History of Roman Literature from its Earliest Period to the Augustan Volume II Part 17

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

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

The plays of Terence being much less numerous than those of Plautus, translations of the whole of them appeared at an earlier period, both in Italian and French. The first complete _Italian_ translation of Terence was in prose. It is dedicated to Benedetto Curtio, by a person calling himself Borgofranco; but from the ambiguity of some expressions in this dedication, there has been a dispute, whether he be the author, or only the editor of the version-Fontanini supporting the former, and Apostolo Zeno the latter proposition(599). It was first printed at Venice, 1533; and Paitoni enumerates six subsequent editions of it in the course of the sixteenth century. The next version was that of Giovanni Fabrini, which, as we learn by the t.i.tle, is rendered word for word from the original; it was printed at Venice, 1548. A third prose translation, published at Rome, 1612, is dedicated to the Cardinal Borghese by the printer Zanetti, who mentions, that it was the work of an unknown author, which had fallen accidentally into his hands: Fontanini, however, and Apost. Zeno, have long since discovered, that the author was called Cristoforo Rosario.

Crescimbeni speaks favourably of a version by the Marchioness of Malespini. Another lady, Luisa Bergalli, had translated in _verso sciolto_, and printed separately, some of the plays of Terence: These she collected, and, having completed the remainder, published them together at Venice, in 1733. In 1736, a splendid edition of a poetical translation of Terence, and accompanied by the Latin, was printed at Urbino, with figures of the actors, taken from a MS. preserved in the Vatican. It is written in _verso sciolto_, except the prologues, which are in _versi sdruccioli_.

The author, who was Nicholas Fortiguerra, and who died before his version was printed, says, that the comedies are _nunc primum Italicis versibus redditae_(600); but in this he had not been sufficiently informed, as his version was preceded by that of Luisa Bergalli, and by many separate translations of each individual play. A translation of two of Terence's plays, the _Andria_ and _Eunuchus_, into _versi sdruccioli_, by Giustiano de Candia, was printed by Paullus Manutius in 1544(601). Three of Terence's plays, the _Andria_, _Eunuchus_, and _Heautontimorumenos_, were subsequently translated in _versi sdruccioli_, by the Abbe Bellaviti, and published at Ba.s.san in 1758.

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

"Maistre Gilles nomme Cybile, Il s'est montre tres-fort habile: Car il a tout traduit Therence Ou il y a mainte sentence(602)."

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

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

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

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

de Sacy.

It still remains for me to mention the translation of Terence by Mad.

Dacier. This lady was advised against the undertaking by her friends, but she was determined to persevere(605). She rose at five o'clock every morning, during a whole winter, in the course of which she completed four comedies; but having perused them at the end of some months, she thought them too much laboured and deficient in ease. She therefore threw them into the fire, and, with more moderation, recommenced her labour, which she at length completed, with satisfaction to herself and the public. Her translation was printed in 1688, 3 vols. 12mo, accompanied with the Latin text, a preface, a life of the poet, and remarks on each of his pieces.

She has not entered, as in her translations of Plautus, into a particular examination of every scene, but has contented herself with some general observations. This lady has also made considerable changes as to the commencement and termination of the scenes and acts; and her conjectures on these points are said to have been afterwards confirmed by an authoritative and excellent MS., discovered in the _Bibliotheque de Roi_(606). The first edition was improved on, in one subsequently printed at Rotterdam in 1717, which was also ornamented with figures from two MSS.

There is yet a more recent translation by Le Monnier, 1771, which is now accounted the best.

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

LUCILIUS.

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

LUCRETIUS.

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

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

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

"Illius manu, n.o.bis, doctissime rhetor, Integer in Latium, Quintiliane, redis; Et te, Lucreti, longo post tempore, tandem Civibus et Patriae reddit habere tuae."

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

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

"Navita, nudus humi jacet infans, _indigus_ omni Vitali auxilio," --

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

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

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

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

"Quem neque fama Deum, nec fulmina, nec minitanti Murmure compressit clum."

The expression _Fama Deum_ implies, that Epicurus could not be restrained by that imposing character, with which deep-rooted prejudice, and the authority of fable, had invested the G.o.ds of Olympus-a thought highly poetical, and at the same time panegyrical of the mighty mind which had disregarded all this superst.i.tious renown. But Wakefield, by the alteration of a single letter, strips the pa.s.sage both of its sense and poetry-he reads,

"Quem neque _fana_ Deum, nec fulmina, nec minitanti,"

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

"Si non aurea sunt juvenum simulacra per aedes, &c.

Nec citharae reboant laqueata aurataque _tecta_."

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

"E tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen Qui primus potuisti, ill.u.s.trans commoda vitae, Te sequor, O Graiae gentis decus!"

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

"O tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen."

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

"Deinde, quod obscura de re tam lucida _pango_ Carmina, Musaeo contingens cuncta lepore."

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

"Per clum volvi quia nox et luna videtur, Luna, dies, et nox, et noctis signa _serena_!"

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

"Noctivagaeque faces cli flammaeque volantes."

I have only selected pa.s.sages where Wakefield has departed from the usual readings, without support from any ancient edition or authoritative MS.

whatever. The instances where, in a variation of the MSS. and editions, he has chosen the worse reading, are innumerable.