Chapter XVI: Part 16

To no one, however, has Plautus been so much indebted as to Camerarius, whose zeal and diligence were such, that there was scarcely a verse of Plautus which did not receive from him some emendation. In 1535, there had appeared at Magdeburg six comedies (_Aulularia_, _Captivi_, _Miles Gloriosus_, _Menæchmi_, _Mostellaria_, _Trinummus_,) which he had revised and commented on, but which were published from his MS. without his knowledge or authority. The privilege of the first complete edition printed under his own direction, is dated in 1538.

The text and annotations of Camerarius now served as the basis for most of the subsequent editions. The Plantin editions, of which Sambucus was the editor, and which were printed at Antwerp 1566, and Basil 1568, contain the notes and corrections of Camerarius, with about 300 verses more than any preceding impression.

Lambinus, in preparing the Paris edition, 1577, collated a number of MSS. and amassed many passages from the ancient grammarians. He only lived, however, to complete thirteen of the comedies; but his colleague, Helias, put the finishing hand to the work, and added an index, after which it came forth with a prefatory dedication by Lambinus’s son. On this edition, (in which great critical learning and sagacity, especially in the discovery of _double entendres_, were exhibited,) the subsequent impressions, Leyden, 1581(583), Geneva, 1581, and Paris 1587, were chiefly formed.

Lambinus, in preparing his edition, had chiefly trusted to his own ingenuity and learning. Taubman, the next editor of Plautus of any note, compiled the commentaries of others. The text of Camerarius was principally employed by him, but he collated it with two MSS. in the Palatine library, which had once belonged to Camerarius; and he received the valuable assistance of Gruterus, who was at that time keeper of the library at Heidelberg. Newly-discovered fragments—the various opinions of ancient and modern writers concerning Plautus—a copious _index verborum_—a preface—a dedication to the triumvirs of literature of the day, Joseph Scaliger, Justus Lipsius, and Casaubon—in short, every species of literary apparatus accompanied the edition of Taubman, which first appeared at Frankfort in 1605. It was very inaccurately printed, however; so incorrectly indeed, that the editor, in a letter addressed to Jungerman, in September 1606, acknowledges that he was ashamed of it. Philip Pareus, who had long been pursuing similar studies with those of Taubman, embraced the opportunity, afforded by the inaccuracy of this edition, of publishing in Frankfort, in 1610, a Plautus, which was professedly the rival of that which had been produced by the united efforts of Taubman and Gruterus, and which had not only disappointed the expectations of the public, but of the learned editors themselves. Their feelings on this subject, and the _opposition Plautus_ edited by Pareus, stimulated Taubman to give an amended edition of his former one. This second impression, which is much more accurate than the first, was printed at Wittenberg in 1612, and was accompanied with the dissertation of Camerarius _De Fabulis Plautonicis_, and that of Jul. Scaliger, _De Versibus Comicis_. Taubman died the year after the appearance of this edition: Its fame, however, survived him, and not only retrieved his character, which had been somewhat sullied by the bad ink and dirty paper of the former edition, but completely eclipsed the classical reputation of Pareus. Envious of the renown of his rivals, that scholar obtained an opportunity of inspecting the MSS. which had been collated by Taubman and Gruterus. These he now compared more minutely than his predecessors had done, and published the fruits of his labour at Neustadt, in 1617. This was considered as derogating from the accuracy and critical ingenuity of Gruterus, and insulting to the manes of Taubman.—“Hinc jurgium, tumultus Grutero et Pareo.” Gruterus attacked Pareus in a little tract, entitled _Asini Cumani fraterculus e Plauto electis electus per Eustathium Schwarzium puerum_, 1619, and was answered by Pareus not less bitterly, in his _Provocatio ad Senatum Criticum adversus personatos Pareomastigos_. From this time Pareus and Gruterus continued to print successive editions of Plautus, in emulation and odium of each other. Gruterus printed one at Wittenberg in 1621, with a prefatory invective against Pareus, and with the _Euphemiæ amicorum in Plautum Gruteri_. Pareus then attempted to surpass his rival, by comprehending in his edition a collection of literary miscellanies—as Bullengerus’ description of Greek and Roman theatres. At length Pareus got the better of his obstinate opponent, in the only way in which that was possible—by surviving him; he then enjoyed an opportunity of publishing, unmolested, his last edition of Plautus, printed at Frankfort, 1641, containing a Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Plautus; the Eulogies pronounced on him; Remarks on his Versification; a diatribe _de jocis et salibus Plautinis_; an exhibition of his Imitations from the Greek Poets; and, finally, the _Euphemiæ_ of Learned Friends. Being now relieved of all apprehensions from the animadversions of Gruterus, he boldly termed his edition “Absolutissimam, perfectissimam, omnibusque virtutibus suis ornatissimam.”

I have now brought the history of this notable controversy to a conclusion. During its subsistence, various other editions of Plautus had been published—that of Isaac Pontanus, Amsterdam, 1620, from a MS. in his own possession—that of Nic. Heinsius, Leyden, 1635, and that of Buxhornius, 1645, who had the advantage of consulting a copy of Plautus, enriched with MS. notes, in the handwriting of Joseph Scaliger.

Gronovius at length published the edition usually called the _Variorum_. Bentley, in his critical emendations on Menander, speaks with great contempt of the notes which Gronovius had compiled. The first Variorum edition was printed at Leyden in 1664, the second in 1669, and the third, which is accounted the best, at Amsterdam, 1684.

The Delphin edition was nearly coeval with these Variorum editions, having been printed at Paris, 1679. It was edited under care of Jacques l’Œuvre or Operarius, but is not accounted one of the best of the class to which it belongs. The text was principally formed on the last edition of Gruterus, and the notes of Taubman were chiefly employed. The _Prolegomena_ on the Life and Writings of Plautus, is derived from various sources, and is very copious. None of the old commentators could publish an edition of Plautus, without indulging in a dissertation _De Obscœnis_. In every Delphin edition of the classics we are informed, that _consultum est pudori Serenissimi Delphini_; but this has been managed in various ways. Sometimes the offensive lines are allowed to remain, but the _interpretatio_ is omitted, and in its place star lights are hung out alongside of the passage: but in the Delphin Plautus they are concentrated in one focus, “_in gratiam_,” as it is expressed, “_provectioris ætatis_,” at the end of the volume, under the imposing title “PLAUTI OBSCŒNA:”

“And there we have them all at one full swoop;
Instead of being scattered through the pages,
They stand forth marshalled in a handsome troop,
To meet the ingenuous youth of future ages.
Till some less rigid editor shall stoop
To call them back into their separate cages;
Instead of standing staring all together,
Like garden gods, and not so decent either(584).”

What is termed the Ernesti edition of Plautus, and which is commonly accounted the best of that poet, was printed at Leipsic, 1760. It was chiefly prepared by Aug. Otho, but Ernesti wrote the preface, containing a full account of the previous editions of Plautus.

The two editions by the Vulpii were printed at Padua, 1725 and 1764.

The text of the second Bipontine edition, 1788, was corrected by Brunck. The plan of the Bipontine editions of the Latin classics is well known. There are scarcely any annotations or commentary subjoined; but the text is carefully corrected, and an account of previous editions is prefixed.

In the late edition by Schmieder (Gottingen, 1804), the text of Gronovius has been principally followed; but the editor has also added some conjectural emendations of his own. The commentary appears to have been got up in considerable haste. The preliminary notices concerning the Life and Writings of Plautus, and the previous editions of his works, are very brief and unsatisfactory. There is yet a more recent German edition by Bothe, which has been published in volumes from time to time at Berlin. Two MSS. never before consulted, and which the editor believes to be of the eleventh or twelfth century, were collated by him. His principal aim in this new edition is to restore the lines of Plautus to their proper metrical arrangement.

With a similar view of restoring the proper measure to the verses, various editions of single plays of Plautus have, within these few years, been printed in Germany. Of this sort is the edition of the _Trinummus_, by Hermann (Leipsic, 1800), and of the _Miles_ (Weimar, 1804), by Danz, who has made some very bold alterations on the text of his author.

_Italy_ having been the country in which learning first revived,—in which the MSS. of the Classics were first discovered, and the first editions of them printed,—it was naturally to be expected, that, of all the modern tongues of Europe, the classics should have been earliest translated into the Italian language. Accordingly we find, that the most celebrated and popular of them appeared in the _Lingua Volgare_, previous to the year 1500(585).

With regard to Plautus, Maffei mentions, as the first translation of the _Amphitryon_, a work in _ottava rima_, printed without a date. This work was long believed to be a production of Boccaccio(586), but it was in fact written by Ghigo Brunelleschi, an author of equal or superior antiquity, and whose initials were mistaken for those of Giovanni Boccaccio. Though spoken of by Maffei as a dramatic version, it is in fact a tale or novel founded on the comedy of Plautus, and was called _Geta e Birria_(587). Pandolfo Collenuccio was the first who translated the _Amphitryon_ in its proper dramatic form, and _terza rima_. He was in the service of Hercules, first Duke of Ferrara, who made this version be represented, in January, 1487, in the splendid theatre which he had recently built, and on occasion of the nuptials of his daughter Lucretia. The _Menechmi_, partly translated in _ottava_ and partly in _terza rima_, was the first piece ever acted on that theatre. The Este family were great promoters of these versions; which, though not printed till the sixteenth century, were for the most part made and represented before the close of the fifteenth. The dramatic taste of Duke Hercules descended to his son Alphonso, by whose command Celio Calcagnino translated the _Miles Gloriosus_. Paitoni enumerates four different translations of the _Asinaria_, in the course of the sixteenth century, one of which was acted in the monastery of St Stephen’s, at Venice.

There were also a few versions of particular plays in the course of the _eighteenth_ century; but Paitoni, whose work was printed in 1767, mentions no complete Italian translation of Plautus, nor any version whatever of the _Truculentus_, or _Trinummus_. The first version of all the comedies was that of Nic. Eug. Argelio, which was accompanied by the Latin text, and was printed at Naples, 1783, in 10 volumes 8vo.

The subject of translation was early attended to in _France_. In the year 1540, a work containing rules for it was published by Steph. Dolet, which was soon followed by similar productions; and, in the ensuing century, its principles became a great topic of controversy among critics and scholars. Plautus, however, was not one of the classics earliest rendered. Though Terence had been repeatedly translated while the language was almost in a state of barbarism, Plautus did not appear in a French garb, till clothed in it by the Abbé Marolles, at the solicitation of Furetiere, in 1658. The Abbé, being more anxious to write many than good books, completed his task in a few months, and wrote as the sheets were throwing off. His translation is dedicated to the King, Louis XIV., and is accompanied by the Latin text. We shall find, as we proceed, that almost all the Latin authors of this period were translated into French by the indefatigable Abbé de Marolles. He was unfortunately possessed of the opulence and leisure which Providence had denied to Plautus, Terence, and Catullus; and the leisure he enjoyed was chiefly devoted to translation. “Translation,” says D’Israeli, “was the mania of the Abbé de Marolles; sometimes two or three classical victims in a season were dragged into his slaughter-house. The notion he entertained of his translations was their closeness; he was not aware of his own spiritless style and he imagined that poetry only consisted in the thoughts, and not in the grace and harmony of verse(588).”

De Coste’s translation of the _Captivi_, in prose, 1716, has been already mentioned. This author was not in the same hurry as Marolles, for he kept his version ten years before he printed it. He has prefixed a Dissertation, in which he maintains, that Plautus, in this comedy, has rigidly observed the dramatic unities of time and place.

Mad. Dacier has translated the _Amphitryon_, _Rudens_, and _Epidicus_. Her version, which is accompanied by the Latin text, and is dedicated to Colbert, was first printed 1683. An examination of the defects and beauties of these comedies, particularly in respect of the dramatic unities, is prefixed, and remarks by no means deficient in learning are subjoined. Some changes from the printed Latin editions are made in the arrangement of the scenes. In her dissertation on the _Epidicus_, which was a favourite play of Plautus himself, Mad. Dacier attempts to justify this preference of the poet, and wishes indeed to persuade us, that it is a faultless production. Goujet remarks that one is not very forcibly struck with all the various beauties which she enumerates in perusing the original, and still less sensible of them in reading her translation.

M. de Limiers, who published a version of the whole plays of Plautus in 1719, has not rendered anew those which had been translated by Mad. Dacier and by De Coste, but has inserted their versions in his work. These are greatly better than the others, which are translated by Limiers himself. All of them are in prose, except the _Stichus_ and _Trinummus_, which the author has turned into verse, in order to give a specimen of his poetic talents. In the versifications, he has placed himself under the needless restraint of rendering each Latin line by only one in French, so that there should not be a verse more in the translation than the original; the consequence of which is, that the whole is constrained and obscure. Examinations and analyses of each piece, expositions of the plots, with notices of Plautus’ imitations of the ancient writers, and those of the moderns after him, are inserted in this work.

In the same year in which Limiers published his version, Gueudeville brought out a translation of Plautus. It is a very free one; and Goujet says, it is “Plaute travesti, plutot que traduit.” He attempts to make his original more burlesque by exaggerations; and by singular hyperbolical expressions; the _obscœna_ are a good deal enhanced; and he has at the end formed a sort of table, or index, of the obscene passages, referring to their proper page, which may thus be found without perusing any other part of the drama. The professed object of the table is, that the reader may pass them over if he choose.

A contemporary journal, comparing the two translations, observes,—“Il semble que M. Limiers s’attache davantage à son original, et qu’il en fait mieux sentir le véritable caractère; et que le Sieur Gueudeville est plus badin, plus vif, plus bouffon(589).” Fabricius passes on them nearly the same judgment(590).

The _English_ were early acquainted with the plays of Plautus. It appears from Holinshed, that in the eleventh year of King Henry VIII.—that is, in 1520—a comedy of Plautus was played before the King(591). We are informed by Miss Aikin, in her _Memoirs of the Court of Elizabeth_, that when that Queen visited Cambridge in 1564, she went on a Sunday morning to King’s Chapel, to hear a Latin sermon, _ad clerum_; “and in the evening, the body of this solemn edifice being converted into a temporary theatre, she was there gratified with a representation of the _Aulularia_ of Plautus(592).” It has been mentioned in the text, that, in 1595, there appeared a translation of the _Menæchmi_ of Plautus, by W. W.—initials which have generally been supposed to stand for William Warner, author of _Albion’s England_. In 1694, Echard published a prose translation of the three comedies which had been selected by Mad. Dacier—the _Amphitryon_, _Epidicus_, and _Rudens_. It is obvious, however, that he has more frequently translated from the French, than from his original author. His style, besides, is coarse and inelegant; and, while he aims at being familiar, he is commonly low and vulgar. Some passages of the _Amphitryon_ he has translated in the coarsest dialogue of the streets:—“By the mackins, I believe Phœbus has been playing the good fellow, and’s asleep too! I’ll be hanged if he ben’t in for’t, and has took a little too much of the creature.” In every page, also, we find the most incongruous jumble of ancient and of modern manners. He talks of the Lord Chief Justice of Athens, of bridewell, and aldermen; and makes his heathen characters swear British and Christian oaths, such as, “By the Lord Harry!—’Fore George!—’Tis as true as the Gospel!”

In the year 1746, Thomas Cooke, the well-known translator of Hesiod, published proposals for a complete translation of Plautus, but he printed only the _Amphitryon_. Dr Johnson has told, that Cooke lived twenty years on this translation of Plautus, for which he was always taking in subscriptions(593).

In imitation of Colman, who, in his Terence, had introduced a new and elegant mode of translation in familiar blank verse, Mr Thornton, in 1667, published a version of seven of the plays after the same manner,—_Amphitryon_, _Miles Gloriosus_, _Captivi_, _Trinummus_, _Mercator_, _Aulularia_, _Rudens_. Of these, the translation of the _Mercator_ was furnished by Colman, and that of the _Captivi_ by Mr Warner. Thornton intended to have translated the remaining thirteen, but was prevented by death. The work, however, was continued by Mr. Warner, who had translated the _Captivi_. To both versions, there were subjoined remarks, chiefly collected from the best commentators, and from the notes of the French translators of Plautus.

TERENCE.

The MSS. of Terence which were coeval with the age of the author, or shortly posterior to it, were corrupted from the same cause as the MSS. of Plautus. Varro says, that, in his time, the copies of Terence then existing were extremely corrupt. He is, however, one of the classics whose works cannot properly be said to have been discovered at the revival of literature, as, in fact, his comedies never were lost. They were commented on, during the later ages of the empire, by Æmilius Asper, Valerius Probus, Martius Salutaris, Flavius Caper, and Helenius Acro; and towards the end of the fifth century, Rufinus wrote a diatribe on the metres of Terence. Sulpicius Apollinaris, a grammarian of the second century, composed arguments to the plays, and Ælius Donatus commented on them in the fourth century. The person styling himself Calliopius, revised and amended, in the eighth century, a MS. which was long preserved in the Vatican. Eugraphius commented on Terence, again, in the tenth, and Calpurnius in the middle of the fifteenth century. Guiniforte delivered lectures on Terence at Novarra in 1430, and Filelfo at Florence about the same period(594). Petrarch, too, when Leontius Pilatus, disgusted with Italy, returned to his native country, gave him a copy of Terence as his travelling companion,—a foolish present, as Petrarch adds, for there is no resemblance between the most gloomy of all the Greeks, and the most lively of the Africans. As Petrarch at this time seems to have cordially disliked Leontius, it is not probable that the copy of Terence he gave him was very scarce. All this shows, that the six plays of Terence were not merely extant, but very common in Italy, during the dark ages. One of the oldest MSS. of Terence, and that which was probably used in the earliest printed editions, was preserved in the Vatican library: Fabricius has described it as written by Hrodogarius in the time of Charlemagne, and as revised by Calliopius(595). Another MS. of Terence in the Vatican library, is one which, in the sixteenth century, had fallen into the possession of Cardinal Bembo. It had been revised by Politian(596), who wrote on it, in his own hand, that he had never seen one more ancient:—“Ego, Angelus Politianus, homo vetustatis minime incuriosus, nullum me vidisse, ad hanc diem, codicem vetustiorem fateor.” Its age, when Fabricius wrote, in 1698, was, as that author testifies, more than a thousand years, which places its transcription at the latest in 698. In this MS. there is a division of verses which is not employed in that above mentioned, written by Hrodogarius. Politian corrected from it, with his own hand, a copy which was in the Laurentian library, and collated with it another, which subsequently belonged to Petrus Victorius. After the death of Cardinal Bembo, this ancient MS. came into the possession of Fulvius Ursinus, and was by him bequeathed to the Vatican library(597).

There is much uncertainty with regard to the _Editio Princeps_ of Terence, and, indeed, with regard to most of the editions of his works which appeared during the fifteenth century. That printed by Mentelin at Strasburg, without date, but supposed to be 1468, seems now to be considered as having the best claims to priority(598). The Terence printed by Pynson in 1497, was, I believe, the first Latin classic published in this country. The earliest editions of Terence are without any separation of verses, the division of them having been first introduced in the edition of 1487, according to the arrangement made by Politian from Cardinal Bembo’s copy. Westerhovius, in the _prolegomena_ to his edition, 1726, enumerates not fewer than 248 editions of Terence previous to his time. Though the presses of the Aldi (1517–21), the Stephenses (1529–52, &c.), and the Elzevirs (1635), were successively employed in these editions, the text of Terence does not seem to have engaged the attention of any of the most eminent scholars or critics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the exception of Muretus. The edition of Faernus, (Florence, 1565,) for which various valuable MSS. were collated, became the foundation of almost all subsequent impressions, particularly that of Westerhovius, which is usually accounted the best edition of Terence. It is nevertheless declared, by Mr Dibdin, “to be more admirable for elaborate care and research, than the exhibition of any critical niceties in the construction of the text, or the illustration of difficult passages.” It contains the Commentaries of Donatus, Calpurnius, and Eugraphius, and there are prefixed the Life of Terence, attributed to Suetonius,—a dissertation of D. Heinsius, _Ad Horatii de Plauto et Terentio judicium_,—Evanthius, _De Tragœdiâ et Comœdiâ_,—and a treatise, compiled by the editor from the best authorities, concerning the scenic representations of the Romans.

Bentley’s first edition of Terence was printed at Cambridge in the same year with that of Westerhovius. One of Bentley’s great objects was the reformation of the metres of Terence, concerning which he prefixed a learned dissertation. The boldness of his alterations on the text, which were in a great measure calculated to serve this purpose, drew down on him, in his own age, the appellation of “slashing Bentley,” and repeated castigation from subsequent editors.

Of the more recent editions, that of Zeunius (Leipsic, 1774) is deservedly accounted the best in point of critical excellence. There are, however, three German editions still more recent; that by Schmieder, (Halle, 1794,) by Bothe, (Magdeburg, 1806,) and by Perlet, (Leipsic, 1821;) which last is chiefly remarkable for its great number of typographical errors—about as numerous as those in one of the old English _Pearl Bibles_.

The plays of Terence being much less numerous than those of Plautus, translations of the whole of them appeared at an earlier period, both in Italian and French. The first complete _Italian_ translation of Terence was in prose. It is dedicated to Benedetto Curtio, by a person calling himself Borgofranco; but from the ambiguity of some expressions in this dedication, there has been a dispute, whether he be the author, or only the editor of the version—Fontanini supporting the former, and Apostolo Zeno the latter proposition(599). It was first printed at Venice, 1533; and Paitoni enumerates six subsequent editions of it in the course of the sixteenth century. The next version was that of Giovanni Fabrini, which, as we learn by the title, is rendered word for word from the original; it was printed at Venice, 1548. A third prose translation, published at Rome, 1612, is dedicated to the Cardinal Borghese by the printer Zanetti, who mentions, that it was the work of an unknown author, which had fallen accidentally into his hands: Fontanini, however, and Apost. Zeno, have long since discovered, that the author was called Cristoforo Rosario. Crescimbeni speaks favourably of a version by the Marchioness of Malespini. Another lady, Luisa Bergalli, had translated in _verso sciolto_, and printed separately, some of the plays of Terence: These she collected, and, having completed the remainder, published them together at Venice, in 1733. In 1736, a splendid edition of a poetical translation of Terence, and accompanied by the Latin, was printed at Urbino, with figures of the actors, taken from a MS. preserved in the Vatican. It is written in _verso sciolto_, except the prologues, which are in _versi sdruccioli_. The author, who was Nicholas Fortiguerra, and who died before his version was printed, says, that the comedies are _nunc primum Italicis versibus redditæ_(600); but in this he had not been sufficiently informed, as his version was preceded by that of Luisa Bergalli, and by many separate translations of each individual play. A translation of two of Terence’s plays, the _Andria_ and _Eunuchus_, into _versi sdruccioli_, by Giustiano de Candia, was printed by Paullus Manutius in 1544(601). Three of Terence’s plays, the _Andria_, _Eunuchus_, and _Heautontimorumenos_, were subsequently translated in _versi sdruccioli_, by the Abbé Bellaviti, and published at Bassan in 1758.

It is not certain who was the author of the first _French_ translation of Terence, or even at what period he existed. Du Verdier and Fabricius say, he was Octavien de Saint Gelais, Bishop of Angouleme, who lived in the reign of Charles VIII. This, however, is doubtful, since Pierre Grosnet, a French poet, contemporary with the Bishop, while mentioning the other classics which he had translated, says nothing of any version of Terence by him, but expressly mentions one by Gilles Cybile—

“Maistre Gilles nommé Cybile,
Il s’est montré très-fort habile:
Car il a tout traduit Therence
Ou il y a mainte sentence(602).”

The author, whoever he may be, mentions, that the translation was made by order of the King; but he does not specify by which of the French monarchs the command was given. His work was first printed, but without date, by Anthony Verard, so well known as the printer of some of the earliest romances of chivalry; and as Verard died in 1520, it must have been printed before that date(603). It is in one volume folio, ornamented with figures in wood-cuts, and is entitled, _Le Grant Therence en François, tant en rime qu’en prose, avecques le Latin_. As this title imports, there is both a prose and verse translation; and the Latin text is likewise given. It is difficult to say which of the translations is worst; that in verse, which is in lines of eight syllables, is sometimes almost unintelligible, and the variation of masculine and feminine rhymes, is scarcely ever attended to.

The translation, printed 1583, with the Latin text, and of which the author is likewise unknown, is little superior to that by which it was preceded. Beauchamp, in his _Recherches sur les Théatres de France_, mentions two other translations of the sixteenth century—one in 1566, the other in 1584. The first by Jean Bourlier, is in prose—the second is in rhyme, and is translated verse for verse. Mad. Dacier includes all the versions of the sixteenth century in one general censure, only excepting that of the _Eunuch_ by Baif, printed 1573, in his _jeux poëtiques_. It is in lines of eight and ten syllables, and was undertaken by order of Queen Catharine, mother of Charles IX. Mad. Dacier pronounces it to be a good translation, except that, in about twenty passages, the sense of the original author has been mistaken. It is remarked by Goujet, in his _Bibliothéque Françoise_, that if Mad. Dacier had been acquainted with the _Andrian_, by Bonaventure des Perriers, printed in 1537, she would have made an exception in favour of it also. Bonaventure was the valet of Margaret, Queen of Navarre, and after her death the editor of her tales, and himself the author of a collection in a similar taste. He wrote at a time when the French language was at its highest perfection, being purified from the coarseness which appeared in the romances of chivalry, and yet retaining that energy and simplicity, which it in a great measure lost, soon after the accession of the Bourbons. This version was one of Bonaventure’s first productions, as, in the _Avis aux Lecteurs_, he says, “Que c’etait son apprentissage:” he intended to have translated the whole plays of Terence, but was prevented by his tragical death. The same comedy chosen by Bonaventure des Perriers, was translated into prose by Charles Stephens, brother of the celebrated printers.

The Abbé Marolles has succeeded no better in his translation of Terence, than in that of Plautus. We recognize in it the same heaviness—the same want of elegance and fidelity to the original. Chapelain remarks, “Que ce traducteur etoit l’Antipode du bon sens, et qu’il s’eloignoit partout de l’intelligence des auteurs qui avoient le malheur de passer par ses mains.” His translation appeared in 1659, in two volumes 8vo, accompanied by remarks, in the same taste as those with which he had loaded his Plautus.

About this period, the Gentlemen of the Port-Royal, in France, paid considerable attention to the education of youth, and to the cultivation of classical learning. M. de Sacy, a distinguished member of that religious association, and well known in his day as the author of the _Heures de Port-Royal_, translated into prose the _Andria_, _Adelphi_, and _Phormio_(604). This version, which he printed in 1647, under the assumed name of M. de Saint-Aubin, is much praised in the _Parnasse Reformé_, and the _Jugemens des Sçavans_. There were many subsequent editions of it, and some even after the appearance of the translation by Mad. Dacier. The version of the other three comedies, by the Sieur de Martignac, was intended, and announced as a supplement, or continuation of the work of M. de Sacy.

It still remains for me to mention the translation of Terence by Mad. Dacier. This lady was advised against the undertaking by her friends, but she was determined to persevere(605). She rose at five o’clock every morning, during a whole winter, in the course of which she completed four comedies; but having perused them at the end of some months, she thought them too much laboured and deficient in ease. She therefore threw them into the fire, and, with more moderation, recommenced her labour, which she at length completed, with satisfaction to herself and the public. Her translation was printed in 1688, 3 vols. 12mo, accompanied with the Latin text, a preface, a life of the poet, and remarks on each of his pieces. She has not entered, as in her translations of Plautus, into a particular examination of every scene, but has contented herself with some general observations. This lady has also made considerable changes as to the commencement and termination of the scenes and acts; and her conjectures on these points are said to have been afterwards confirmed by an authoritative and excellent MS., discovered in the _Bibliothéque de Roi_(606). The first edition was improved on, in one subsequently printed at Rotterdam in 1717, which was also ornamented with figures from two MSS. There is yet a more recent translation by Le Monnier, 1771, which is now accounted the best.

The first translation which appeared in this country, and which is entitled “Terence in Englysh,” is without date, but is supposed to have been printed in 1520. It was followed by Bernard’s translation, 1598—Hoole’s, 1670—Echard’s, 1694—and Dr Patrick’s, 1745. All those prose versions are flat and obsolete, and in many places unfaithful to their original. At length Colman published a translation in familiar blank verse, in which he has succeeded extremely well. He has seldom mistaken the sense of his author, and has frequently attained to his polished ease of style and manner. The notes, which have been judiciously selected from former commentators, with some observations of his own, form a valuable part of the work.

LUCILIUS.

F. Douza was the first who collected the fragments of this satiric poet, and formed them into a _cento_. Having shewn his MS. and notes to Joseph Scaliger, he was encouraged to print them, and an edition accordingly came forth at Leyden, in 1597. It soon, however, became very scarce. A single copy of it was accidentally discovered by Vulpius, in one of the principal public libraries of Italy; but, owing to the place which it had occupied, it had been so destroyed by constant eaves-dropping from the roof of the house, that when he laid his hands on it, it was scarcely legible. Having restored, however, and amended the text as far as possible, he reprinted it at Padua in 1735.

LUCRETIUS.

The work of Lucretius, like the Æneid of Virgil, had not received the finishing hand of its author, at the period of his death. The tradition that Cicero revised it, and gave it to the public, does not rest on any authority more ancient than that of Eusebius; and, had the story been true, it would probably have been mentioned in some part of Cicero’s voluminous writings, or those of the early critics. Eichstädt(607), while he denies the revisal by Cicero, is of opinion that it had been corrected by some critic or grammarian; and that thus two MSS., differing in many respects from each other, had descended to posterity—the one as it came from the hand of the poet, and the other as amended by the reviser. This he attempts to prove from the great inequality of the language—now obsolete and rugged—now polished and refined—which difference can only, he thinks, be accounted for, from the original and corrected copies having been mixed together in some of those middle-age transcriptions, on which the first printed editions were formed. The old grammarians, too, he alleges, frequently quote verses of Lucretius, which no longer compose parts of his poem, and which therefore must have been altogether omitted by the corrector; and, finally, the readings in the different MSS. are so widely different, that it is incredible that the variations could have proceeded from the transcribers or interpolators, and could have been occasioned only by the author or reviser of the poem.

But though not completely polished by the author, there is no ground for the conjecture, that the poem ever consisted of more than the present six books—an opinion which seems to have originated in an orthographical error, and which is contradictory to the very words of the poet himself.(608)

The work of Lucretius does not appear to have been popular at Rome, and the MSS. of it were probably not very numerous in the latter ages of the empire. It is quoted by Raban Maur, Abbot of Fulda, in his book _De Universo_(609), which was written in the ninth century. The copies of it, however, seem to have totally disappeared, previous to the revival of literature; but at length Poggio Bracciolini, while attending the Council of Constance, whither he repaired in 1414, discovered a MS. in the monastery of St Gal, about twenty miles from that city(610). It is from the following lines, in a Latin elegy, by Cristoforo Landini, on the death of this celebrated ornament of his age, that we learn to whom we are indebted for the first of philosophic poems. Landini, recording the discoveries of his friend, exclaims—

“Illius manu, nobis, doctissime rhetor,
Integer in Latium, Quintiliane, redis;
Et te, Lucreti, longo post tempore, tandem
Civibus et Patriæ reddit habere tuæ.”

Poggio sent the newly-discovered treasure to Niccolo Niccoli, who kept the original MS. fourteen years. Poggio earnestly demanded it back, and at length obtained it; but before it was restored, Niccoli made from it, with his own hand, a transcript, which is still extant in the Laurentian library(611).

The edition published at Verona, 1486, which is not a very correct one, was long accounted the _Editio Princeps_ of Lucretius. A more ancient impression, however, printed at Brescia, 1473, has recently become known to bibliographers. It was edited by Ferrandus from a single MS. copy, which was the only one he could procure. But though he had not the advantage of collating different MSS., the edition is still considered valuable, for its accuracy and excellent readings. There are, I believe, only three copies of it now extant, two of which are at present in England. The text of Lucretius was much corrupted in the subsequent editions of the fifteenth century, and even in that of Aldus, published at Venice in 1500, of which Avancius was the editor, and which was the first _Latin_ classic printed by Aldus(612). This was partly occasioned by the second edition of 1486 being unfortunately chosen as the basis of all of them, instead of the prior and preferable edition, printed at Brescia. In a few, but very few readings, the second edition has improved on the first, as, for example, in the beautiful description of the helplessness of a new-born infant—

“Navita, nudus humi jacet infans, _indigus_ omni
Vitali auxilio,” ——

where the Brescian edition reads _indignus_, instead of _indigus_. And again, in the fifth book—

“Nec poterat quenquam placidi pellacia ponti,
Subdola _pellicere_ in fraudem, ridentibus undis,”

where the Brescian edition reads _pollicere_, instead of _pellicere_, which seems to be wrong. At length Baptista Pius, by aid of some emendations of his preceptor, Philippus Beroaldus, to which he had access, and by a laborious collation of MSS., succeeded in a great measure in restoring the depraved text of his author to its original purity. His edition, printed at Bologna in 1511, and the two Aldine editions, published in 1515, under the superintendence of Nevagero, who was a much better editor than Avancius, continued to be regarded as those of highest authority till 1563, when Lambinus printed at Paris an edition, prepared from the collation of five original MSS., and all the previous editions of any note, except the first and second, which seem to have been unknown to him. The text, as he boasts in the preface, was corrected in 800 different places, and was accompanied by a very ample commentary. Lambinus was succeeded by Gifanius, who was more a grammarian than an acute or tasteful critic. He amassed together, without discrimination, the notes and conjectures on Lucretius, of all the scholars of his own and the preceding age. Douza, in a sot of satirical verses, accused him of having appropriated and published in his edition, without acknowledgment, some writings of L. Fruterius, which had been committed to him on death-bed, in order to be printed. His chief merit lies in what relates to grammatical interpretation, and the explanation of ancient customs, and in a more ample collection of parallel passages than had hitherto been made. The editions of D. Pareus, (Frankfort, 1631,) and of Nardius, (Florence, 1647,) were not better than that of Gifanius; and the Delphin edition of Lucretius, by M. Le Fay, has long been known as the very worst of the class to which it belongs. “Notæ ejus,” says Fabricius, “plenæ sunt pudendis hallucinationibus.” Indeed, so much ashamed of it were his colleagues, and those who directed this great undertaking of the Delphin classics, that they attempted, though unsuccessfully, to suppress it.

Nearly a century and a half had elapsed, from the first publication of the edition of Lambinus, without a tolerable new impression of Lucretius being offered to the public, when Creech, better known as the translator of Lucretius, printed, in 1695, a Latin edition of the poet, to whose elucidation he had devoted his life. His study of the Epicurean system, and intimate acquaintance with the works of Gassendi, fully qualified him for the philosophic illustration of his favourite author. On the whole, however, Havercamp’s edition, Leyden, 1725, is the best which has yet appeared of Lucretius. It was prepared from the collation of twenty-five MSS., as well as of the most ancient editions, and contained not only the whole annotations of Creech and Lambinus, but also some notes of Isaac Vossius, which had not previously been printed. The prefaces of the most important editions are prefixed; and the only fault which has been found with it is, that in his new readings the editor has sometimes injured the harmony of the versification. Lucretius certainly can not be considered as one of the classics who have been most fortunate in their editors and commentators. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, he failed to obtain the care of the most pre-eminent critics of the age, and was thus left to the conjectures of second-rate scholars. It was his lot to be assigned to the most ignorant and barbarous of the Delphin editors; and his catastrophe has been completed by falling into the hands of Wakefield, whose edition is one of the most injudicious and tasteless that ever issued from the press. In preparing this work, which is dedicated to Mr Fox, the editor had the use of several MSS. in the University of Cambridge and the British Museum; and also some MS. notes of Bentley, found in a copy of a printed edition, which originally belonged to Dr Mead. In his preface, he expresses himself with much asperity against Mr Cumberland, for withholding from him some other MS. notes of Bentley, which were in his possession. It would have been fortunate for him if he had never seen any of Bentley’s annotations, since many of his worst readings are derived from that source. By an assiduous perusal of MSS. and the old editions, he has restored as much of the ancient Latin orthography, as renders the perusal of the poet irksome, though, by his own confession, he has not in this been uniform and consistent; and he has most laboriously amassed, particularly from Virgil, a multitude of supposed parallel passages, many of which have little resemblance to the lines with which they are compared. The long Latin poem, addressed to Fox, lamenting the horrors of war, does not compensate for the very brief and unsatisfactory notices, as to every thing that regards the life and writings of the poet, and the previous editions of his works. The commentary is dull, beyond the proverbial dulness of commentaries; and wherever there was a disputed or doubtful reading, that one is generally selected, which is most tame and unmeaning—most grating to the ear, and most foreign, both to the spirit of the poet, and of poetry in general. I shall just select one instance from each book, as an example of the manner in which the finest lines have been utterly destroyed by the alteration of a single word, or even letter, and I shall choose such passages as are familiar to every one. In his magnificent eulogy of Epicurus, in the first book, Lucretius, in admiration of the enlightened boldness of that philosopher, described him as one—

“Quem neque fama Deûm, nec fulmina, nec minitanti
Murmure compressit cœlum.”

The expression _Fama Deûm_ implies, that Epicurus could not be restrained by that imposing character, with which deep-rooted prejudice, and the authority of fable, had invested the gods of Olympus—a thought highly poetical, and at the same time panegyrical of the mighty mind which had disregarded all this superstitious renown. But Wakefield, by the alteration of a single letter, strips the passage both of its sense and poetry—he reads,

“Quem neque _fana_ Deûm, nec fulmina, nec minitanti,”

which imports that the determined mind of Epicurus could not be controlled by the temples of the gods, which, if it has any meaning at all, is one most frigid and puerile. This innovation, which the editor calls, in the note, _egregiam emendationem_, is not supported, as far as he informs us, by the authority of any ancient MS. or edition whatever, but it was so written on the margin of the copy of Lucretius, which had belonged to Bentley, where it was placed, as Wakefield admits, _nude ascripta et indefensa_. In the second book, Lucretius maintaining that absence of splendour is no diminution of happiness, says,

“Si non aurea sunt juvenum simulacra per ædes, &c.
* * * * *
Nec citharæ reboant laqueata aurataque _tecta_.”

But Wakefield, instead of _tecta_, reads _templa_, and justifies his reading, not on the authority of any ancient MSS., but by showing that _templa_ is used for _tecta_ by some authors, and applied to private dwellings! The third book commences very spiritedly with an eulogy of Epicurus:

“E tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen
Qui primus potuisti, illustrans commoda vitæ,
Te sequor, O Graiæ gentis decus!”

This sudden and beautiful apostrophe is weakened and destroyed by a change to

“O tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen.”

The lines are rendered worse by the interjection being thus twice repeated in the course of three verses. In the fourth book, Lucretius, alluding to the merits of his own work, says,

“Deinde, quod obscurâ de re tam lucida _pango_
Carmina, Musæo contingens cuncta lepore.”

Here the word _pango_ presents us with the image of the poet at his lyre, pouring forth his mellifluous verses, and it has besides, in its sound, something of the twang of a musical instrument. Wakefield, however, has changed the word into _pando_, which reminds us only of transcription and publication. Lucretius, in book fifth, assigns as the reason why mankind supposed that the abode of the gods was in heaven,

“Per cœlum volvi quia nox et luna videtur,
Luna, dies, et nox, et noctis signa _serena_!”

This last word Wakefield has changed into _severa_, which greatly impairs the beauty of the line. _Noctis signa serena_, are the stars and planets; but if instead of these be substituted the _signa severa_, the passage becomes tautological, for the _signa severa_ are introduced immediately afterwards in the line

“Noctivagæque faces cœli flammæque volantes.”

I have only selected passages where Wakefield has departed from the usual readings, without support from any ancient edition or authoritative MS. whatever. The instances where, in a variation of the MSS. and editions, he has chosen the worse reading, are innumerable.

The first edition of Wakefield’s Lucretius was printed at London in 1796; the second at Glasgow, 1813, which is rendered more valuable than the first, by a running collation in the last volume of the readings of the _Editio Princeps_, printed at Brescia; that of Verona, 1486—Venice 1495—the Aldine edition, 1500—and the Bipontine, 1782, which places in a very striking point of view the superiority of the _Editio Princeps_ over those by which it was immediately succeeded. At the end of this edition, there are published some MS. notes and emendations, taken from Bentley’s own copy of Faber’s edition of Lucretius, in the library of the British Museum. They are not of much consequence, and though a few of them are doubtless improvements on Faber’s text, yet, taken as a whole, they would injure the lines of the poet, should they be unfortunately adopted in subsequent editions.

Eichstädt, in his recent impression, published at Leipsic, has chiefly followed the text of Wakefield, but has occasionally deviated from it when he thought the innovations too bold. He had the advantage of consulting the _Editio Princeps_, which no modern editor enjoyed. He has prefixed Wakefield’s prefaces, and a long dissertation of his own, on the Life and Poetical Writings of Lucretius, in which he scarcely does justice to the poetical genius of his author. The first volume, containing the text and a very copious verbal index, was printed at Leipsic in 1801. It is intended that the second volume should comprise the commentary, but it has not yet been published.

There is hardly any poet more difficult to translate happily than Lucretius. In the abstruse and jejune philosophical discussions which occupy so large a proportion of the poem, it is hardly possible, without a sacrifice of perspicuity, to retain the harmony of versification; and, in the ornamental passages, the diction is so simple, pure, and melodious, that it is an enterprize of no small difficulty to translate with fidelity and elegance.

In consequence, perhaps, of the freedom of his philosophical, and a misrepresentation of his moral tenets, Lucretius was longer of being rendered into the _Italian_ language than almost any other classic. It was near the end of the seventeenth century, before any version was executed, when a translation into _verso sciolto_, was undertaken by Marchetti, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy in the University of Pisa. Marchetti has evidently translated from the edition of Lambinus—the best which had at that time appeared. His version, however, though completed in the seventeenth century, was not published till 1717, three years after his death, when it was printed, with the date of London, under the care of a person styling himself Antinoo Rullo, with a prefatory dedication to the great Prince Eugene, in which the editor terms it, “la più grande, e la più bella poetic’ opera che nel passato secolo nascesse ad accrescere un nuovo lume di gloria ad Italia.” Public opinion, both in Italy and other countries, has confirmed that of the editor, and it is universally admitted, that the translator has succeeded in faithfully preserving the spirit and meaning of the Latin original, without forfeiting any of the beauties of the Italian language. It has been said, that such was the freedom and freshness of this performance, that unless previously informed as to the fact, no one could distinguish whether the Latin or Italian Lucretius was the original. Graziana, himself a celebrated poet, who had perused it in MS., thus justly characterizes its merits, in a letter addressed to the author:—“you have translated this poem with great felicity and ease; unfolding its sublime and scientific materials in a delicate style and elegant manner; and, what is still more to be admired, your diction seldom runs into a lengthened paraphrase, and never without the greatest judgment.” The perusal of this admirable translation was forbidden by the inquisition, but the prohibition did not prevent a subsequent impression of it from being printed at Lausanne, in 1761. This edition, which is in two volumes, contains an Italian translation of Polignac’s Anti-Lucretius, by F. Maria Ricci. The editor, Deregni, indeed declares that he would not have ventured to publish any translation of Lucretius, however excellent, unless accompanied by this powerful antidote. There are prefixed to this edition historical and critical notices; as also the preface, and the _Protesta del Traduttore_, which had been inserted in the first edition.