considered as having commenced, at least so far as regards the Latin
classics. Poggio lived from 1380 to 1459. He was succeeded towards the
close of the fifteenth century, and during the whole course of the
sixteenth, by a long series of Italian commentators, among whom the
highest rank may be justly assigned to Politian.—(Born, 1454–died, 1494.)
To him the world has been chiefly indebted for corrections and
elucidations of the texts of Roman authors, which, from a variety of
causes, were, when first discovered, either corrupt, or nearly illegible.
In the exercise of his critical talents, Politian did not confine himself
to any one precise method, but adopted such as he conceived best suited
his purpose—on some occasions only comparing different copies, diligently
marking the variations, rejecting spurious readings, and substituting the
true. In other cases he proceeded farther, adding _scholia_ and notes,
illustrative of the text, either from his own conjecture, or the authority
of preceding writers. To the name of Politian, I may add those of his
bitter rival and contemporary, Georgius Merula, (born, 1420–died, 1494);
Aldus Manutius, (1447–1516); his son Paullus; Landini, author of the
_Disputationes Camaldulenses_, (1424–1504); Philippus Beroaldus,
(1453–1505); Petrus Victorius, (1498–1585); Robortellus, (1516–1567). Most
of these commentators were entirely verbal critics; but this was by far
the most useful species of criticism which could be employed at the period
in which they lived. We have already seen, that in the time of Petrarch,
classical manuscripts had been very inaccurately transcribed; and,
therefore, the first great duty of a commentator, was to amend and purify
the text. Criticisms on the general merits of the author, or the beauties
of particular passages, and even expositions of the full import of his
meaning, deduced from antiquities, mythology, history, or geography, were
very secondary considerations. Nor, indeed, was knowledge far enough
advanced at the time, to supply such illustrations. Grammar, and verbal
criticism, formed the porch by which it was necessary to enter that temple
of sublimity and beauty which had been reared by the ancients; and without
this access, philosophy would never have enlightened letters, or letters
ornamented philosophy. “I cannot, indeed, but think,” says Mr Payne
Knight, in his Analytical Essay on the Greek Alphabet, “that the judgment
of the public, on the respective merits of the different classes of
critics, is peculiarly partial and unjust. Those among them who assume the
office of pointing out the beauties, and detecting the faults, of literary
composition, are placed with the orator and historian, in the highest
ranks, whilst those who undertake the more laborious task of washing away
the rust and canker of time, and bringing back those forms and colours,
which are the objects of criticism, to their original purity and
brightness, are degraded with the index-maker and antiquary among the
pioneers of literature, whose business it is to clear the way for those
who are capable of more splendid and honourable enterprizes. Nevertheless,
if we examine the effects produced by those two classes of critics, we
shall find that the first have been of no use whatever, and that the last
have rendered the most important services to mankind. All persons of taste
and understanding know, from their own feelings, when to approve and
disapprove, and therefore stand in no need of instructions from the
critic. But whatever may be the taste or discernment of a reader, or the
genius and ability of a writer, neither the one nor the other can appear
while the text remains deformed by the corruptions of blundering
transcribers, and obscured by the glosses of ignorant grammarians. It is
then that the aid of the verbal critic is required; and though his minute
labour in dissecting syllables and analysing letters may appear
contemptible in its operation, it will be found important in its effect.”
It is to those early critics, then, who washed away the rust and canker of
time, and brought back those forms and colours which are the subject of
criticism, that classical literature has been chiefly indebted. The newly
discovered art of printing, which was itself the offspring of the general
ardour for literary improvement, and of the daily experience of
difficulties encountered in prosecuting classical studies, contributed, in
an eminent degree, to encourage this species of useful criticism. At the
instigation of Lorenzo, and other patrons of learning in Italy, many
scholars in that country were induced to bestow their attention on the
collation and correction of the MSS. of ancient authors, in order that
they might be submitted to the press with the greatest possible accuracy,
and in their original purity. Nor was it a slight inducement to the
industrious scholar, that his commentaries were no longer to be hid in the
recesses of a few vast libraries, but were to be now placed in the view of
mankind, and enshrined, as it were, for ever in the immortal page of the
poet or historian whose works he had preserved or elucidated.
With Fulvius Ursinus, who died in the year 1600, the first school of
Italian commentators may be considered as terminating. In the following
century, classical industry was chiefly directed to translation; and in
the eighteenth century, the list of eminent commentators was increased
only by the name of Vulpius, who introduced a new style in classical
criticism, by an amusing collection of verses, both in ancient and modern
poets, which were parallel to passages in his author, not merely in some
words, but in the poetical idea.
The career which had so gloriously commenced in Italy in the end of the
fifteenth century, was soon followed in France and Germany. Julius
Scaliger, a native of Verona, had been naturalized in France, and he
settled there in the commencement of the sixteenth century. In that
country classical studies were introduced, under the patronage of Francis
I., and were prosecuted in his own and the six following reigns, by a long
succession of illustrious scholars, among whom Turnebus (1512–1565),
Lambrinus (1526–1572), the family of the Stephenses, who rivalled the
Manutii of Italy, Muretus (1526–1585), Casaubon (1559–1614), Joseph
Scaliger (1540–1609), and Salmasius (1588–1653), distinguished themselves
by the illustration of the Latin classics, and the more difficult
elucidation of those studies which assist and promote a full intelligence
of their meaning and beauties. Our geographical and historical knowledge
of the ancient world, was advanced by Charles Stephens—its chronology was
ascertained by Scaliger, and the whole circle of antiquities was extended
by Salmasius. After the middle of the seventeenth century, a new taste in
the illustration of classical literature sprung up in France—a lighter
manner and more philosophic spirit being then introduced. The celebrated
controversy on the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns, aided a
more popular elucidation of the classics; and as the preceptors of the
royal family were on the side of the ancients, they promoted the famed
Delphin edition, which commenced under the auspices of the Duke De
Montausier, and was carried on by a body of learned Jesuits, under the
superintendence of Bossuet and Huetius. Elegance and taste were required
for the instruction of a young French Prince; and accordingly, instead of
profound philological learning, or the assiduous collation of MSS., light
notes were appended, explanatory of the mythological and historical
allusions contained in the works of the author, as also remarks on his
most prominent defects and excellencies.
Joseph Scaliger and Salmasius, who were French Protestants, found shelter
for their heretical principles, and liberal reward for their learning, in
the University of Leyden; and with Douza (1545–1604), and Justus Lipsius
(1547–1606), became the fathers and founders of classical knowledge in the
Netherlands. As the inhabitants of that territory spoke and wrote a
language which was but ill adapted for the expression of original thought,
their whole force of mind was directed to throwing their humorous and
grand conceptions on canvass, or to the elucidation of the writings of
those who had been gifted with a more propitious tongue. These studies and
researches were continued by Heinsius (1582–1655), Gerard and Isaac
Vossius (1577–1689), and Gronovius (1611–1671). At this period Schrevelius
(1615–1664) commenced the publication of the Classics, _cum Notis
__Variorum_; and in the end of the seventeenth century, his example was
followed by some of the most distinguished editors. The merit of these
editions was very different, and has been variously estimated. Morhoff,
while he does justice to the editorial works of Gronovius and other
learned men, in which parts of the commentaries of predecessors,
judiciously extracted, were given at full length, has indulged himself in
an invective against other _variorum_ editions, in which everything was
mutilated and incorrect. “Sane ne comparandæ quidem illi” (the editions of
Aldus) “sunt ineptæ Variorum editiones; quam nuper pestem bonis auctoribus
Bibliopolæ Batavi inducere cœperunt, reclamantibus frustra viris
doctis(567).” In the course of the eighteenth century, the Burmans
(1668–1778), Oudendorp (1696–1761), and Havercamp (1684–1742), continued
to support the honour of a school, which as yet had no parallel in
certainty, copiousness, and depth of illustration.
In Germany, the school which had been established by Charlemagne at Fulda,
and that at Paderborn, long flourished under the superintendence of
Meinwerk. The author of the Life of that scholar, speaking of these
establishments, says, “Ibi viguit Horatius, magnus atque Virgilius,
Crispus et Sallustius, et Urbanus Statius.” During the ninth century,
Rabin Maur, a scholar of Alcuin, and head of the cathedral school at
Fulda, became a celebrated teacher; and profane literature was not
neglected by him amid the importance of his sacred lessons. Classical
learning, however, was first thoroughly awakened in Germany, by the
scholars of Thomas A’Kempis, in the end of the fifteenth century. A number
of German youths, who were associated in a species of literary fraternity,
travelled into Italy, at the time when the search for classical MSS. in
that country was most eagerly prosecuted. Rudolph Agricola, afterwards
Professor of Philosophy at Worms, was one of the most distinguished of
these scholars. Living immediately after the invention of printing, and at
a time when that art had not yet entirely superseded the transcription of
MSS., he possessed an extensive collection of these, as well as of the
works which had just issued resplendent from the press. Both were
illustrated by him with various readings on the margin; and we perceive
from the letters of Erasmus the value which even he attached to these
notes, and the use which he made of the variations. Rudolph was succeeded
by Herman von Busche, who lectured on the classics at Leipsic. He had in
his possession a number of the Latin classics; but it is evident from his
letters that some, as for instance Silius Italicus, were still
inaccessible to him, or could only be procured with great difficulty. The
German scholars did not bring so many MSS. to light, or multiply copies of
them, so much as the Italians, because, in fact, their country was less
richly stored than Italy with the treasures bequeathed to us by antiquity;
but they exercised equal critical acuteness in amending the errors of the
MSS. which they possessed. The sixteenth century was the age which
produced in Germany the most valuable and numerous commentaries on the
Latin classics. That country, in common with the Netherlands, was
enlightened, during this period, by the erudition of Erasmus (1467–1536).
In the same and succeeding age, Camerarius (1500–1574), Taubmann
(1565–1613), Acidalius (1567–1595), and Gruterus (1560–1627), enriched the
world with some of the best editions of the classics which had hitherto
appeared. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, classical
literature had for some time rather declined in Germany—polemical theology
and religious wars having at this period exhausted and engrossed the
attention of her universities. But it was revived again about the middle
of the eighteenth by J. Math. Gesner (1691–1761), and Ernesti (1707–1781),
who created an epoch in Germany for the study of the ancient authors.
These two scholars surpassed all their predecessors in taste, in a
philosophical spirit, and in a wide acquaintance with the subsidiary
branches of erudition: They made an advantageous use of their critical
knowledge of the languages; they looked at once to the words and to the
subject of the ancient writers, established and applied the rules of a
legitimate interpretation, and carefully analysed the meaning as well as
the form of the expression. Their task was extended from words to things;
and what has been called Æsthetic annotations, were combined with
philological discussion. “Non volui,” says Gesner, in the Preface to his
edition of Claudian, “commentarios scribere, collectos undique, aut locos
communes: Non volui dictionem poetæ, congestis aliorum poetarum formulis
illustrare; sed cum illud volui efficere poeta ut intelligatur, tum
judicio meo juvare volui juniorum judicium, quid pulchrum, atque decens,
et summorum poetarum simile putarem ostendendo, et contra, ea, ubi errâsse
illum a naturâ, a magnis exemplis, a decoro arbitrarer, cum fide
indicando.” J. Ernesti considers Gesner as unquestionably the first who
introduced what he terms the Æsthetic mode of criticism(568). But the
honour of being the founder of this new school, has perhaps, with more
justice, been assigned by others to Heyne(569) (1729–1811). “From the
middle of last century,” it is remarked, in a late biographical sketch of
Heyne, “several intelligent philologers of Germany displayed a more
refined and philosophic method in their treatment of the different
branches of classical learning, who, without neglecting either the
grammatical investigation of the language, or the critical constitution of
the text, no longer regarded a Greek or Roman writer as a subject for the
mere grammarian and critic; but, considering the study of the ancients as
a school for thought, for feeling, and for taste, initiated us into the
great mystery of reading every thing in the same spirit in which it had
originally been written. They demonstrated, both by doctrine and example,
in what manner it was necessary for us to enter into the thoughts of the
writer, to pitch ourselves in unison with his peculiar tone of conception
and expression, and to investigate the circumstances by which his mind was
affected—the motives by which he was animated—and the influences which
co-operated in giving the intensity and character of his feelings. At the
head of this school stands Heyne; and it must be admitted, that nothing
has contributed so decisively to maintain or promote the study of
classical literature, as the combination which he has effected of
philosophy with erudition, both in his commentaries on ancient authors,
and those works in which he has illustrated various points of antiquity,
or discussed the habit of thinking and spirit of the ancient world.” From
the time of Heyne, almost the whole grand inheritance of Roman literature
has been cultivated by commentators, who have raised the Germans to
undisputed pre-eminence among the nations of Europe, for profound
classical learning, and all the delightful researches connected with
literary history. I have only space to mention the names of Zeunius
(1736–1788), Jani (1743–1790), Wernsdorff (1723–1793); and among those who
still survive, Harles (born 1738), Schütz (1747), Schneider (1751), Wolf
(1757), Beck, (1757), Doering (1759), Mitscherlich (1760), Wetzel (1762),
Goerenz (1765), Eichstädt (1771), Hermann (1772).
While classical literature and topography were so highly cultivated
abroad, England, at the revival of literature, remained greatly behind her
continental neighbours in the elucidation and publication of the precious
remains of ancient learning. It appears from Ames’ Typographical
Antiquities, that the press of our celebrated ancient printers, as Caxton,
Wynkin de Worde, and Pynson, was rarely employed in giving accuracy or
embellishment to the works of the classics; and, indeed, so late as the
middle of the sixteenth century, only Terence and Cicero’s _Offices_ had
been published in this country, in their original tongue. Matters had by
no means improved in the seventeenth century. Evelyn, who had paid great
attention to the subject, gives the following account of the state of
classical typography and editorship in England, in a letter to the Lord
Chancellor Clarendon, dated November 1666: “Our booksellers,” says he,
“follow their own judgment in printing the ancient authors, according to
such text as they found extant when first they entered their copy;
whereas, out of the MSS. collated by the industry of later critics, those
authors are exceedingly improved. For instance, about thirty years since,
Justin was corrected by Isaac Vossius, in many hundreds of places, most
material to sense and elegancy, and has since been frequently reprinted in
Holland, after the purer copy; but with us still according to the old
reading. The like has Florus, Seneca’s Tragedies, and near all the rest,
which have, in the meantime, been castigated abroad by several learned
hands, which, besides that it makes ours to be rejected, and dishonours
our nation, so does it no little detriment to learning, and to the
treasure of the nation in proportion. The cause of this is principally the
stationer driving as hard and cruel a bargain with the printer as he can,
and the printer taking up any smatterer in the tongues, to be the less
loser; an exactness in this no ways importing the stipulation, by which
means errors repeat and multiply in every edition(570).” Since the period
in which this letter is dated, Bentley, who bears the greatest name in
England as a critic, however acute and ingenious, did more by his slashing
alterations to injure than amend the text, at least of the Latin authors
on whom he commented. He substituted what he thought best for what he
actually found; and such was his deficiency in taste, that what he thought
best (as is evinced by his changes on the text of Lucretius), was
frequently destructive of the poetical idea, and almost of the sense of
his author.
I have thought it right, before entering into detail concerning the
_Codices_ and editions of the works of the early classics mentioned in the
text, briefly to remind the reader of the general circumstances connected
with the loss and recovery of the classical MSS. of Rome, and to recall to
his recollection the names of a few of the most celebrated commentators in
Italy, France, Holland, and Germany. This will render the following
Appendix, in which there must be constant reference to the discovery of
MSS. and the labours of commentators, somewhat more distinct and
perspicuous than I could otherwise make it.
LIVIUS ANDRONICUS, NÆVIUS.
The fragments of these old writers are so inconsiderable, that no one has
thought of editing them separately. They are therefore to be found only in
the general collections of the whole Latin poets; as Maittaires _Opera et
Fragmenta Veterum Poetarum Latinorum_, London, 1713. 2 Tom. fo., (to some
copies of which a new title-page has been printed, bearing the date, Hag.
Comit. 1721;) or in the collections of the Latin tragic poets, as Delrio’s
_Syntagma Tragœdiæ Latinæ_, Paris, 1620, and Scriverius’ _Collectanea
Veterum Tragicorum_, Lugd. Bat. 1620. It is otherwise with
ENNIUS,
of whose writings, as we have seen, more copious fragments remain than
from those of his predecessors. The whole works of this poet were extant
in the time of Cassiodorus; but no copy of them has since appeared. The
fragments, however, found in Cicero, Macrobius, and the old grammarians,
are so considerable, that they have been frequently collected together,
and largely commented on. They were first printed in Stephen’s _Fragmenta
Veterum Poetarum Latinorum_, but without any proper connection or
criticism. Ludovicus Vives had intended to collect and arrange them, as we
are informed in one of his notes to St Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_: But
this task he did not live to accomplish(571). The first person who
arranged these scattered fragments, united them together, and classed them
under the books to which they belonged, was Hier. Columna. He adopted the
orthography which, from a study of the ancient Roman monuments and
inscriptions, he found to be that of the Latin language in the age of
Ennius. He likewise added a commentary, and prefixed a life of the poet.
The edition which he had thus fully prepared, was first published at
Naples in 1590, four years after his death, by his son Joannes
Columna(572). This _Editio Princeps_ of Ennius is very rare, but it was
reprinted under the care of Fr. Hesselius at Amsterdam in 1707. To the
original commentary of Columna there are added the annotations on Ennius
which had been inserted in Delrio and Scriverius’ collection of the Latin
tragic poets; and Hesselius himself supplied a very complete _Index
Verborum_. The ancient authors, who quote lines from Ennius, sometimes
mention the book of the _Annals_, or the name of the tragedy to which they
belonged, but sometimes this information is omitted. The arrangement,
therefore, of the verses of the latter description (which are marked with
an asterisk in Columna’s edition), and indeed the precise collocation of
the whole, is in a great measure conjectural. Accordingly, we find that
the order of the lines in the edition of Paulus Merula is very different
from that adopted by Columna. The materials for Merula’s edition, which
comprehends only the _Annals_ of Ennius, had already been collected and
prepared at the time when Columna’s was first given to the world. Merula,
however, conceived that while the great object of Columna had been to
compare and contrast the lines of Ennius with those of other heroic poets,
he himself had been more happy in the arrangement of the verses, and the
restoration of the ancient orthography, which is much more antiquated in
the edition of Merula than in that of Columna. He had also discovered some
fragments of the _Annals_, unknown to Columna, in the MS. of a work of L.
Calp. Piso, a writer of the age of Trajan, entitled _De Continentiâ
Veterum Poetarum_, and preserved in the library of St Victor at Paris. In
these circumstances, Merula was not deterred by the appearance of the
edition of Columna, from proceeding with his own, which at length came
forth at Leyden in the year 1595. The same sort of discrepance which
exists between Columna and Merula’s arrangement of the Annals, appears in
the collocation of the _Tragic Fragments_ adopted by Columna, and that
which has been preferred by Delrio, in his _Syntagma Tragœdiæ Latinæ_.
H. Planck published at Gottingen, in 1807, the fragments of Ennius’s
tragedy of _Medea_. These comprehend all the verses belonging to this
drama, collected by Columna, and some newly extracted by the editor from
old grammarians. The whole are compared with the parallel passages in the
_Medea_ of Euripides. Two dissertations are prefixed; one on the Origin
and Nature of Tragedy among the Romans; and the other, on the question,
whether Ennius wrote two tragedies, or only a single tragedy, entitled
_Medea_. A commentary is also supplied, in which, as Fuhrmann remarks, one
finds many things, but not much:—“Man findet in demselben _multa_, aber
nicht _multum_(573).”
Some fine passages of the fragments of Ennius have been filled up, and the
old readings corrected, by the recent discovery of the work _De Republicâ_
of Cicero, who is always quoting from the ancient poets. Thus the passage
in the Annals, where the Roman people are described as lamenting the death
of Romulus, stands thus in Columna’s edition:—
—— “O Romole, Romole, _dic ô_
Qualem te patriæ custodem dii genuerunt,
Tu produxisti nos intra luminis oras,
O pater, ô genitor, ô sanguen diis oriundum.”
This fragment may be now supplied, and the verses arranged and corrected,
from the quotation in the first book _De Republicâ_—
“Pectora pia tenet desiderium; simul inter
Sese sic memorant—O Romule, Romule _die_,
Qualem te patriæ custodem di genuerunt,
O pater, ô genitor, ô sanguen dîs oriundum!
Tu produxisti nos intra luminis oras.”
The fragments of the Annals of Ennius, as the text is arranged by Merula,
have been translated into Italian by Bernardo Philippini, and published at
Rome in 1659, along with his _Poesie_. I know of no other translations of
these fragments.
PLAUTUS.