Chapter XVIII: Part 18

It would appear, that the writings of Sallust became known and popular in _England_ soon after the revival of literature. A translation of the Jugurthine War, executed by “Sir Alexander Barclay, Priest, at the command of the Duke of Norfolke, and printed by Richard Pynson,” in folio, was published as early as the reign of Henry VIII. It bears on the title-page—“Here begynneth the famous Cronycle of the Warre which the Romaynes had against Jugurth, usurper of the Kyngdome of Numidy: Which Cronycle was compyled in Latin by the renowned Sallust. And translated into English by Sir Alexander Barclay, Preest, at commandment of the right hye and mighty Prince, Thomas Duke of Northfolke.” The volume is without date, but is supposed to have been printed about 1540. It was twice reprinted in 1557, and in one of these editions was accompanied with Catiline’s Conspiracy, translated by Thomas Paynel. The version of Barclay, though a good one for the time, having become obsolete, not less than three translations appeared in the middle and end of the seventeenth century—one by William Crosse, and the other two by anonymous authors. These early translations are all “Faithfully done in Englysh,” according to the taste of the time, which, if the sense were tolerably rendered, was little solicitous for accuracy, and still less for elegance of diction(644). In Rowe’s translation, 1709, the sense of the author is given with correctness, but the style is feeble and colloquial. Gordon, better known as the translator of Tacitus, also translated Sallust in 1744. His version is accompanied with a series of discourses on topics connected with Roman history, as on faction and parties, public corruption, and civil wars. The Epistles of Sallust to Cæsar on Government, are also translated by him, and their authenticity vindicated. In 1751, Dr Rose published a new translation of the Catilinarian and Jugurthine Wars. “This translation,” says Steuart, “is justly entitled to the esteem in which it has been held, and the author himself to considerable praise, for his endeavours to combine the advantages of a free and literal version. His chief defect proceeds from what constitutes the great difficulty in all classical translation—the uniting a clear transfusion of the sense with the ease and freedom of original composition. To the critical reader, this will be abundantly obvious, if he compare the version of Sallust with the original pieces of Dr Rose himself. In the speeches, too, where the ancient writers laid out all their energy, and in which they should be followed by a like effort of the translator, the author is cold and languid, and he rises on no occasion above the level of ordinary narrative.” The most recent English translation is that by the author above quoted—1806, two volumes quarto. Two long Essays, with notes, are prefixed to it—the one on the Life, and the other on the Literary Character and Writings of Sallust. The Spanish translation of Sallust, executed under the auspices of the Infant Don Gabriel, has been much celebrated on account of its plates and incomparable typography. It was printed in 1772.

CÆSAR.

Lupus, Abbot of Ferriers, says, in one of his letters, that no historic work of Cæsar was extant, except his Commentaries on the Gallic War, of which he promises to send his correspondent, the Bishop Heribold, a copy, as soon as he can procure one(645). The other Commentaries, _De Bello Civili_, and _De Bello Alexandrino_, of which he speaks as being also extant, were written, he affirms, by Hirtius. It thus appears, that though Lupus was mistaken as to the author of the work _De Bello Civili_, the whole series of memoirs now known by the name of Cæsar’s Commentaries, was extant in the ninth century. About a century afterwards, Pope Gerbert, or Sylvester II., writes to the Archbishop of Rheims to procure the loan of a copy of Cæsar from the Abbot of Terdon, who was possessed of one, and to have it transcribed for him(646). Cæsar’s Commentaries are repeatedly quoted in the _Speculum Historiale_ of Vincent de Beauvais, a work of the thirteenth century, and in various other productions of the same period. It is probable, therefore, that copies of them were not very scarce in that age; but they had become so rare by the middle of the fifteenth century, that Candidi, in a letter to Niccolo Niccoli, announces the discovery of a MS. of Cæsar as a great event.

Andrea, Bishop of Aleria, took charge of the first edition of Cæsar, and an erudite epistle by him is prefixed to it. It came forth at Rome, from the printing-press of Sweynheim and Pannartz, as early as the year 1469. Of this _Editio Princeps_ of Cæsar, only 275 copies were thrown off; but it was reprinted at the same place in 1472. There were a good many editions published towards the end of the fifteenth century, most of which have now become rare. The first of the ensuing century was that of Philippus Beroaldus, (Bologna 1504). It was followed by the Aldine editions, (Venice 1513–19,) which are not so remarkable either for accuracy or beauty as the other early editions of the Classics which issued from the celebrated press of the Manutii. The first had seven pages of errata—“Mendis scatet,” say the Bipontine editors. In the edition, 1566, there were inserted plates of warlike instruments, encampments, and the most celebrated places mentioned in Cæsar’s campaigns, which became a common ornament and appendage in subsequent impressions.

Fulvius Ursinus published an edition of considerable note in 1570. Ursinus had discovered a MS. written in the middle of the tenth century, which he chiefly employed in the correction of the text. He is accused of having committed a literary theft in the publication of this work, it being alleged that he had received many annotations from Petrus Ciacconius, which he mixed up with his own, and inserted as such, suppressing altogether the name of the real author.

The next edition of any eminence, was that of Strada (Frankfort, 1574). This impression is remarkable for containing forty plates of battles, and other things relating to the campaigns of Cæsar; as also inscriptions, found in various cities of Spain. It is also distinguished as having been the prototype of Clarke’s splendid edition of Cæsar, which Mr Dibdin pronounces to be “the most sumptuous classical volume which this country ever produced. It contains,” says he, “eighty-seven copperplates, which were engraved at the expense of the different noblemen to whom they are dedicated. Of these plates, I am not disposed to think so highly as some fond admirers: The head of Marlborough, to whom this courtly work is dedicated, by Kneller and Vertue, does not convey any exalted idea of that renowned hero; and the bust of Julius Cæsar, which follows it, will appear meagre and inelegant to those who have contemplated a similar print in the quarto publication of Lavater’s Physiognomy. The plates are in general rather curious than ably executed; and compared with what Flaxman has done for Homer and Æschylus, are tasteless and unspirited. The type of this magnificent volume is truly beautiful and splendid, and for its fine lustre and perfect execution, reflects immortality on the publisher. The text is accompanied with various readings in the margin; and at the end of the volume, after the fragments of Cæsar, are the critical notes of the editor, compiled with great labour from the collation of ancient MSS. and former editions. A MS. in the Queen’s library, and one belonging to the Bishop of Ely, were particularly consulted by Dr Clarke. The work closes with a large and correct index of names and places. It is upon the whole a most splendid edition, and will be a lasting monument of the taste, as well as erudition of the editor.”

The best edition since the time of Dr Clarke’s, is that by Oudendorp, printed at Leyden in 1737. This editor had the use of many ancient MSS., particularly two of the beginning of the ninth century, one of which had belonged to Julius Bongarsius, and the other to Petrus Bellovacensis. “The preceding commentators on Cæsar,” says Harles, “have all been eclipsed by the skill and researches of Oudendorp, who, by a careful examination of numerous MSS. and editions, has often successfully restored the true ancient reading of his author.” He has inserted in his publication Dodwell’s disquisition concerning the author of the books _De Bello Alexandrino_, and Scaliger’s _Topographical Description of Gaul_. Morus reprinted this edition, but with many critical improvements, at Leipsic, 1780. He has illustrated the military tactics of Cæsar, from Ritter’s History of the Gauls, and from the books of Guischardus, _De Re Militari Veterum_. The best modern German edition is that of Oberlin, (Leipsic, 1805). It is founded on the basis of those of Oudendorp and Morus, with additional observations, and a careful revision of the text. In the preface, those writings in which the faith due to Cæsar’s Commentaries is attempted to be shaken, are reviewed and refuted; and there are added several fragments of Cæsar, as also those notices of ancient authors concerning him, which had been neglected or omitted by Morus.

Cæsar was first rendered into _Italian_ by Agost. Ortica, the translator of Sallust. He says, in the preface, that his version was executed in a very hurried manner, as it was transcribed and printed all in the course of six months. Argelati could not ascertain the date of the most ancient edition, which was printed at Milan, but he thinks that it was as old as the fifteenth century(647). This impression was followed by not fewer than twelve others, before the middle of the sixteenth century. A subsequent translation, by F. Baldelli, appeared at Venice, 1554. This edition was, succeeded by many others, particularly one at Venice in 1595, quarto, of which Palladio, the great architect, took charge. He inserted in it various engravings of battles, encampments, sieges, and other military operations, from plates which had been executed by his two sons, Leonida and Orazio, and had come into his hands soon after their premature decease. He prepared the edition chiefly for the sake of introducing these designs, and thereby honouring the memory of his children. To this edition there is a preface by Palladio on the military affairs of the Romans, their legions, arms, and encampments. A splendid impression of Baldelli’s version, accompanied with Palladio’s designs, was thrown off at Venice in 1619. In 1737, a translation appeared at Venice, bearing to be printed from an ancient MS. of Cæsar, in Italian, which the editor says he had discovered, (_where_ he does not specify,) and had in some few places corrected and modernized. Paitoni has exposed this literary fraud, and has shown, that it is just the translation of Baldelli, with a few words altered at the beginning of paragraphs. In some respects, however, it is a good edition, containing various tables and notices conducive to the proper understanding of the author.

We have seen that several translations of the Latin classics were executed by order of the French king, John. Charles V., who succeeded him in 1364, was a still warmer patron of learning, and was himself tolerably versed in Latin literature. “Tant que compettement,” says Christine de Pise, in her Memoirs of him, “entendoit son Latin.” By his order and directions the first _French_ translation of Cæsar was undertaken(648). But the earliest French translation of Cæsar’s Commentaries which was printed, was that of Robert Gaguin, dedicated to Charles VIII. and published in 1488. Of the recent French versions the most esteemed is that by Turpin de Crissi, accompanied by historical and critical notes, and printed at Montargis, 1785.

The part of Cæsar’s Commentaries which relates to the Gallic wars was translated into _English_ as early as 1565, by Arthur Golding, who dedicated his work to Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh. In 1695, a translation of the whole Commentaries was printed with the following title: “The Commentaries of Cæsar, of his Wars in Gallia, and of the Civil Wars betwixt him and Pompey, _with many excellent and judicious Observations_ thereupon; as also, the Art of our Modern Training; by Clement Edmonds, Esq.” The best translation is that by “William Duncan, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Aberdeen, printed at London, 1755,” with a long preliminary Discourse concerning the Roman Art of War.

CICERO.

Some of Cicero’s orations were studied harangues, which he had prepared and written over previous to their delivery. This, however, was not the case with the greater proportion of his speeches, most of which were pronounced without much premeditation, but were afterwards copied out, with such corrections and embellishments as bestowed on them a greater polish and lustre than when they had originally fallen from his lips. Before the invention of printing had increased the means of satisfying public curiosity, as no oration was given to the world but by the author himself, he had always the power of altering and improving by his experience of the effect it produced at delivery. Pliny informs us, that many things on which Cicero had enlarged at the time when he actually spoke in the Senate and the Forum, were retrenched when he ultimately gave his orations to the public in writing(649). Cicero himself had somewhere declared, that the defence of Cornelius had occupied four days, whence Pliny concludes, that those orations which, when delivered at full length, took up so much time at the bar, were greatly altered and abridged, when he afterwards comprised them in a single volume. The orations, in particular, for Muræna and Varenus, he says, seem now to contain merely the general heads of a discourse. Sometimes, however, they were extended and not curtailed, by the orator in the closet, as was confessedly the case in the defence of Milo. A few of the orations which Cicero had delivered, he did not consider as at all worthy of preservation. Thus, of the oration for Dejotarus, he says, in one of his letters to Dolabella, “I did not imagine that I had preserved among my papers the trifling speech which I made in behalf of Dejotarus; however, I have found it, and sent it to you, agreeably to your request(650).” This accounts for many speeches of Cicero, the delivery of which is recorded in history, being now lost. It appears, however, that those which he considered deserving of his care, though they may be widely different from the state in which they were originally pronounced, came pure from the hand of the author, either in the shape in which he would have wished to have delivered them, or in that which he considered best adapted for publication and perusal. They were probably transcribed by himself, and copies of them multiplied by his freedmen, such as Tyro and Tyrannio, whom he had accustomed to accurate transcription. His orations had also the good fortune to meet, at a very early period, with a judicious and learned commentator in the person of Asconius Pedianus, a grammarian in the reign of Nero, part of whose Commentary was discovered by Poggio, along with other classical works, in the monastery of St Gall, near Constance.

All the orations of Cicero were not lost during the middle ages. Pope Gerbert, in one of his letters, asks from the Abbot Gesilbert a copy of the concluding part of the speech for Dejotarus; and he writes to another of his correspondents, to bring him Cicero’s treatise _De Republicâ_, and the Orations against Verres, “Comitentur iter tuum Tulliana opuscula, et de Republicâ et in Verrem(651):” Brunetto Latini, who died in 1294, translated into Italian the orations for Dejotarus, Marcellus, and Ligarius, which were afterwards printed at Lyons in 1568(652). These three harangues being in a great measure complimentary addresses to Cæsar, and containing no sentiment but what might be safely expressed in presence of an unlimited sovereign, more transcripts had been made of them in Rome’s tyrannical ages, than of those orations which breathed forth the expiring spirit of liberty.

Cicero was the idol of Petrarch, the great restorer of classical literature. He never could speak of him but in terms of deep and enthusiastic admiration. The sweetness and sonorousness of Tully’s periods charmed his ear; and though unable to penetrate the depths of his philosophy, yet his vigorous fancy often soared with the Roman orator into the highest regions of imagination. Hence, while eager for the discovery of all the classics, his chief diligence was exercised in endeavouring to preserve such works of Cicero as were then known, and to recover such as were lost(653). Petrarch received in loan from Lapo of Castiglionchio a copy of several of Cicero’s orations, among which were the Philippics, and the oration for Milo. These he kept by him for four years, that he might transcribe them with his own hand, on account of the blunders of the copyists in that age. This we learn from the letters of Lapo, published by the Abbé Mehus. Coming to Liege when about twenty-five years of age, that is, in 1329, Petrarch remained there till two orations of Cicero, which he had discovered in that city, were transcribed, one by his own hand, and another by a friend, both of which were immediately transmitted by him to Italy. He was detained at Liege for some time by the difficulty of procuring even the worst sort of ink. Several other orations of Cicero were discovered by Petrarch in different parts of Italy.

Dominico Arretino, who was nearly contemporary with Petrarch, declares, in one of his works, entitled _Fons_, that he had seen eleven of Cicero’s orations, and that a person had told him that he actually possessed and had read twenty of them(654). It appears, however, that in the time of Cosmo de Medici those works of Cicero which were extant were very much corrupted. “Illorum librorum,” says Niccolo Niccoli, speaking of some of the works of Cicero, “magna pars interierit, hi vero qui supersunt adeo mendosi sunt, ut paulo ab interitu distent;” hence, in the middle of the fifteenth century, the discovery of a new MS. of Cicero was hailed as a new acquisition. At Langres, in a library of the monks of Clugni, in Burgundy, Poggio found the oration for Cæcina, which he immediately transcribed, and sent various copies of it to his friends in Italy. In the monasteries around Constance he discovered the two orations against Rullus, _De Lege Agrariâ_, and that to the people on the same subject; also the orations _Pro Rabirio_, and _Pro Roscio_. A note on the MS. copy of the oration _in Pisonem_, preserved in the abbey of Santa Maria, in Florence, records the fact of this harangue having been likewise discovered by Poggio(655).

A compendium of Cicero’s treatise _De Inventione_ was well known in the dark ages, having been translated into Italian, in an abridged form, in the thirteenth century, by a professor of Bologna. This was almost the first prose work which had appeared in the language, and was printed at Lyons with the _Ethica d’Aristotile_, by Brunetto Latini, who also translated the first book _De Inventione_(656). Lupus of Ferrieres possessed a copy of Cicero’s _Rhetorica_, as he himself informs us(657), but it was incomplete; and he accordingly asks Einhart, who had been his preceptor, for the loan of his MS. of this work, in order that his own might be perfected. Ingulphus, who flourished in England towards the close of the eleventh century, declares, that he was sent from Westminster to the school at Oxford, where he learned Aristotle, and the first two books of Tully’s _Rhetorica_(658). Now, if the first two books of the _Rhetorica_, which are all that have hitherto been discovered, were used as an elementary work in the public school at Oxford, they can hardly be supposed to have been very scarce in Italy. From the jurisconsult, Raymond Superantius, or Sorranza, to whom he had been indebted for the books _De Gloriâ_, Petrarch received an imperfect copy of the tract _De Oratore_, of which the MSS., though generally incomplete, were by no means uncommon at that period. “Ab hoc habui,” says he, “et Varronis et Ciceronis aliqua: Cujus unum volumen de communibus fuit; sed inter ipsa communia libri de Oratore ac de Legibus imperfecti, ut fere semper inveniuntur.” Nearly half a century from the death of Petrarch had elapsed, before the discovery of a complete copy of Cicero’s rhetorical works. It was about the year 1418, during the Popedom of Martin V., and while Poggio was in England, that Gerard Landriani, Bishop of Lodi, found in that city, among the ruins of an ancient monastery, a MS., containing Cicero’s treatise _De Oratore_, his _Brutus_ and _Orator_. He carried the MS. with him to Milan, and there gave it to Gaspar Bazizza. The character, however, in which it was written, was such, that few scholars or antiquaries in that city could read it. At length Cosmus, a young Veronese scholar, deciphered and transcribed the dialogue _De Oratore_. Blondus Flavius, the author of the _Italia Illustrata_, who had come in early youth from his native place, Forli, to Milan, transcribed the _Brutus_, and sent copies of it to Guarinus of Verona, and Leonard Justiniani, at Venice. By these means the rhetorical works of Cicero were soon diffused all over Italy. The discovery was hailed as a triumph, and subject of public congratulation. Poggio was informed of it while in England, and there awaited the arrival of a copy with the most lively impatience(659).

The philosophic writings of Cicero have descended to us in a more imperfect state than his oratorical dialogues or orations. In consequence of the noble spirit of freedom and patriotism which they breathe, their proscription would no doubt speedily follow that of their author. There is a common story of a grandson of Augustus concealing one of Cicero’s philosophic works, on being detected while perusing it by his grandfather, and though he received his gracious permission to finish it, the anecdote shews that it was among the _libri prohibiti_. The chief reading, indeed, of Alexander Severus, was the _Republic_ and _Offices_(660): But Alexander was an imperial phœnix, which never revived in the Roman empire; and we hear little of Cicero during the reigns of the barbarian sovereigns of Italy in the middle ages.

Petrarch procured an imperfect copy of Cicero’s treatise _De Legibus_, from the Lawyer Raymond Sorranza(661), who had a most extensive library, and to whom, as we have just seen, he had been indebted for a MS. of the dialogue _De Oratore_.

No further discovery was subsequently made of the remaining parts of the work _De Legibus_. The other philosophical writings of Cicero were found by Petrarch among the books in his father’s library, or were recovered for him by the persons whom he employed for this purpose in almost every quarter of Italy: “Abeuntibus amicis,” says he, “et, ut fit, petentibus numquid e patriâ suâ vellem, respondebam,—nihil præter libros Ciceronis.” Petrarch frequently quotes the treatise _De Finibus_, as a work with which he was familiar. Leonard Aretine, however, has been generally considered as the discoverer of that dialogue, as also of the treatise _De Naturâ Deorum_(662).

“There is no collection of my letters,” says Cicero, in one of his epistles to Atticus; “but Tiro has about seventy of them, and you can furnish some more. I must look over and correct them, and then they may be published.” This, however, never was accomplished by himself. After the revolution of the Roman state, the publication of his letters must have been dangerous, on account of the freedom with which he expresses himself concerning Octavius, and the ministers of his power. Cornelius Nepos mentions, that some of Cicero’s letters were published, but that sixteen books of Epistles to Atticus, from his consulship to his death, though extant, were by no means in common circulation(663). The reigns of the princes who succeeded Augustus, were not more favourable to freedom than his own; and hence the Familiar Letters, as well as those to Atticus, probably remained long in the cabinets of the curious, before they received any critical inspection. The Letters of Cicero, however, were well known in the middle ages, and even in those times pains were taken to have accurate copies of them. Lupus Ferrariensis procured duplicates of Cicero’s Epistles, in order to collate them with his own MSS., and thus to make up a correct and complete collection(664). John of Salisbury cites two of Cicero’s letters to Caius Cassius; one of which is now contained in the twelfth, and the other in the fifteenth book of the _Familiar Epistles_. In the Life of Julius Cæsar, which passes under the name of Julius Celsus, and which was written during the middle ages, extracts are occasionally made from the _Familiar Epistles_. They had become scarce, however, at the time when Petrarch found a copy of them at Verona, a place where he little expected to make such a discovery(665). This old MS., which Victorius thinks of the age of the Florentine Pandects, ultimately came into the Medicean library; and a copy which Petrarch had transcribed from it, was brought from Padua to Florence by Niccolo Niccoli, at whose death it was placed in the library of St Marc in that city(666). Several scholars who inspected both have observed, that the transcript by Petrarch differed in some respects from the original(667). It was also marked with various corrections and glosses, in the hand-writing of Niccolo Niccoli himself(668). All the other MSS. of the Familiar Epistles flowed from this discovered by Petrarch, as we learn from a passage of Lagomarsinus, who speaks thus of the different _codices_ of the _Epistolæ Familiares_: “Quibus tamen ego codicibus non tantum tribuo, quantum uni illi omnium quotquot ubique terrarum, idem epistolarum corpus continentes, extant, vetustissimo, (et ex quo cæteros omnes qui usquam sunt tanquam e fonte ac capite manâsse, et Angelus Politianus, et Petrus Victorius memoriæ prodiderunt,) qui Florentiæ in Mediceo-Laurentianæ Bibliothecæ XLIX. adservatur numero IX. extra notatus(669).” There has been a good deal of doubt and discussion how these Letters first came to obtain the title of _Familiares_. They are not so called in any original MS. of Cicero, nor are they cited by this name in any ancient author, as Aulus Gellius, or Priscian. These writers generally quote each book of the Epistles by the name of the person to whom the first letter in that book is addressed. Thus Gellius cites the first book by the name of the Letters to Lentulus, because it commences with a letter to him. Nor are the MSS. in which the appellation of the _Epistolæ Familiares_ is employed uniform in the title. In some MSS. they are called _Epistolæ Familiares_, in others, _Epistolæ ad Familiares_, and in a Palatine MS. _Libri Epistolarum Familiarum_.

Previous to the year 1340, Petrarch also discovered the _Epistles to Atticus_(670) which had been missing for many centuries; and on perusing them, declared that he now recognized Cicero as an inconsiderate and unfortunate old man. He copied them over with his own hand, and arranged them in their proper order. The MS. in his hand-writing passed, after his death, into the possession of Coluccio Salutati, and subsequently became the property of Coluccio’s disciple Leonard Aretine. Donatus, the son of Leonard, succeeded to it, and by him it was transferred to Donatus Acciaiolus. After his decease, it fell into the hands of an obscure grammarian, who gave it to Bartollomeo Cavalcanti, in whose library it was consulted by P. Victorius, and was afterwards bestowed on him by the owner. Victorius, highly valuing this MS., which he first recognised to be in the hand-writing of Petrarch, conceived that it would be preserved with greatest security in some public collection; and he accordingly presented it to Cosmo, the first Duke of Tuscany, to be deposited in the Medicean library(671). With regard to the most ancient MS. from which Petrarch made the copy, it unfortunately was lost, as Petrus Victorius laments in one of his Epistles(672). “Utinam inveniretur exemplum, unde has ad Atticum descripsit Petrarca, ut exstat illud, quo usus est in describendis alteris illis, quæ Familiares appellantur, de cujus libri antiquitate, omni veneratione digna, magnifice multa vereque alio loco prædicavi.” It thus appears, that the Epistles to Atticus were well known to Petrarch. Still, however, as they were scarce in the fifteenth century, Poggio, who found a copy, while attending the Council of Constance, was considered in his own age as the discoverer of the entire collection of the _Epistles to Atticus_, and has been regarded in the same light by modern writers.

The three books of the Letters of Cicero to his brother Quintus, were found by an Italian grammarian, Casparinus of Bergamo, who died in the year 1431; and who some time before his death had taken great pains to amend their corrupted text(673). That they were much corrupted, may be conjectured from what we know of the manner in which they were originally written, for it appears, from one of the Letters of Cicero(674), that Quintus had complained that he could scarcely read some of his former letters. Now, when Quintus could scarcely read his brother’s hand-writing, what must have been the difficulties and mistakes of the _Librarius_ by whom they were first collected and copied?

Cicero’s translation of Aratus appears to have been extant in the ninth century. Lupus of Ferrieres had an imperfect copy of it, and begs a complete copy from his correspondent Ansbald. “Tu autem,” says he, “huic nostro cursori Tullium in Arato trade; ut ex eo, quem me impetraturum credo, quæ deesse illi Egil noster aperuit, suppleantur.(675)”

Various editions of separate portions of the writings of Cicero were printed before the publication of a complete collection of his works. _The Orations_—the treatise _De Oratore_—the _Opera Philosophica_—the _Epistolæ Familiares_—and _Ad Atticum_, were all edited in Italy between the years 1466 and 1471—most of them being printed at Rome by Sweynheim and Pannartz. The most ancient printing-press in Italy was that established at the Monastery of Subiaco, in the Campagna di Roma, by these printers. Sweynheim and Pannartz were two German scholars, who had been induced to settle at that convent by the circumstance that it was chiefly inhabited by German monks. In 1467, they went from Subiaco, to Rome(676); after this removal, they received in correcting their editions, the assistance of a poor but eminent scholar, Giandrea de Bussi; and were aided by the patronage of Andrea, Bishop of Aleria, who furnished prefaces to many of their classical editions. Notwithstanding the rage for classical MSS. which had so recently existed, and the novelty, usefulness, and importance of the art which they first introduced into Italy, as also the support which they received from men of rank and learning, they laboured under the greatest difficulties, and prosecuted their undertaking with very inadequate compensation, as we learn from a petition presented, 1472, in their names, to Pope Sextus, by the chief patron, the Bishop of Aleria. Their necessities were probably produced by the number of copies of each impression which they threw off, and which exceeding the demand, they were so encumbered by those left on their hands, as to be reduced to the greatest poverty and distress(677). The first book which they printed at Rome, was the _Epistolæ Familiares_ of Cicero.

Alexander Minutianus, who published an edition of the whole works at Milan, 1498, in four volumes folio, was the first person who comprised the scattered publications of Cicero in one uniform book. Harles informs us, in one passage, that Minutianus did not consult any MSS. in the preparation of this edition, but merely collated the editions of the separate parts of Cicero’s writings previously published, so that his work is only a continued reimpression of preceding editions(678); but he elsewhere mentions, that he had inspected the MSS. of the Orations which Poggio had brought from Germany to Italy(679). In the Orations, Minutianus chiefly followed the Brescian edition, 1483, which was itself founded on that of Rome. The work was printed off, not according to the best arrangement, but as the copies of the preceding editions successively reached him, which he himself acknowledges in the preface. “Sed quam necessitas præscripsit dum vetustiora exemplaria ex diversis et longinquis locis exspectamus.” “If we peruse Saxius,” says Mr Dibdin, “we shall see with what toil, and at what a heavy expense, this celebrated work of Minutianus was compiled.” De Bure and Ernesti are lavish in their praises of its typographical beauty. The latter says it is printed “grandi modulo, chartis et literis pulchris et splendidis.” The Aldine edition, which was published in parts from 1512 to 1523, is not accounted a very critical or correct one, though the latter portion of it was printed under the care of Naugerius. It would be endless to enumerate the subsequent editions of Cicero. That of Petrus Victorius, however, whom Harles calls _Ciceronis Æsculapius_, printed at Venice in 1534–37, in four volumes folio, should not be forgotten, as there is no commentator to whom Cicero has been more indebted than to Victorius, particularly in the correction and emendation of the Epistles. The edition of Lambinus, Paris, 1566, also deserves notice. Lambinus was an acute and daring commentator, who made many corrections on the text, but adopted some alterations too rashly. From his time downwards, Harles thinks that the editors of Cicero may be divided into two classes; some following the bold changes introduced by Lambinus, and others preferring the more scrupulous text of Victorius. Of the latter class was Gruterus, who, in his edition published at Hamburgh, 1618, appears to have obstinately rejected even the most obvious emendations which had been recently made on the text of his author. The three editions of Ernesti’s Cicero, (Lips. 1737, Hal. Sax. 1758–74,) and the three of Olivet’s, (Paris, 1740, Geneva, 1758, Oxon. 1783,) are too well known to be particularized or described. Olivet did not collate MSS.; but he compared with each other what he considered as the four most important editions of Cicero; those of P. Victorius, Paullus Manutius, Lambinus, and Gruterus. In 1795, the first volume of a new edition of Cicero, by Beck, was printed at Leipsic, and since that period, three more volumes, at long intervals, have fallen from the press. The last volume which appeared, was in 1807; and along with the three by which it was preceded, comprehends the Orations of Cicero. The preface contains a very full account of preceding editions, and the most authoritative MSS. of Cicero. Ernesti’s editions were adopted as the basis of the text; but the editor departs from them where he sees occasion. He does not propose many new emendations of his own; but he seems a very acute judge of the merit of various readings, and a judicious selector from the corrections of others. While this edition of Beck was proceeding in Germany, Schütz brought forth another, which is now completed, except part of the _Index Latinitatis_. There are few notes subjoined to the text; but long summaries are prefixed to each oration and work of Cicero; and the _Rhetorica ad Herennium_ is introduced by an ample dissertation concerning the real author of that treatise. A new arrangement of the _Epistolæ Familiares_ has also been adopted. They are no longer printed, as in most other editions, in a chronological series, but are classed according to the individuals to whom they are addressed. The whole publication is dedicated to Great Britain and the Allied Sovereigns, in a long columnar panegyric.

There have also been lately published in Germany, several learned and critical editions of separate portions of the works of Cicero, particularly his Philosophical Writings. The edition of all his Philosophic Treatises, by Goerenz, which is now proceeding and already comprehends the _Academica_, the dialogues _De Legibus_ and _De Finibus_, is distinguished by intelligent Prefaces and Excursuses on the periods of the composition of the respective Dialogues; as also on the design of the author in their composition.

The translations of Cicero are so numerous, that for the Italian translations I must refer the reader to Paitoni, _Biblioteca degli autori antichi Greci e Latini Volgarizzati_, Tom. I. p. 219; and Argelati, _Biblioteca degli Volgarizzatori_, Tom. I. p. 214. For French versions, to Goujet, _Bibliotheque Françoise_, Tom. II. p. 221; and, for English, to Brüggemann, _View of the Editions and Translations of the Ancient Greek and Latin authors_, p. 481.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

For the benefit of those who wish to prosecute their inquiries into the subject of Roman Literature, I have subjoined a note of some of the most important Books which treat of the subject. An asterisk is prefixed to the titles of those works which have been consulted by me in the compilation of the preceding pages.

AIMERICHIUS.—_Specimen veteris Romanæ Literaturæ deperditæ vel adhuc latentis, seu Syllabus Historicus et Criticus veterum olim notæ eruditionis Romanorum, ab urbe conditâ ad Honorii Augusti excessum, eorum imprimis quorum Latina opera vel omnino vel ex parte desiderantur_. Ferrara, 1784. 8vo.

“This work is intended to give an idea of Roman literature, from the foundation of the city to the death of the Emperor Honorius. The preface, written by a friend of the author, gives an account of the manner in which the Romans lived, both in the capital and in the provinces, during this long period. The historical and literary Syllabus contains, under nine articles, a variety of literary matters. In the first, the Abbé Aimerichius gives us brief notices, and a critical review of the ancient Roman writers, both Pagan and Christian, whose works were extant in public or private libraries, before the death of the Emperor Honorius. In the second, we have the titles and subjects of several works which have been lost, but which have been cited or indicated by contemporary writers, or writers nearly such, whose testimonies are related by our author. The third contains an account of the most celebrated public or private libraries, that were known at Rome before the death of Honorius: and, in the fourth, we have the author’s inquiries concerning the pronunciation of the Romans, their manner of writing, and the changes which took place in their orthography. In the fifth, the Abbé treats of the magistracies that could not be obtained, either at Rome or in the provinces, but by men of letters, as also of rites and sacrifices, of luxury, riches, public shows, &c. In the sixth, he gives his particular opinion concerning the ancient literature of the Romans, and the mixture of the Latin and Greek languages which they employed, both in their conversation and in their writings. The seventh contains an indication of the principal heresies that disturbed the church, from the time of the Apostles to that of Honorius; and the eighth several memorable facts and maxims, not generally known, which belong to the literary, civil, military, and ecclesiastical history of this period. In the concluding article, the Abbé takes notice of the Latin works which had been lost for a considerable time, and shows how, and by whom, they were first discovered.”—From this account, which I have extracted from Horne’s _Introduction to the Study of Bibliography_, I regret extremely that I have had no opportunity of consulting the work of Aimerichius.

BLESSIG.—_De Origine Philosophiæ apud Romanos_. Strasburgh, 1770. 4to.

BECMANNUS.—_Manductio ad linguam Latinam cum Tractatu de Originibus Linguæ Latinæ_. 1608. 8vo.

*CASAUBON.—_De Satyrica Græcorum Poësi et Romanorum Satira libri duo, in quibus etiam Poëtæ recensentur, qui in utrâque poësi floruerunt_. Halæ, 1774. 8vo.

This treatise, which is one of the most learned and agreeable productions of Casaubon, is the source of almost everything that has been written by modern authors, on the subject of the satiric poetry of the Romans. Casaubon traces its early history in the Fescennine verses, the Atellane fables, and the satires of Ennius and Lucilius, and vindicates to the Romans the invention of this species of composition, for which, he contends, they had no model in the poetry of the Greeks.

CELLARIUS.—_Dissertatio de Studiis Romanorum Literariis_. Halle, 1698. 4to.

CORRADUS.—_Quæstura—Partes duæ, quarum altera de Ciceronis Vitâ et Libris—Altera Ciceronis Libros permultis locis emendat._ Lips. 1754. 8vo.

*CRUSIUS.—_Lives of the Roman Poets_. London, 1733. 2 Vols.

*EBERHARDT.—_Uber den Zustand der Schönen Wissenschaften bei den Römern_. Altona, 1801. 8vo.

This work was written by a Swede, and in the Swedish language. It contains, in its original form, a very superficial and inaccurate sketch of the subject; but some valuable notes and corrections accompany the German translation.

*FABRICIUS.—_Bibliotheca Latina, digesta et aucta diligentiâ Jo. Aug. Ernesti_. Lips. 1773. 3 Tom. 8vo.

The well-known and justly-esteemed _Bibliotheca_ of Fabricius gives an account of all the Latin writers from Plautus to Marcian Capella. In most of the articles we have a biographical sketch of the author—a list of his writings—an account of the most authoritative MSS. of his works—of the best editions, and of the most celebrated translations in the modern languages of Europe.

FUHRMANN.—_Handbuch der Classischen Literatur, oder Anleitung zur Kentniss der Griechischen und Römischen Classischen Schriftsteller, ihren Schriften, und der besten Ausgaben, und Uebersetzungen derselben_. Rudolstadt, 1809–10.

Two of the volumes of this work relate to Roman literature. It is chiefly bibliographical, containing very full accounts of the editions and translations of the Classics which have appeared, particularly in Germany; but there are also some critical accounts of the works of the Roman authors: these are chiefly extracted from Journals and Reviews, and, in consequence, the author frequently repeats the same thing in different words, and still more frequently contradicts himself.

*FUHRMANN.—_Anleitung zur Geschichte der Classischen Literatur der Griechen und Römer_. Rudolstadt, 1816.

An abridgment of the preceding work.

*FUNCCIUS.—_De Origine et Pueritiâ, De Adolescentiâ, Virili Ætate, et Senectute Linguæ Latinæ_. Frankfort, 1720.

This is one of the most learned and valuable works extant on the subject of Latin literature. In the first tract, _De Pueritiâ_, the author chiefly treats of the origin and progress of the Roman language.

*GAUDENTIUS PAGANINUS.—_De Philosophiæ ap. Romanos Ortu et Progressu_. Pisa, 1643, 4.

A very dull and imperfect account of the state of philosophy among the Romans, from the earliest periods to the time of Boethius.

*HANKIUS. (MART.)—_De Romanarum Rerum Scriptoribus_. Lips. 1687. 4to.

The first part of this work contains a succinct account of the ancient Roman Annalists and Historians. The latter part relates to modern writers who treated of Roman affairs.

*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Introductio in Notitiam Literaturæ Romanæ, imprimis Scriptorum Latinorum_. Noriberg. 1781. 2 Tom. 8vo.

This work of Harles, as far as it extends, is written on the same plan, and is much of the same description, as the _Bibliotheca_ of Fabricius. It is not continued farther, however, than the Augustan age inclusive.

*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Brevior Notitia Literaturæ Romanæ, imprimis Scriptorum Latinorum_. Lips. 1788. 1 Tom. 8vo.

*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Supplementa ad Breviorem Notitiam Literaturæ Romanæ_. Lips. 1788. 2 Tom. 8vo.

This work, and the preceding, are on the same plan as the _Introductio_; but bring down the history of Roman writers, and the editions of their works, to the latest periods. It is much to be regretted, that these works of Harles had not been incorporated into one; since, taken separately, each is incomplete, and collectively, they abound in repetitions.

*KLÜGLING. (C. F.)—_Supplementa ad Breviorem Notitiam Literaturæ Romanæ_. Lips. 1817.

This Supplement to Harles, contains an account of the editions of the Classics which had appeared chiefly in Germany, subsequent to the publication of the _Brevior Notitia_.

KÖNIG.—_De Satirâ Romanorum_. Oldenburgh, 1796.

KRIEGK.—_Diatribe de Veterum Romanorum Peregrinationibus Academicis_. Jenæ, 1704. 4to.

LEO (ANNIBAL DI).—_Memorie di Pacuvio_. Neapol. 1763.

MEIEROTTO.—_De Præcipuis rerum Romanarum Scriptoribus_. Berlin, 1792. folio.

*MÜLLER.—_Einleitung zu nöthiger Kentniss und Gebrauche der alten Lateinischen Schriftsteller_. Dresden, 1747. 5 Tom. 8vo.

*MOINE D’ORGEVAL.—_Considerations sur le Progrés des Belles Lettres chez les Romains_. Paris, 1749.

*OSANNUS.—_Analecta Critica, Poësis Romanorum scænicæ reliquias illustrantia_. Berlin, 1717.

This is a work of considerable ingenuity and research. It contains some discussion concerning the date at which regular comedies and tragedies were first exhibited at Rome; but it is chiefly occupied with comparisons between the Fragments of the ancient Latin Dramatists, and the corresponding passages in the Greek originals.

*SAGITTARIUS (CASP.)—_Commentatio de Vitâ et Scriptis Liv. Andronici, Nævii, Ennii, Cæcilii, Pacuvii, Attii, Attilii, Lucilii, Afranii, Catonis_. Altenburg, 1672.

This is a small volume of 110 pages, which has now become extremely scarce.

SAGITTARIUS (CASP.)—_De Vitâ, scriptis, editionibus, interpretibus, lectione, atque imitatione Plauti, Terentii, Ciceronis_. Altenburg, 1671.

*SCHOELL.—_Histoire Abregée de la Litterature Romaine_. Paris, 1815. 4 Tom. 8vo.

See above. Preface, p. xiii.

*TIRABOSCHI.—_Storia della Litteratura Italiana_. Modena, 1787. Tom. I. and II.

See above. Preface, p. xiii.

*VOSSIUS (GERARD).—_De Historicis Latinis Libri tres_. Lugd. Bat. 1651.

*WALCHIUS.—_Historia Critica Latinæ Linguæ_. Lips. 1761.

*ZIEGLER.—_De Mimis Romanorum_. Gotting. 1789.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

+--------------+--------+--------+
| | Born. | Dies. |
| | A.U.C. | A.U.C. |
|L. Andronicus | | 534 |
|Nævius | | 550 |
|Ennius | 515 | 585 |
|Plautus | 525 | 570 |
|Cæcilius | | 586 |
|Terence | 560 | 594 |
|Pacuvius | 534 | 624 |
|Attius | 584 | 664 |
|Lucilius | 605 | 659? |
|Lucretius | 658 | 702 |
|Catullus | 667 | 708? |
|Laberius | | 710 |
|Cato | 519 | 605 |
|Varro | 637 | 727 |
|Sallust | 668 | 718 |
|Cæsar | 656 | 709 |
|Hortensius | 640 | 703 |
|Cicero | 647 | 710 |
+--------------+--------+--------+

INDEX

Afranius, his Comedies, vol. i. p. 170.
Agriculture, advantages of Italy for, ii. 6–11.
Antias, Q. Valerius, Latin Annalist, ii. 74.
Antipater, Cælius, Latin Annalist, ii. 72.
Antonius, Marcus, character of his eloquence, ii. 117.
His death, 119.
Arcesilaus founds the New Academy, ii. 208.
Asellio, Sempronius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.
Atellane Fables, i. 229.
Attius, his Tragedies, i. 214.

Brutus, his Historical Epitomes, ii. 107.

Cæcilius, his Comedies, i. 168.
Cæcina, his history, ii. 108.
Cæsar compared with Xenophon, ii. 94.
His Commentaries, 95–101.
His Ephemeris, whether the same work with his Commentaries,
101.
His Anticatones, 102.
His Analogia, 103.
Calvus, Licinius, his Epigrams, i. 322.
His orations, ii. 131.
Carmen Saliare, i. 43.
Carneades teaches the Greek philosophy at Rome, ii. 211.
Cato, the Censor, his work on Agriculture, ii. 12–16.
His Orations, 16.
His work De Originibus, 18.
On Medicine, 20–21.
Catullus, i. 271–320.
Cethegus, Marcus, an orator, ii. 110.
Cicero, his Orations, ii. 152.
Compared with Demosthenes, 192.
His works on Rhetoric, 193.
De Oratore, 195.
Brutus, 198.
The Orator, 199.
Topica, 200.
Rhetorica ad Herennium, inquiry concerning the author of, 202.
His philosophical works—De Legibus, 223.
De Finibus, 229.
Academica, 232.
Tusculanæ Disputationes, 236.
De Naturâ Deorum, 243.
De Officiis, 257.
De Senectute, 259.
De Republica, 263.
His Epistles, 278.
Columna Rostrata, inscription on the, i. 46.
Cotta, his style of oratory, ii. 122.
Crassus, Lucius, character of his eloquence, ii. 120.
His death, ibid.
Compared with Antony, 121.

Decemviral Laws, ii. 134.
Dialogue, remarks on this species of composition, ii. 194.

Eloquence, Roman, commencement of, ii. 109.
Ennius, his tragedies, i. 67.
Annals, 78.
Translation of Euhemerus, 94.
Etruscans, their origin, i. 20.
Their conquests, 26.
Religion, 29.
Arts, 35.
Eugubian Tables, i. 47.

Fabius Pictor, Latin Annalist, ii. 67–71.
Fratres Arvales, hymn of the, i. 43.

Galba, Sergius, an orator, ii. 110.
Gracchi, oratory of the, ii. 113.

Hirtius, his continuation of Cæsar’s Commentaries, ii. 105.
History, Roman, uncertainty of, ii. 57–67.
Hortensius, his luxury and magnificence, ii. 124.
His villas at Tusculum, Bauli, and Laurentum, 124, 125.
Character of his eloquence, 127.
His descendants, 130, Note.

Jurisconsults, Roman, account of, ii. 138.

Laberius, i. 328.
Lælius, his oratory compared with that of Scipio, ii. 111.
Latin Language, its origin, i. 32.
Its changes, 48.
Laws, Roman, ii. 133–138.
Leges Regiæ, ii. 133.
Livius Andronicus, i. 54–58.
Lucceius, his History of the Social War, ii. 107.
Lucilius, i. 238–248.
Lucretius, i. 250–271.
Lucullus, his patronage of learning, ii. 51.
Luscius Lavinius, i. 171.

Magna Græcia, its settlements, i. 50.
Mimes, their origin and subjects, i. 324.

Nævius, i. 58–62.

Pacuvius, i. 209.
Plautus, i. 96–168.
Philosophy, Greek, introduction of, at Rome, ii. 209.
Plebiscita, account of the, ii. 136.
Prætor, account of the office of, ii. 141.
Publius Syrus, i. 332.

Quadrigarius, Claudius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.

Sallust, his character, ii. 82.
His Gardens, ibid.
His conspiracy of Catiline, and Jugurthine war, 84–88.
His Roman History, 92.
Satire, Roman, origin of, i. 232.
Senatusconsultum, what, ii. 137.
Sisenna, Roman Annalist, ii. 75.
Sulpicius, his worthless character, ii. 121.
His style of oratory, 122.
Sylla, his library, ii. 50.
His Memoirs of his Life, 77.
His character, 78.

Terence, i. 175–206.
Compared with Plautus, 206.
Theatre, Roman, its construction, i. 337–353.
Tyrannio, his library, ii. 52.
Trabea, i. 173.

Varro, his farms and villas, ii. 25.
His work on Agriculture, 28–34.
De Lingua Latina, 34.
Other works of Varro, 40.

FINIS.

JAMES KAY, JUN. PRINTER.

FOOTNOTES

_ 1 Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis_, T. II. c. 20.

_ 2 Antiquitat. Rom._ Lib. I.

_ 3 Geograph._ Lib. VI.

_ 4 Hist. Nat._ Lib. XVIII. c. 11.; XXXVII. c. 12.

5 Virgil, _Georg._ Lib. II.

6 Plutarch, _in Numa_.

7 Livy, _Epitome_, Lib. XVIII. Valer. Maxim. Lib. IV. c. 4. § 6.

8 Cicero, _De Senectute_, c. 16.

9 Rapin, _Hortorum_, Lib. IV.

10 Bonstetten, _Voyage dans le Latium_, p. 274.

11 J. C. L. Sismondi, _Tableau de l’Agriculture Toscane_, and
Chasteauvieux, _Lettres Ecrites d’Italie_. Paris, 1816. 2 Tom.

12 Plutarch, _in Cato._

13 Plutarch, _in Cato._

14 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XIV. c. 4; Lib. XVI. c. 39.

15 Plutarch, _in Cato._

16 Ibid.

_ 17 In Cato._

18 C. 160.

19 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 17.

20 Vegetius, Lib. I. c. 8.

21 Plutarch, _in Cato._

22 Valerius Maximus, Lib. VIII. c. 7. Valerius says, he was in his 86th
year; but Cato did not survive beyond his 85th. Cicero, _in Bruto_,
c. 20. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XIX. c. 1.

23 Livy, Lib. XXXIX. c. 40.

24 Lib. XXXIV. c. 2.

_ 25 Noct. Attic._ Lib. VII. c. 3.

_ 26 Brutus_, c. 17.

27 Lib. XXXIX. c. 40.

_ 28 Noct. Attic._ Lib. X. c. 3.

_ 29 Hist. Nat._ Lib. VIII. c. 5.

_ 30 Brutus_, c. 17.

_ 31 Brutus_, c. 87.

32 Quintil. _Inst. Orat._ Lib. III. c. 1.

33 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXV. c. 2.

34 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXV. c. 2.

35 Livy, Lib. IV. c. 25.

36 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXIX. c. 1.

37 Plutarch, _in Cato._

38 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XX. c. 9.

39 Ibid. Lib. XXIX. c. 1.

40 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXIX. c. 1.

_ 41 Stor. del. Let. Ital._ Part. III. Lib. III. c. 5. § 5.

42 See Spon, _Recherches Curieuses d’Antiquité_. Diss. 27. Bayle,
_Dict. Hist._ art. Porcius, Rem. H.

In what degree of estimation medicine was held at Rome, and by what
class of people it was practised, were among the _quæstiones vexatæ_
of classical literature in our own country in the beginning and
middle of last century. Dr Mead, in his _Oratio Herveiana_, and
Spon, in his _Recherches d’Antiquité_, followed out an idea first
suggested by Casaubon, in his animadversions on Suetonius, that
physicians in Rome were held in high estimation, and were frequently
free citizens; that it was the surgeons who were the _servile
pecus_; and that the erroneous idea of physicians being slaves,
arose from confounding the two orders. These authors chiefly rested
their argument on classical passages, from which it appears that
physicians were called the friends of Cicero, Cæsar, and Pompey.
Middleton, in a well known Latin dissertation, maintains that there
was no distinction at Rome between the physician, surgeon, and
apothecary, and that, till the time of Julius Cæsar at least, the
art of medicine was exercised only by foreigners and slaves, or by
freedmen, who, having obtained liberty for their proficiency in its
various branches, opened a shop for its practice.—_De Medicorum apud
veteres Romanos degentium Conditione Dissertatio_. _Miscellaneous
Works_, Vol. IV. See on this topic, _Schlæger, Histor. litis, De
Medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentium Conditione. Helmst._ 1740.

_ 43 Noct. Attic._ Lib. VII. c. 10.

_ 44 De Officiis_, Lib. I. c. 29. Multa sunt multorum facete dicta: ut
ea, quæ a sene Catone collecta sunt, quæ vocant apophthegmata.

_ 45 Sat._ Lib. I. 2.

46 For Cato’s family, see Aulus Gellius, _Noct. Attic._ Lib. XIII. c.
19.

47 We have many minute descriptions of the villas of luxurious Romans,
from the time of Hortensius to Pliny, but there are so few accounts
of those in the simpler age of Scipio, that I have subjoined the
description of Seneca, who saw this mansion precisely in the same
state it was when possessed and inhabited by the illustrious
conqueror of Hannibal. “Vidi villam structam lapide quadrato, murum
circumdatum sylvæ, turres quoque in propugnaculum villæ utrimque
subrectas. Cisternam ædificiis et viridibus subditam, quæ sufficere
in usum exercitûs posset. Balneolum angustum, tenebricosum ex
consuetudine antiquâ. Magna ergo me voluptas subit contemplantem
mores Scipionis et nostros. In hoc angulo, ille Carthaginis horror,
cui Roma debet quod tantum semel capta est, abluebat corpus
laboribus rusticis fessum; exercebat enim operâ se, terramque, ut
mos fuit priscis, ipse subigebat. Sub hoc ille tecto tam sordido
stetit—hoc illum pavimentum tam vile sustinuit.” Senec. _Epist._ 86.

48 Lib. II.

_ 49 Trionfo della Fama_, c. 3.

50 Varro, _De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. II. proœm.

51 Cæsar, _Comment. de Bello Civili_, Lib. II. c. 17, &c.

52 Suetonius, _in Jul. Cæs._ c. 44.

_ 53 Epist. Fam._ Lib. IX. Ep. 6. Ed. Schütz.

_ 54 De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. II.

55 Cicero, _Philip._ II. c. 40.

56 See Castell’s _Villas of the Ancients_.

_ 57 De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. III. c. 5.

_ 58 Classical Tour in Italy_.