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 t.i.tle of _Rei Rusticae Scriptores_. There is no ancient MS. known, in which all the _Rei Rusticae 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 pa.s.sages, 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 a.s.siduously 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 cla.s.s 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 Rusticae Scriptores_, affirms that Giocondo corrupted and perverted almost every pa.s.sage 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 Rusticae Scriptores_, that he is called their _aesculapius_ 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 a.s.signed 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 Rusticae 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 cla.s.sem," says Harles, "const.i.tuit Victorius, sospitator horum scriptorum: qui quidem num primum in Italia recensitos dederit eos c.u.m 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 t.i.tle to be _Rest.i.tuti per Petrum Victorium, ad veterum exemplarium fidem, suae 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 Rusticae Scriptores_, under circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.siduous 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 Rusticae_, 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 Rusticae 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 princ.i.p.al 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. Raph.e.l.lengius, however, reprinted it in 1598, with a new t.i.tle; 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 Rustica_, 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 Rustica_, 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 d.i.c.kson'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."

SALl.u.s.t.

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 Sall.u.s.t. His writings were ill.u.s.trated 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 Sall.u.s.t(636); and there was a copy of his works in the Library of Glas...o...b..ry Abbey, in the year 1240(637). The style of Sall.u.s.t 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 Sall.u.s.t 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 Laetus, who has been accused by subsequent editors of introducing many of the corruptions which have crept into the text of Sall.u.s.t(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 a.s.sistance 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 pa.s.sed 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 Sall.u.s.t'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 Wa.s.se 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 inst.i.tuted 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 Wolfenb.u.t.tel library. He also a.s.siduously collated most of the old editions, and found some good readings in those of Venice, 14701493, 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 Sall.u.s.t, are to be attributed to them, than to the corruptions of Pomponius Laetus. Cortius chiefly erred in conceiving that Sall.u.s.t'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 Wa.s.se 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 Sall.u.s.t, and the annotations-in the second, the prefaces of different editors of Sall.u.s.t-his life-the fragments of his works-and the judgments p.r.o.nounced 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 ill.u.s.trative of Sall.u.s.t's genius and talents, and partly of that portion of Roman history, of which he treated.

Sall.u.s.t 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 pa.s.sages 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 Sall.u.s.t, 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 Sall.u.s.t, 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 cla.s.sic writers, qualified him admirably for the task.

There have been more translations of Sall.u.s.t 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 rapporte, avoit fait entreprendre des versions de quelques auteurs Latins, tels que Sall.u.s.te et t.i.te-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 Ca.s.sagne and Du Teil. The version of the Abbe Le Ma.s.son, 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 Abbe 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 Sall.u.s.t,"

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 Sall.u.s.t. 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 Sall.u.s.t, 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 Sall.u.s.t, 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 Cla.s.sics, 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.

It would appear, that the writings of Sall.u.s.t 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 t.i.tle-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 Sall.u.s.t. 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 Sall.u.s.t 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 Sall.u.s.t to Caesar 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 ent.i.tled 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 const.i.tutes the great difficulty in all cla.s.sical 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 Sall.u.s.t 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 Sall.u.s.t. The Spanish translation of Sall.u.s.t, 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.

CaeSAR.

Lupus, Abbot of Ferriers, says, in one of his letters, that no historic work of Caesar 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 Caesar'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 Caesar from the Abbot of Terdon, who was possessed of one, and to have it transcribed for him(646). Caesar'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 Caesar as a great event.

Andrea, Bishop of Aleria, took charge of the first edition of Caesar, 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 Caesar, 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 151319,) which are not so remarkable either for accuracy or beauty as the other early editions of the Cla.s.sics 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 Caesar'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 Caesar; as also inscriptions, found in various cities of Spain. It is also distinguished as having been the prototype of Clarke's splendid edition of Caesar, which Mr Dibdin p.r.o.nounces to be "the most sumptuous cla.s.sical volume which this country ever produced. It contains," says he, "eighty-seven copperplates, which were engraved at the expense of the different n.o.blemen 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 Caesar, 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 aeschylus, are tasteless and unspirited. The type of this magnificent volume is truly beautiful and splendid, and for its fine l.u.s.tre 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 Caesar, 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 Caesar," 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 ill.u.s.trated the military tactics of Caesar, 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 Caesar's Commentaries is attempted to be shaken, are reviewed and refuted; and there are added several fragments of Caesar, as also those notices of ancient authors concerning him, which had been neglected or omitted by Morus.

Caesar was first rendered into _Italian_ by Agost. Ortica, the translator of Sall.u.s.t. 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 Caesar, 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 cla.s.sics 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 Caesar was undertaken(648). But the earliest French translation of Caesar'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 Caesar'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 t.i.tle: "The Commentaries of Caesar, 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 p.r.o.nounced without much premeditation, but were afterwards copied out, with such corrections and embellishments as bestowed on them a greater polish and l.u.s.tre 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 Muraena 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 p.r.o.nounced, 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 Pedia.n.u.s, a grammarian in the reign of Nero, part of whose Commentary was discovered by Poggio, along with other cla.s.sical 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 Republica_, and the Orations against Verres, "Comitentur iter tuum Tulliana opuscula, et de Republica 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 Caesar, 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 cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sics, 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 Abbe 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, ent.i.tled _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 Caecina, 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 Agraria_, 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 Gloria_, 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 Ill.u.s.trata_, 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).