.
  98. ^ a b c d e J. Lewis, Adrien Turnèbe (1512–1565): A Humanist Observed, Droz, pp. 121-122.
  99. ^ A. Grafton, G. W. Most & S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition, Harvard University Press, 2010, p. 331.
  100. ^ E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus: Agamemnon, volume 1, pp. 34-35.
  101. ^ a b c d e Marsh, David (1992). "Xenophon" (PDF). Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. 7: 171. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  102. ^ P. G. Bietenholz & T. B. Deutscher (eds.), Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, vol. 3, University of Toronto Press, 2003, p. 34.
  103. ^ A. Momigliano, Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1980, pp. 131-132.
  104. ^ Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, F. W. Walbank (ed.), Penguin, 1980, pp. 35-36.
  105. ^ C. B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius's Histories, University of California Press, 2004, p. 21.
  106. ^ A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, University of Chicago Press, 2012, pp. 89-90.
  107. ^ a b c E. P. Goldschmidt, The First Cambridge Press in its European Setting, CUP, [1955] 2010, p. 75.
  108. ^ (in Italian) L. M. Arduini, Dall'età greca classica agli inizi di Roma imperiale. Da Senofonte a Diodoro Siculo, Jaca, 2000, p. 283.
  109. ^ a b c S. A. Paipetes (ed.) & M. Ceccarelli (ed.), The Genius of Archimedes - 23 Centuries of Influence on Mathematics, Science and Engineering: Proceedings of an International Conference held at Syracuse, Italy, June 8–10, 2010, Springer, 2010, p. 383.
  110. ^ a b c K. Williams (ed.), Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvius of 1567, Springer, 2019, p. 810.
  111. ^ a b c d E. P. Goldschmidt, The First Cambridge Press in its European Setting, CUP, [1955] 2010, p. 78.
  112. ^ a b J. R. Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus, vol. 1, CUP, 1985, p. 76.
  113. ^ P. Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, Brill, 1986, p. xviii.
  114. ^ a b c d e E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book, University of California Press, 1974, p. 155.
  115. ^ a b c J. P. Considine, Dictionaries in Early Modern Europe: Lexicography and the Making of Heritage, CUP, 2011, p. 251.
  116. ^ a b (in Italian) L. R. Tarugi (ed.), Oriente e Occidente nel Rinascimento: atti del XIX Convegno internazionale, Chianciano Terme-Pienza, 16-19 luglio 2007, Cesati, 2009, p. 357.
  117. ^ a b c d e M. van Ackeren (ed.), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, p. 55.
  118. ^ a b c d e P. Stphenson (ed.), The Byzantine World, Routledge, 2012, p. 439.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Editio_princeps&oldid=1196424769"