Chapter XVII: Part 17

Most of the _French_ translations of Lucretius are in prose. Of all sorts of poetry, that called didactic, which consists in the detail of a regular system, or in rational precepts, which flow from each other in a connected train of thought, suffers least by being transfused into prose. Almost every didactic poet, however, enriches his work with such ornaments as spring out of his subject, though not strictly attached to it; but in no didactic poem are these passages so numerous and so charming as in that of Lucretius; and, accordingly, in a prose translation, while all that is systematic or preceptive may be rendered with propriety, all that belongs to embellishment, and which forms the principal grace of the original, appears impertinent and misplaced. The earliest translation of Lucretius into the French language, was by Guillaume des Autels, about the middle of the sixteenth century. The Abbé Morolles, already mentioned as the translator of Plautus and Terence, turned Lucretius into French prose: Of this version there were two editions, the first of which was printed in 1650. It was addressed to Christina, Queen of Sweden; and, as the author had been very liberal to this princess in compliment, he hoped she would be equally liberal in reward; but he was much deceived, and of this disappointment he bitterly complains in his Memoirs. Of this translation, Goujet remarks, that one is constantly obliged to have recourse to the Latin text, in order to comprehend its meaning(613). It was a good deal amended, however, in the second edition, 1659, under circumstances of which the author introduces an account in the list of his works subjoined to his translation of Virgil. Gassendi, who had profoundly studied the system of Epicurus and Lucretius, having procured a copy of Marolles’ first edition, he sent a few days before his death for the author, and pointed out to him, with his own hand, those passages in which he thought his translation defective, and also supplied him with a number of notes in illustration of the poet. The Abbé was thus provided with ample materials for the improvement of his work, and so pleased was he with his second edition, that he got a prohibition against reprinting the first introduced into the _Privilége_ of the second. He inserted in it a _Discours Apologetique_, defending the translating and reading of Lucretius, and prefixed a dedication to M. Lamoignon, President of the Parliament, whom he now substituted for Queen Christina. Moliere having seen the first edition of Marolles’ prose translation, was thereby induced to render Lucretius into French verse. His original intention was to have versified the whole poem, but he afterwards confined his rhymes to the more decorative parts, and delivered the rest in plain prose. As he proceeded with his version, he uniformly rehearsed it both to Chapelle and Rohaut, who jointly testified their approbation of the performance. But it was destined to perish when brought very near its completion. A valet of the translator, who had charge of his dress-wig, being in want of paper to put it into curl, laid hold of a loose sheet of the version, which was immediately rent to pieces, and thrown into the fire as soon as it had performed its office. Moliere was one of the most irritable of the _genus irritabile vatum_, and the accident was too provoking to be endured. He resolved never to translate another line, and threw the whole remainder of his version into the flames, which had thus consumed a part of it(614). This abortive attempt of Moliere incited the Abbé Marolles to render the whole of Lucretius into verse. He completed this task in less than four months, and published the fruits of his labour in 1677. Rapidity of execution, however, is the only merit of which he has to boast. His translation is harsh, flat, and inverted; and it is also very diffuse: The poem of Lucretius consists of 7389 lines, and the version of not less than 12338(615).

Lucretius was subsequently translated into prose by the Baron des Coutures. His version, printed at Paris 1685, is somewhat better in point of style than those of Marolles, but is not more faithful to the original, being extremely paraphrastic. A Life of Lucretius, drawn up from the materials furnished by Hubert, Gifanius, Lambinus, and other commentators, is prefixed, and to every book is appended a small body of notes, which shew that the author was better acquainted with his subject than Marolles. Still, however, the poem of Lucretius was not much known in France during the seventeenth century, either in the original or translated form. Chaulieu, one of the most elegant and polished poets of that age, was so little acquainted with the moral lessons which it inculcated, as to write the following lines:—

—— “Epicure et Lucrece
M’ont appris que la Sagesse
Veut qu’au sortir d’un repas,
Ou des bras de sa maîtresse,
Content l’on aille là bas.”

At length La Grange translated Lucretius in 1768, and Le Blanc de Guillet in 1788. Brunet speaks highly of the version of La Grange, which he seems to think is the best in the French language, and he says that of Le Blanc de Guillet is _peu recherché_. Mr Good, in mentioning the various translations of Lucretius, does not allude to the production of La Grange, but speaks highly of the version of Le Blanc de Guillet. He is sometimes, he admits, incorrect, and still more frequently obscure: “On the whole, however,” he continues, “it is a work of great merit, and ranks second amid the translations of Lucretius, which have yet appeared in any nation:” Of course, it ranges immediately next to that of Marchetti. This version is accompanied with the Latin text in alternate pages. It is decorated with plates, illustrated by notes, and introduced by a comprehensive preliminary discourse, which contains a biography of the original author, drawn up from Gifanius and Creech, and also some general observations on the Epicurean philosophy.

The first attempt to transfer the poem of Lucretius into the _English_ language, was made by Evelyn, the celebrated author of the _Sylva_. It was one of his earliest productions, having been printed in 1656. It was accompanied by an appendix of notes, which show considerable acquaintance with his subject, and there are prefixed to it complimentary letters or verses by Waller, Fanshaw, Sir Richard Brown, and Christopher Wasse. Evelyn commenced his arduous task with great enthusiasm, a due admiration of his original, and anxious desire to do it full justice. On actual trial, however, he became conscious of his own inability to produce, as he expresses it, “any traduction to equal the elegancy of the original;” and he accordingly closed his labours with the first book. To this resolution, the negligent manner in which his specimen of the translation was printed, contributed, as he alleges, in no small degree. Prefixed to the copy in the library at Wotton, is this note in his own handwriting: “Never was book so abominably misused by the printer; never copy so negligently surveyed, by one who undertook to look over the proof-sheets with all exactness and care, namely, Dr Triplet, well known for his ability, and who pretended to oblige me in my absence, and so readily offered himself. This good I received by it, that publishing it vainly, its ill success at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest(616).” This pretended disgust, however, at the typography of his Lucretius, was probably a pretext. It is more likely that he was deterred from the farther execution of his version, either by its want of success, or by the hints which he received from some of his friends concerning the moral and religious danger of his undertaking. “For your Lucretius,” says Jeremy Taylor, in a letter to him, dated 16th April, 1656, “I perceive you have suffered the importunity of your too kind friends to prevail with you. I will not say to you that your Lucretius is as far distant from the severity of a Christian as the fair Ethiopian was from the duty of Bishop Heliodorus; for indeed it is nothing but what may become the labours of a Christian gentleman, those things only abated which our evil age needs not: for which also I hope you either have by notes, or will by preface, prepare a sufficient antidote; but since you are engaged in it, do not neglect to adorn it, and take what care of it it can require or need; for that neglect will be a reproof of your own act, and look as if you did it with an unsatisfied mind; and then you may make that to be wholly a sin, from which, only by prudence and charity, you could before be advised to abstain. But, sir, if you will give me leave, I will impose such a penance upon you, for your publication of Lucretius, as shall neither displease God nor you; and since you are busy in these things which may minister directly to learning, and indirectly to error, or the confidences of men, who, of themselves, are apt enough to hide their vices in irreligion, I know you will be willing, and will suffer to be entreated, to employ the same pen in the glorification of God, and the ministries of eucharist and prayer(617).”

In 1682, Creech, who was deterred by no such religious scruples, published his translation of the whole poem of Lucretius. As a scholar, he was eminently qualified for the arduous undertaking in which he had engaged: but he wrote with such haste, that his production everywhere betrays the inaccuracies of an author who acquiesces in the first suggestions of his mind, and who is more desirous of finishing, than ambitious of finishing well. Besides, he is at all times rather anxious to communicate the simple meaning of his original, than to exhibit any portion of the ornamental garb in which it is arrayed. Hence, though generally faithful to his author, he is almost everywhere deficient in one of the most striking characteristics of the Roman poet—grandeur and felicity of expression. He is often tame, prosaic, and even doggerel; and he sometimes discovers the conceits of a vitiated taste, in the most direct opposition to the simple character and majestic genius of his Roman original. Pope said, “that Creech had greatly hurt his translation of Lucretius, by imitating Cowley, and bringing in turns even into some of the most grand parts(618).” It is also remarked by Dr Drake, “that in this version the couplet has led in almost every page to the most ridiculous redundancies. A want of taste, however, in the selection of language, is as conspicuous in Creech as a deficiency of skill and address in the management of his versification(619).” The ample notes with which the translation is accompanied, are chiefly extracted from the works of Gassendi. A number of commendatory poems are prefixed, and among others one from Evelyn, in which he acknowledges, that Creech had succeeded in the glorious enterprize in which he himself had failed. Dryden was also much pleased with Creech’s translation, but this did not hinder him from versifying some of the higher and more ornamental passages, to which Creech had hardly done justice, as those at the beginning of the first and second books, the concluding part of the third book, against the fear of death, and of the fourth concerning the nature of love. On these fine passages Dryden bestowed the ease, the vigour, and harmony of his muse; but though executed with his accustomed spirit, his translations want the majestic solemn colouring of Lucretius, and are somewhat licentious and paraphrastic. For this, however, he accounts in his Poetical Miscellanies, in mentioning his translations in comparison with the version of Creech. “The ways of our translation,” he observes, “are very different—he follows Lucretius more closely than I have done, which became an interpreter to the whole poem, I take more liberty, because it best suited with my design, which was to make him as pleasing as I could. He had been too voluminous had he used my method in so long a work, and I had certainly taken his, had I made it my business to translate the whole.”

The translations by Creech and Dryden are both in rhyme. That of Mr Good, printed in 1805, is in blank verse, and it may well be doubted if this preference was conducive to the successful execution of his purpose. The translation is accompanied with the original text of Lucretius, printed from Wakefield’s edition, and very full notes are subjoined, containing passages exhibiting imitations of Lucretius by succeeding poets. The preface includes notices of preceding editions of his author, and the explanation of his own plan. Then follow a Life of Lucretius, and an Appendix to the Life, comprehending an analysis and defence of the system of Epicurus, with a comparative sketch of most other philosophical theories, both ancient and modern.

The translation of Mr Good was succeeded, in 1813, by that of Dr Busby, which is in rhyme, and is introduced by enormous _prolegomena_ on the Life and Genius of Lucretius, and the Philosophy and Morals of his Poem.

CATULLUS.

The MSS. of Catullus were defaced and imperfect, as far back as the time of Aulus Gellius(620), who lived in the reigns of Adrian and the Antonines; and there were _variæ lectiones_ in his age, as well as in the fifteenth century. There was a MS. of Catullus extant at Verona in the tenth century which was perused by the Bishop Raterius, who came from beyond the Alps, and who refers to it in his Discourses as a work he had never seen till his arrival at Verona. Another was possessed in the fourteenth century by Pastrengo, a Veronese gentleman, and a friend of Petrarch(621), who quotes it twice in his work _De Originibus_; but these and all other MSS. had entirely disappeared amid the confusions with which Italy was at that time agitated, and Catullus may, therefore, be considered as one of the classics brought to light at the revival of literature. The MS. containing the poems of Catullus was not found in Italy, but in one of the monasteries of France or Germany, (Scaliger says of France,) in the course of the fifteenth century, and according to Maffei, in 1425(622). All that we know concerning its discovery is contained in a barbarous Latin epigram, written by Guarinus of Verona, who chose to give his information on the subject in an almost unintelligible riddle. It was prefixed to an edition of Catullus, printed in Italy 1472, where it is entitled _Hextichum Guarini Veronensis Oratoris Clariss. in libellum V. Catulli ejus concivis_:

“Ad Patriam venio longis de finibus exul:
Causa mei reditûs compatriota fuit.
Scilicet a calamis tribuit cui Francia nomen,
Quique notat turbæ prætereuntis iter.
Quo licet ingenio vestrum celebrate Catullum
Quovis sub modio clausa papyrus erat.”

The first line explains that the MS. was brought to Italy from beyond the Alps, and the second that it was discovered by a countryman of Catullus, that is, by a citizen of Verona. The third line contains the grand _conundrum_. Some critics have supposed that it points out the name of a monastery where the MS. was discovered; others, that it designates the name of the person who found it. Lessing is of this last opinion; and, according to his interpretation, the line implies, that it was discovered by some one whose name is the French word for quills or pens, that is, _plumes_. The name nearest this is Plumatius, on which foundation Lessing attributes the discovery of Catullus to Bernardinus Plumatius, a great scholar and physician of Verona, who flourished during the last half of the fifteenth century(623). This conjecture of Lessing was better founded than he himself seems to have been aware, as the second syllable in the name Plumatius is not remote from the French verb _hater_, which, in one sense, as the epigram expresses it—

“Notat turbæ prætereuntis iter.”

Lucius Pignorius, who thinks that these lines were not written by Guarinus of Verona, but that the MS. was discovered by him, also conjectures that it was found in a barn, since it is said in the last line, that it was concealed _sub modio_, and bushels are nowhere but in barns(624). This is taking the line in its most literal signification, but the expression probably was meant only as proverbial.

The wretched situation in which this MS. was found, and the circumstance of its being the only one of any antiquity extant, sufficiently accounts for the numerous and evident corruptions of the text of Catullus, and for the editions of that poet presenting a greater number of various and contradictory readings than those of almost any other classic.

After this MS. was brought to Italy, it fell into the hands of Guarinus of Verona, who took much pains in correcting it, and it was further amended by his son Baptista Guarinus, as a third person of the family, Alexander Guarinus, informs us, in the _proœmium_ to his edition of Catullus, 1521, addressed to Alphonso, third Duke of Ferrara. Baptista Guarinus, as Alexander farther mentions in his _proœmium_, published an edition of Catullus from the MS. which he had taken so much pains to correct, but without any commentary. This edition, however, has now entirely disappeared; and that of 1472, printed by Spira, at Venice, in which Catullus is united with Tibullus and Propertius, is accounted the _Editio Princeps_. The different editions in which these poets have appeared conjoined, will be more conveniently enumerated hereafter: both in them, and in the impressions of Catullus printed separately, the editors had departed widely from the corrected text of Baptista Guarinus. Accordingly, Alexander Guarinus, in 1521, printed an edition of Catullus, with the view of restoring the genuine readings of his father and grandfather, who had wrought on the ancient MS. which was the prototype of all the others. It would appear, however, that the erroneous readings had become inveterate. Maffei, in his _Verona Illustrata_(625), points out the absurd and unauthorized alterations of Vossius and Scaliger on the pure readings of the Guarini.

Muretus took charge of an edition of Catullus, which was printed by the younger Aldus Manutius in 1558. This production is not accounted such as might be expected from the consummate critic and scholar by whom it was prepared. Isaac Vossius had commented on Catullus; but his annotations lay concealed for many years after his death, till they were at length brought to light by his amanuensis Beverland, who, by means of this valuable acquisition, was enabled to prepare the best edition which had yet appeared of Catullus, and which was first printed in London in 1684. His commentary was on every point profoundly learned.—“Poetam,” says Harles, “commentario eruditissimo, ita tamen ut inverecundiâ illi interdum haud cederet, illustravit.” Vulpius published a yet better edition at Padua, in 1737, in the preparation of which he made great use of the _Editio Princeps_. In the notes, he has introduced a new and most agreeable species of commentary,—illustrating his author by parallel passages from the ancient and modern poets, particularly the Italian; not such parallel passages as Wakefield has amassed, where the words _qui_ or _atque_ occur in both, but where there is an obvious imitation or resemblance in the thought or image. He has also prefixed a diatribe _De Metris Catullianis_. In the year 1738, a curious fraud was practised with regard to Catullus. Carradini de Allio, a scholar of some note, published at Venice an edition, which he pretended to have printed from an ancient MS. accidentally discovered by him in a pottery, without a cover or title-page, and all besmeared with filth. It was dedicated to the Elector of Bavaria; and though one of the most impudent cheats of the sort that had been practised since the time of Sigonius and Annius Viterbiensis, it imposed on many learned men. The credit it obtained, introduced new disorders into the text of Catullus; and when the fraud was at length detected, the contriver of it only laughed at the temporary success of his imposture.

Doering, in early life, had printed an edition of the principal poem of Catullus, the _Epithalamium of Peleus and Thetis_. Encouraged by the success of this publication, he subsequently prepared a complete edition of Catullus, which came forth at Leipsic in 1788.

The _Epithalamium of Peleus and Thetis_, the chief production of Catullus, was translated into _Italian_ by Ludovico Dolce, and printed in 1538, at the end of a small volume of miscellaneous works dedicated to Titian. In the colophon it is said, “Il fine dell’ epitalamio tradotto per M. Lod. Dolce, in verso sciolto.” This Epithalamium was also translated in the eighteenth century, into _Ottava Rima_, by Parisotti, with a long preface, in which he maintains that the _ottava_, or _terza rima_, is better adapted for the translation of the Latin classics than _versi sciolti_. Ginguené, in the preface to his French translation of this Epithalamium, mentions three other Italian versions of the last century, those of Neruci, Torelli, and the Count d’Ayano, all of which, he says, possess considerable merit. He also informs us, that Antonio Conti had commenced a translation of this poem, which was found incomplete at his death; but it was accompanied by many valuable criticisms and annotations, which have been much employed in a Memoir inserted in the transactions of the French Academy, by M. D’Arnaud, whose plagiarisms from the Italian author have been pointed out at full length by M. Ginguené, in his preface. Conti completed a translation of the _Coma Berenices_ in _versi sciolti_, accompanied by an explanation of the subject, and learned notes, which was printed along with his works at Venice, in 1739. The _Coma Berenices_ was also translated in _terza rima_ by the Neapolitan Saverio Mattei, and by Pagnini in _versi sdruccioli_. At length, in 1803, M. Ugo Foscolo, now well known in this country as the author of the Letters of Jacopo Ortis, printed at Milan a translation of this elegy, in blank verse, under the title of _La Chioma di Berenice, poema di Callimaco, tradotto da Valerio Catullo, volgarizzato ed illustrato da Ugo Foscolo_. The version is preceded by four dissertations; the text is accompanied with notes, and followed by fourteen _considerazioni_, as they are called, in which the author severely censures and satirizes the pedantic commentators and philologers of his country. Mr Hobhouse, in his _Illustrations of Childe Harold_(626), says, that the whole lucubration, extending to nearly 300 pages of large octavo, is a grave and continued irony on the verbal criticisms of commentators. “Some of the learned,” he continues, “fell into the snare, and Foscolo, who had issued only a few copies, now added a Farewell to his readers, in which he repays their praises, by exposing the mysteries and abuses of the philological art. Those whom he had deceived must have been not a little irritated to find that his frequent citations were invented for the occasion, and that his commentary had been purposely sprinkled with many of the grossest faults.”

The whole works of Catullus were first translated into Italian by the Abbot Francis Maria Biacca of Parma, who concealed his real designation, according to the affected fashion of the times, under the appellation of Parmindo Ibichense, _Pastor Arcade_. The Abbot died in 1735, and his version was printed at Milan after his death, in 1740, in the twenty-first volume of the General Collection of Italian Translations from the Ancient Latin Poets. The most recent Italian version is that of Puccini, printed at Pisa in 1805. It is very deficient in point of spirit; and the last English translator of Catullus observes, “that it is chiefly remarkable for the squeamishness with which it omits all warmth in the love verses, while it unblushingly retains some of the most disgusting passages.”

The _French_ have at all times dealt much in prose translations of the Classics. These did not suit very well for the epic poems, or even comedies or the Romans; and were totally abhorrent from the lyrical or epigrammatic productions of Catullus. A great deal of the beauty of every poem consists in the melody of its numbers. But there are certain species of poetry, of which the _chief_ merit lies in the sweetness and harmony of versification. A boldness of figures, too—a luxuriance of imagery—a frequent use of metaphors—a quickness of transition—a freedom of digression, which are allowable in every sort of poetry, are to many species of it essential. But these are quite unsuitable to the character of prose, and when seen in a prose translation, they appear preposterous and out of place, because they are never found in any original prose composition. Now, the beauties of Catullus are precisely of that nature, of which it is impossible to convey the smallest idea in a prose translation. Many of his poems are of a lyric description, in which a greater degree of irregularity of thought, and a more unrestrained exuberance of fancy, are permitted than in any other kind of composition. To attempt, therefore, a translation of a lyric poem into prose, is the most absurd of all undertakings; for those very characters of the original, which are essential to it, and which constitute its highest beauty, if transferred to a prose translation, become unpardonable blemishes. What could be more ridiculous than a French prose translation of the wild dithyrambics of Atis, or the fervent and almost phrenzied love verses to Lesbia? It is from poetry that the elegies of Catullus derive almost all their tenderness—his amorous verses all their delicacy, playfulness, or voluptuousness—and his epigrams all their sting.

That indefatigable translator of the Latin poets, the Abbé Marolles, was the first person who _traduced_ Catullus in French. He was an author, of all others, the worst qualified to succeed in the task which he had undertaken, as his heavy and leaden pen was ill adapted to express the elegant light graces of his original. His prose translation was printed in 1653. It was succeeded, in 1676, by one in verse, also by Marolles, but of which only thirty copies were thrown off and distributed among the translator’s friends. La Chapelle (not the author of the _Voyage_) translated most of the poems of Catullus, and inserted them in his _Histoire Galante_, entitled the _Amours de Catulle_, printed in 1680, which relates, in the style of an amatory prose romance, the adventures and intrigues of Catullus, his friends, and mistresses. The next translation, though not of the whole of his pieces, is by M. Pezay, printed 1771, who misses no opportunity of ridiculing Marolles and his work. It is in prose, as is also a more recent French translation by M. Noel, Paris, 1806. The first volume of Noel’s work contains the _Discours Preliminaire_ on the Life, Poetry, Editions, and Translations of Catullus; and the version itself, which is accompanied with the Latin text. The second volume comprises a very large body of notes, chiefly exhibiting the imitations of Catullus by French poets. Brunet mentions a translation still more recent, by M. Mollevaut, which is in verse, and proves that more justice may be done to Catullus in rhyme than prose.

An _English_ translation of Catullus, usually ascribed to Dr Nott, was published anonymously in 1795, accompanied with some valuable annotations. He was the first to give, as he himself says, the whole of Catullus, without reserve, and in some way or other, to translate all his indecencies. This version adheres very closely to the original, and has the merit of being simple and literal, but it is meagre and inelegant: it is defective in ease and freedom, and but seldom presents us with any of those graces of poetry, and indeed almost unattainable felicities of diction, which characterize the original. While writing this, the poetical translation by Mr Lamb has come to my hands. It is also furnished with a long preface and notes, which appear to be tasteful and amusing. The chief objections to the translation are quite the reverse of those which have been stated to the version by which it was preceded—it seems defective in point of fidelity, and is too diffuse and redundant. No author suffers so much by being diluted as Catullus, and he can only be given with effect by a brevity as condensed and _piquant_ as his own. Indeed, the thoughts and language of Catullus throw more difficulties in the way of a translator, than those of almost any other classic author. His peculiarities of feeling—his idiomatic delicacies of style—that light ineffable grace—that elegant ease and spirit, with which he was more richly endued than almost any other poet, can hardly pass through the hands of a translator without being in some degree sullied or alloyed.

LABERIUS—PUBLIUS SYRUS.

The only fragment of any length or importance which we possess of Laberius, has been saved by Macrobius, in his _Saturnalia_. The fragments of Publius Syrus were chiefly preserved by Seneca and Au. Gellius, and the scattered maxims which they had recorded, were collected in various MSS. of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They were first printed together, under the superintendence of Erasmus, in 1502, as revised and corrected from a MS. in the University of Cambridge. Fabricius published some additional maxims, which had not previously been printed, in 1550. Stephens edited them at the end of his Fragments from the Greek and Latin Comic Poets, 1564; and Bentley published them along with Terence and the Fables of Phædrus, at Cambridge, in 1726. An improved edition, which had been prepared by Gruter, was printed under the superintendence of Havercamp, from a MS. after his death. The most complete edition, however, which has yet appeared, is that published by Orellius, at Leipsic, 1822. It contains 879 maxims, arranged in alphabetical order, from which, at least as the editor asserts, all those which are spurious have been rejected, and several that are genuine added. A Greek version of the maxims, by Jos. Scaliger, is given by him on the opposite side of the page, and he has appended a long commentary, in which he has quoted all the maxims of preceding or subsequent authors, who have expressed sentiments similar to those of Publius Syrus.

The sentences were translated into _English_ from the edition of Erasmus, under the following title: “Proverbs or Adagies, with newe Additions, gathered out of the Chiliades of Erasmus, by Richard Taverner. Hereunto be also added, Mimi Publiani. Imprinted at Lo’don, in Fletstrete, at the signe of the Whyte Harte. _Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum._” On the back of the title is “the Prologe of the author, apologizing for his slender capacitie;” and concluding, “yet my harte is not to be blamed.” It contains sixty-four leaves, the last blank. On the last printed page are the “Faultes escaped in printynge,” which are seven in number. Beneath is the colophon, “Imprinted at London by Richarde Bankes, at the Whyte Harte, 1539.” This book was frequently reprinted. James Elphinston, long known to the public by his unsuccessful attempt to introduce a new and uniform mode of spelling into the English language, translated, in 1794, “The Sentencious Poets—Publius dhe Syrrian—Laberius dhe Roman Knight, &c. arrainged and translated into correspondent Inglish Mezzure(627).”

CATO—VARRO.

It appears from Aulus Gellius, that, even in his time, the works of Cato had begun to be corrupted by the ignorance of transcribers. As mentioned in the text, his book on Agriculture, the only one of his numerous writings which survives, has come down to us in a very imperfect and mutilated state. A MS. of Cato, but very faulty and incomplete, was in possession of Niccolo Niccoli; and a letter from him is extant, requesting one of his correspondents, called Michelotius, to borrow for him a very ancient copy from the Bishop Aretino, in order that his own might be rendered more perfect(628). Most of the editions we now have, follow a MS. which is said to have been discovered at Paris by the architect Fra Giocondo of Verona, and was brought by him to Italy. Varro’s treatise on Agriculture was first discovered by Candidi, as he himself announces in a letter to Niccolo Niccoli(629).

The agricultural works of Cato and Varro have generally been printed together, and also along with those of Columella and Palladius, under the title of _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_. There is no ancient MS. known, in which all the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_ are collected together. They were first combined in the _Editio Princeps_, edited by Georgius Merula, and printed at Venice, in 1470. The next edition, superintended by Bruschius, and printed in 1482, has almost entirely disappeared. In many passages, its readings were different from those of all other editions, as appears from the annotations communicated from Rome, by Pontedera to Gesner, while he was preparing his celebrated edition(630). Philippus Beroaldus corrected a good many faults and errors which had crept into the _Editio Princeps_. His emendations were made use of in the edition of Bologna, 1494, by Benedict Hector. Gesner has assiduously collated that edition with the _Editio princeps_, and he informs us, that it contained many important corrections. Though differing in some respects, he considers all the editions previous to that of Aldus, as belonging to the same class or family. The Aldine edition, printed 1514, was superintended by Fra Giocondo of Verona, who, having procured at Paris some MSS. not previously consulted, introduced from them many new readings, and filled up several chasms in the text, particularly the fifty-seventh chapter(631). This edition, however, is not highly esteemed; “Sequitur,” says Fabricius, “novi nec optimi generis editio Aldina:” And Schneider, the most recent editor of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, affirms that Giocondo corrupted and perverted almost every passage which he changed. Nicholas Angelius took charge of the edition published by the Giunta at Florence, in 1515. His new readings are ingenious; but many of them are quite unauthorized and conjectural. The Aldine continued to form the basis of all subsequent editions, till the time of Petrus Victorius, who was so great a restorer and amender of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, that he is called their _Æsculapius_ by Gesner, and _Sospitator_ by Fabricius. Victorius had got access to a set of MSS. which Politian had collated with the _Editio Princeps_. The most ancient and important of these MSS., containing Cato, and almost the whole of Varro, was found by Victorius in the library of St Mark; another in French characters was in the Medicean library; and a third had belonged to Franciscus Barbarus, and was transcribed by him from an excellent exemplar at Padua(632). But though Victorius had the advantage of consulting these MSS., it does not appear that he possessed the collation by the able hand of Politian; because that was inserted, not in the MSS., but in his own printed copy of the _Editio Princeps_; and Gesner shows at great length that Petrus Victorius had never consulted any copy whatever of the _Editio Princeps_(633). Victorius first employed his learning and critical talents on Varro. Some time afterwards, Giovanni della Casa being sent by the Pope on some public affairs to Florence, where Victorius at that time resided, brought him a message from the Cardinal Marcellus Cervinus, requesting that he should exert on Cato some part of that diligence which he had formerly employed on Varro. Victorius soon completed the task assigned him. He also resumed Varro, and attentively revised his former labours on that author(634). At last he determined to collate whatever MSS. of the Rustic writers he could procure. Those above-mentioned, as having been inspected by Politian, were the great sources whence he derived new and various readings.

It is not known that Victorius printed any edition containing the text of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_ in Italy. His letter to Cervinus speaks as if he was just about to edit them; but whether he did so is uncertain. “Quartam classem,” says Harles, “constituit Victorius, sospitator horum scriptorum: qui quidem num primum in Italiâ recensitos dederit eos cum Gesnero et Ernesti ignoro(635).” As far as now appears, his corrections and emendations were first printed in the edition of Leyden, 1541, where the authors it contains, are said in the title to be _Restituti per Petrum Victorium, ad veterum exemplarium fidem, suæ integritati_. His castigations were printed in the year following, but without the text of the authors, at Florence. The Leyden edition was reprinted at Paris, in 1543, by Robert Stephens, and was followed by the edition of Hier. Commellinus, 1595.

At length Gesner undertook a complete edition of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, under circumstances of which he has given us some account in his preface. The eminent bookseller, Fritschius, had formed a plan of printing these authors; and to aid in this object, he had employed Schoettgenius, a young, but even then a distinguished scholar. A digest of the best commentators, and a collection of various readings, were accordingly prepared by him. The undertaking, however, was then deferred, in expectation of the arrival of MSS. from Italy; and Schoettgenius was meanwhile called to a distance to some other employment, leaving the fruits of his labour in the hands of Fritschius. In 1726, that bookseller came to Gesner, and informed him, that Politian’s collations, written on his copy of the _Editio Princeps_, had at length reached him, as also some valuable observations on the rustic writers, communicated from Italy by Pontedera and Facciolati. Fritschius requested that Gesner should now arrange the whole materials which had been compiled. Selections from the commentaries, and the various readings previous to the time of Victorius, were prepared to his hand; but he commenced an assiduous study of every thing that was valuable in more recent editions. At length his ponderous edition came out with a preface, giving a full detail of the labours of others and his own, and with the prefaces to the most celebrated preceding editions. Some of the notes had been previously printed, as those of Meursius, Scaliger, and Fulvius Ursinus—others, as those of Schoettgenius, Pontedera, and Gesner himself, had never yet seen the light. Though Gesner never names Pontedera without duly styling him Clarissimus Pontedera, that scholar was by no means pleased with the result of Gesner’s edition, and attacked it with much asperity, in his great work, _Antiquitatum Rusticarum_. Gesner’s first edition was printed at Leipsic, 1735. Ernesti took charge of the publication of the second edition; and, in addition to the dissertation of Ausonius Popma, _De Instrumento Fundi_, which formed an appendix to the first, he has inserted Segner’s description and explanation of the aviary of Varro.

The most recent edition of the _Scriptores Rei Rusticæ_, is that of Schneider, who conceives that he has perfected the edition of Gesner, by having collated the ancient edition of Bruschius, and the first Aldine edition, neither of which had been consulted by his predecessor.

Besides forming parts of every collection of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, the agricultural treatises of Cato and Varro have been repeatedly printed by themselves, and apart from those of Columella and Palladius. Ausonius Popma, in his separate edition of Cato, 1590, has chiefly, and without much acknowledgment, employed some valuable annotations and remarks contained in the _Adversaria_ of Turnebus. This edition was accompanied by some other fragments of Cato. These, however, were of small importance; and the principal part of the publication being the work on Agriculture, its sale was much impeded by Commellinus’ full edition of the agricultural writers, published five years afterwards. Raphellengius, however, reprinted it in 1598, with a new title; and with the addition of the notes of Meursius. Popma again revised his labours, and published an improved edition in 1620. Varro’s treatise, _De Re Rusticâ_, was published alone in 1545, and with his other writings, by Stephens, in 1569. Ausonius Popma also edited it in 1601, appropriating, according to his custom, the notes and observations of others.

Cato’s work _De Re Rusticâ_, has been translated into _Italian_ by Pagani, whose version was printed at Venice, 1792; and into _French_ by Saboureux, Paris, 1775. I am not aware of any full _English_ translation of Cato, but numerous extracts are made from it in Dickson’s _Husbandry of the Ancients_.

Italy has produced more translations of the Latin writers than any other country; and one would naturally suppose, that the agricultural writings of those who had cultivated the same soil as themselves, would be peculiarly interesting to the Italians. I do not know, however, of any version of Varro in their language. There is an _English_ translation, by the Rev. Mr Owen, printed at Oxford in 1800. In his preface, the author says,—“Having collated many copies of this work of the Roman writer in my possession, and the variations being very numerous, I found it no easy task to make a translation of his treatise on agriculture. To render any common Arabic author into English, would have been a labour less difficult to me some years ago, than it has been to translate this part of the works of this celebrated writer.”

SALLUST.

This historian was criticized in a work of Asinius Pollio, particularly on account of his affected use of obsolete words and expressions. Sulpicius Apollinaris, the grammarian, who lived in the reigns of the Antonines, boasted that he was the only person of his time who could understand Sallust. His writings were illustrated by many of the ancient grammarians, as Asper and Statilius Maximus. In the course of the ninth century, we find Lupus, Abbot of Ferriers, in one of his letters, praying his friend Regimbertus to procure for him a copy of Sallust(636); and there was a copy of his works in the Library of Glastonbury Abbey, in the year 1240(637). The style of Sallust is very peculiar: He often omits words which other writers would insert, and inserts those which they would omit. Hence his text became early, and very generally, corrupted, from transcribers and copyists leaving out what they naturally enough supposed to be redundancies, and supplying what they considered as deficiencies.

There appeared not less than three editions of Sallust in the course of the year 1470. It has been much disputed, and does not seem to be yet ascertained, which of them is the _Editio Princeps_. One was printed under the care of Merula, by Spira, at Venice; but the other two are without name of place or printer: It has been conjectured, that of these two, the one which is in folio was printed at Rome(638); and the other, in quarto, at Paris, by Gering, Crantz, and Friburg(639). The Venice Edition is usually accounted the _Editio Princeps_(640), but Fuhrmann considers both the Paris and Roman editions as prior to it. The Roman, he thinks, in concurrence with the opinion of Harles, is the earliest of all. The Bipontine editors style the Parisian impression the _Primaria Princeps_. Besides these three, upwards of thirty other editions were published in the course of the fifteenth century. One of them was printed at Venice, 1493, from the _Recension_ of Pomponius Lætus, who has been accused by subsequent editors of introducing many of the corruptions which have crept into the text of Sallust(641). There were also a number of commentaries in this century, by scholars, who did not themselves publish editions of the historian, but greatly contributed to the assistance of those who prepared them in the next. The commentary of Laurentius Valla, in particular, which was first printed at Rome in 1490, and in which scarcely a single word is passed over without remark or explanation, enriched most of the editions which appeared in the end of the fifteenth, and the beginning of the subsequent century(642). The first of any note in the sixteenth century, were those of Aldus, Venice, 1509, and 1521. Carrio, who published an edition at Antwerp in 1579, collected many of the fragments of Sallust’s great History of Rome; and he amended the text of the Catilinarian and Jugurthine Wars, as he himself boasts, in several thousand places. The edition of Gruter, in 1607, in which the text received considerable alterations, on the authority of the Palatine MS., obtained in its time considerable reputation. The earliest _Variorum_ edition is in 1649; but the best is that printed at Leyden, with the notes of Gronovius, in 1690. An immense number of MSS., and copies of the most ancient editions, were collated by Wasse for the Cambridge edition, 1710. He chiefly followed the text of Gruter, but he has added the notes of various commentators, and also some original observations of his own, particularly comparisons, which he has instituted between his author and the ancient Greek writers. The editions of Cortius (Leipsic, 1724), and of Havercamp (Amsterdam, 1742), are both excellent. The former, in preparing his work, consulted not less than thirty MSS., fifteen of which were preserved in the Wolfenbuttel library. He also assiduously collated most of the old editions, and found some good readings in those of Venice, 1470–1493, and that of Leipsic, 1508. Most of the editions, however, of the fifteenth century, he affirms, are very bad; and, according to him, a greater number of the errors, which had crept into the text of Sallust, are to be attributed to them, than to the corruptions of Pomponius Lætus. Cortius chiefly erred in conceiving that Sallust’s conciseness consisted solely in paucity of words, so that he always preferred the readings where the greatest number of them were thrown out, though the meaning was thereby obscured, and sometimes altogether lost. The readings in Havercamp’s edition are all founded on those of Wasse and Gruter. The text is overloaded with notes: “Textus,” says Ernesti, “velut cymba in oceano, ita in notis natat.” The various readings are separated from the notes, being inserted between the text and the commentary. In the first volume, we have the text of Sallust, and the annotations—in the second, the prefaces of different editors of Sallust—his life—the fragments of his works—and the judgments pronounced by ancient authors on his writings. The text of Teller’s edition, Berlin, 1790, is formed on that of Cortius, but departs from it, where the editor conceived himself justified by the various readings of a rare and ancient edition, published at Brescia, 1495, which he had consulted. It is totally unprovided with _prolegomena_, or notices, with regard to the life and writings of the author, or his works; but there is appended to it a recension of the celebrated Spanish Translation, executed under the auspices of the Infant Don Gabriel, and a very full _Index Latinitatis_. The best of the recent German editions, is that of Lange, Halle, 1815. In this work, the editor chiefly follows Havercampus. His great object was to restore the purity of the text, which he believed to have been greatly corrupted by the rash and unauthorized alterations of preceding editors, more particularly of Cortius. Notes are subjoined, partly illustrative of Sallust’s genius and talents, and partly of that portion of Roman history, of which he treated.

Sallust has been translated into _Italian_, by a Genoese of the name of Agost. Ortica, (Venice, 1518). The work of Ortica also comprehends a version of Cicero’s fourth Catilinarian orations, and the supposed reply of Catiline. The style is barbarous, involved, and obscure, and in some passages nearly unintelligible. In point of style, the translation of Lelio Carani (Florence, 1530) is purer, but it is too paraphrastic, and has not always accurately expressed the meaning of the original. The version of Paulo Spinola (1564) was scarcely more happy. These three translations having become scarce by the middle of last century, and being defective in many of the most essential qualities of a translation, the Doctor Battista Bianchi, Professor of Latin at Sienna, undertook an improved translation, in which he attempted to imitate the brevity of Sallust, though he did not, like some of his predecessors, insert obsolete Italian words, corresponding to the antique Latin expressions adopted by his original. To this translation, first printed at Venice, 1761, there is prefixed a long and elaborate preface, in which the author discusses the historical and literary merits of Sallust, and enumerates the translations of his works which had at that time appeared in the different languages of Europe. After this follows the life of the Latin author. There are likewise annotations at the foot of the page, and an index at the end of the whole. The next Italian translation of any note which appeared, was that by Alfieri, which is considered in Italy as a masterpiece: His prose style, which was founded on that of the classic writers, qualified him admirably for the task.

There have been more translations of Sallust in _French_, than in any other language. It was translated, it is said, as far back as the reign of King John of France, who died in 1364. “Le Roi Jean,” says Villaret, “ainsi qu’on l’a rapporté, avoit fait entreprendre des versions de quelques auteurs Latins, tels que Salluste et Tite-Live(643).” I do not suppose, however, that this translation was given to the press on the invention of printing. The first version printed was that of Baudoin, in 1617; which was succeeded, in the course of the same century, by the futile attempts of Cassagne and Du Teil. The version of the Abbé Le Masson, which appeared in the commencement of the ensuing century, was accompanied with a defence of the moral character of the historian. It was followed, in a few years afterwards, by that of the Abbé Thyvon, which, though it does not convey an adequate idea of the strength and sententious brevity of the original, is for the most part extremely faithful to the meaning of the author. Its deficiency in the former qualities, seems to have induced M Dotteville to attempt a new translation, as he appears to be always striving at terseness and conciseness of style. “His Sallust,” says the most recent English translator, “like his Tacitus, is harsh and dry; and his fruitless endeavours to vie in brevity with either historian, are sufficient to prove, if such proof were needful, how absurd an attempt it is in any translator, for the sake of seizing some peculiar feature of resemblance, or some fancied grace of diction, to violate the genius of his native language.” A similar criticism is extended, in the following paragraph, to the version of M. Beauzie, though it is admitted to be the most faithful and accurate that ever appeared in the French language. The translation of Dotteville was first printed in 1760, and that of Beauzie fifteen years afterwards. About the same time M. de Brosses, President of the Parliament of Dijon, published a History of Rome during the Seventh Century, which professes to be chiefly made up from the fragments of Sallust. The War of Jugurtha comes first in the historical arrangement—then follow the events which intervened between that contest and the Conspiracy of Catiline, taken from the fragments of Sallust, which are interwoven with the body of the narrative—and, lastly, the Conspiracy. The work, which extends to three volumes 4to, comprehends very full notes, and includes a life of Sallust, which, though written in an indifferent style, displays considerable learning and research. Although the version of De Brosses was generally accounted one of the best translations of the Classics, which had appeared in the French, or any other language, it does not seem to have been considered as precluding subsequent attempts. A translation by Dureau Delamalle appeared in 1808, and one by Mollevaut, yet more recent, which has gone through at least three editions. Still, however, many persons in France prefer the version of Dotteville to the more modern translations.