together, and also along with those of Columella and Palladius, under the
title of _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_. There is no ancient MS. known, in which
all the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_ are collected together. They were first
combined in the _Editio Princeps_, edited by Georgius Merula, and printed
at Venice, in 1470. The next edition, superintended by Bruschius, and
printed in 1482, has almost entirely disappeared. In many passages, its
readings were different from those of all other editions, as appears from
the annotations communicated from Rome, by Pontedera to Gesner, while he
was preparing his celebrated edition(630). Philippus Beroaldus corrected a
good many faults and errors which had crept into the _Editio Princeps_.
His emendations were made use of in the edition of Bologna, 1494, by
Benedict Hector. Gesner has assiduously collated that edition with the
_Editio princeps_, and he informs us, that it contained many important
corrections. Though differing in some respects, he considers all the
editions previous to that of Aldus, as belonging to the same class or
family. The Aldine edition, printed 1514, was superintended by Fra
Giocondo of Verona, who, having procured at Paris some MSS. not previously
consulted, introduced from them many new readings, and filled up several
chasms in the text, particularly the fifty-seventh chapter(631). This
edition, however, is not highly esteemed; “Sequitur,” says Fabricius,
“novi nec optimi generis editio Aldina:” And Schneider, the most recent
editor of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, affirms that Giocondo corrupted
and perverted almost every passage which he changed. Nicholas Angelius
took charge of the edition published by the Giunta at Florence, in 1515.
His new readings are ingenious; but many of them are quite unauthorized
and conjectural. The Aldine continued to form the basis of all subsequent
editions, till the time of Petrus Victorius, who was so great a restorer
and amender of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_, that he is called their
_Æsculapius_ by Gesner, and _Sospitator_ by Fabricius. Victorius had got
access to a set of MSS. which Politian had collated with the _Editio
Princeps_. The most ancient and important of these MSS., containing Cato,
and almost the whole of Varro, was found by Victorius in the library of St
Mark; another in French characters was in the Medicean library; and a
third had belonged to Franciscus Barbarus, and was transcribed by him from
an excellent exemplar at Padua(632). But though Victorius had the
advantage of consulting these MSS., it does not appear that he possessed
the collation by the able hand of Politian; because that was inserted, not
in the MSS., but in his own printed copy of the _Editio Princeps_; and
Gesner shows at great length that Petrus Victorius had never consulted any
copy whatever of the _Editio Princeps_(633). Victorius first employed his
learning and critical talents on Varro. Some time afterwards, Giovanni
della Casa being sent by the Pope on some public affairs to Florence,
where Victorius at that time resided, brought him a message from the
Cardinal Marcellus Cervinus, requesting that he should exert on Cato some
part of that diligence which he had formerly employed on Varro. Victorius
soon completed the task assigned him. He also resumed Varro, and
attentively revised his former labours on that author(634). At last he
determined to collate whatever MSS. of the Rustic writers he could
procure. Those above-mentioned, as having been inspected by Politian, were
the great sources whence he derived new and various readings.
It is not known that Victorius printed any edition containing the text of
the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_ in Italy. His letter to Cervinus speaks as if
he was just about to edit them; but whether he did so is uncertain.
“Quartam classem,” says Harles, “constituit Victorius, sospitator horum
scriptorum: qui quidem num primum in Italiâ recensitos dederit eos cum
Gesnero et Ernesti ignoro(635).” As far as now appears, his corrections
and emendations were first printed in the edition of Leyden, 1541, where
the authors it contains, are said in the title to be _Restituti per Petrum
Victorium, ad veterum exemplarium fidem, suæ integritati_. His
castigations were printed in the year following, but without the text of
the authors, at Florence. The Leyden edition was reprinted at Paris, in
1543, by Robert Stephens, and was followed by the edition of Hier.
Commellinus, 1595.
At length Gesner undertook a complete edition of the _Rei Rusticæ
Scriptores_, under circumstances of which he has given us some account in
his preface. The eminent bookseller, Fritschius, had formed a plan of
printing these authors; and to aid in this object, he had employed
Schoettgenius, a young, but even then a distinguished scholar. A digest of
the best commentators, and a collection of various readings, were
accordingly prepared by him. The undertaking, however, was then deferred,
in expectation of the arrival of MSS. from Italy; and Schoettgenius was
meanwhile called to a distance to some other employment, leaving the
fruits of his labour in the hands of Fritschius. In 1726, that bookseller
came to Gesner, and informed him, that Politian’s collations, written on
his copy of the _Editio Princeps_, had at length reached him, as also some
valuable observations on the rustic writers, communicated from Italy by
Pontedera and Facciolati. Fritschius requested that Gesner should now
arrange the whole materials which had been compiled. Selections from the
commentaries, and the various readings previous to the time of Victorius,
were prepared to his hand; but he commenced an assiduous study of every
thing that was valuable in more recent editions. At length his ponderous
edition came out with a preface, giving a full detail of the labours of
others and his own, and with the prefaces to the most celebrated preceding
editions. Some of the notes had been previously printed, as those of
Meursius, Scaliger, and Fulvius Ursinus—others, as those of Schoettgenius,
Pontedera, and Gesner himself, had never yet seen the light. Though Gesner
never names Pontedera without duly styling him Clarissimus Pontedera, that
scholar was by no means pleased with the result of Gesner’s edition, and
attacked it with much asperity, in his great work, _Antiquitatum
Rusticarum_. Gesner’s first edition was printed at Leipsic, 1735. Ernesti
took charge of the publication of the second edition; and, in addition to
the dissertation of Ausonius Popma, _De Instrumento Fundi_, which formed
an appendix to the first, he has inserted Segner’s description and
explanation of the aviary of Varro.
The most recent edition of the _Scriptores Rei Rusticæ_, is that of
Schneider, who conceives that he has perfected the edition of Gesner, by
having collated the ancient edition of Bruschius, and the first Aldine
edition, neither of which had been consulted by his predecessor.
Besides forming parts of every collection of the _Rei Rusticæ Scriptores_,
the agricultural treatises of Cato and Varro have been repeatedly printed
by themselves, and apart from those of Columella and Palladius. Ausonius
Popma, in his separate edition of Cato, 1590, has chiefly, and without
much acknowledgment, employed some valuable annotations and remarks
contained in the _Adversaria_ of Turnebus. This edition was accompanied by
some other fragments of Cato. These, however, were of small importance;
and the principal part of the publication being the work on Agriculture,
its sale was much impeded by Commellinus’ full edition of the agricultural
writers, published five years afterwards. Raphellengius, however,
reprinted it in 1598, with a new title; and with the addition of the notes
of Meursius. Popma again revised his labours, and published an improved
edition in 1620. Varro’s treatise, _De Re Rusticâ_, was published alone in
1545, and with his other writings, by Stephens, in 1569. Ausonius Popma
also edited it in 1601, appropriating, according to his custom, the notes
and observations of others.
Cato’s work _De Re Rusticâ_, has been translated into _Italian_ by Pagani,
whose version was printed at Venice, 1792; and into _French_ by Saboureux,
Paris, 1775. I am not aware of any full _English_ translation of Cato, but
numerous extracts are made from it in Dickson’s _Husbandry of the
Ancients_.
Italy has produced more translations of the Latin writers than any other
country; and one would naturally suppose, that the agricultural writings
of those who had cultivated the same soil as themselves, would be
peculiarly interesting to the Italians. I do not know, however, of any
version of Varro in their language. There is an _English_ translation, by
the Rev. Mr Owen, printed at Oxford in 1800. In his preface, the author
says,—“Having collated many copies of this work of the Roman writer in my
possession, and the variations being very numerous, I found it no easy
task to make a translation of his treatise on agriculture. To render any
common Arabic author into English, would have been a labour less difficult
to me some years ago, than it has been to translate this part of the works
of this celebrated writer.”
SALLUST.
This historian was criticized in a work of Asinius Pollio, particularly on
account of his affected use of obsolete words and expressions. Sulpicius
Apollinaris, the grammarian, who lived in the reigns of the Antonines,
boasted that he was the only person of his time who could understand
Sallust. His writings were illustrated by many of the ancient grammarians,
as Asper and Statilius Maximus. In the course of the ninth century, we
find Lupus, Abbot of Ferriers, in one of his letters, praying his friend
Regimbertus to procure for him a copy of Sallust(636); and there was a
copy of his works in the Library of Glastonbury Abbey, in the year
1240(637). The style of Sallust is very peculiar: He often omits words
which other writers would insert, and inserts those which they would omit.
Hence his text became early, and very generally, corrupted, from
transcribers and copyists leaving out what they naturally enough supposed
to be redundancies, and supplying what they considered as deficiencies.
There appeared not less than three editions of Sallust in the course of
the year 1470. It has been much disputed, and does not seem to be yet
ascertained, which of them is the _Editio Princeps_. One was printed under
the care of Merula, by Spira, at Venice; but the other two are without
name of place or printer: It has been conjectured, that of these two, the
one which is in folio was printed at Rome(638); and the other, in quarto,
at Paris, by Gering, Crantz, and Friburg(639). The Venice Edition is
usually accounted the _Editio Princeps_(640), but Fuhrmann considers both
the Paris and Roman editions as prior to it. The Roman, he thinks, in
concurrence with the opinion of Harles, is the earliest of all. The
Bipontine editors style the Parisian impression the _Primaria Princeps_.
Besides these three, upwards of thirty other editions were published in
the course of the fifteenth century. One of them was printed at Venice,
1493, from the _Recension_ of Pomponius Lætus, who has been accused by
subsequent editors of introducing many of the corruptions which have crept
into the text of Sallust(641). There were also a number of commentaries in
this century, by scholars, who did not themselves publish editions of the
historian, but greatly contributed to the assistance of those who prepared
them in the next. The commentary of Laurentius Valla, in particular, which
was first printed at Rome in 1490, and in which scarcely a single word is
passed over without remark or explanation, enriched most of the editions
which appeared in the end of the fifteenth, and the beginning of the
subsequent century(642). The first of any note in the sixteenth century,
were those of Aldus, Venice, 1509, and 1521. Carrio, who published an
edition at Antwerp in 1579, collected many of the fragments of Sallust’s
great History of Rome; and he amended the text of the Catilinarian and
Jugurthine Wars, as he himself boasts, in several thousand places. The
edition of Gruter, in 1607, in which the text received considerable
alterations, on the authority of the Palatine MS., obtained in its time
considerable reputation. The earliest _Variorum_ edition is in 1649; but
the best is that printed at Leyden, with the notes of Gronovius, in 1690.
An immense number of MSS., and copies of the most ancient editions, were
collated by Wasse for the Cambridge edition, 1710. He chiefly followed the
text of Gruter, but he has added the notes of various commentators, and
also some original observations of his own, particularly comparisons,
which he has instituted between his author and the ancient Greek writers.
The editions of Cortius (Leipsic, 1724), and of Havercamp (Amsterdam,
1742), are both excellent. The former, in preparing his work, consulted
not less than thirty MSS., fifteen of which were preserved in the
Wolfenbuttel library. He also assiduously collated most of the old
editions, and found some good readings in those of Venice, 1470–1493, and
that of Leipsic, 1508. Most of the editions, however, of the fifteenth
century, he affirms, are very bad; and, according to him, a greater number
of the errors, which had crept into the text of Sallust, are to be
attributed to them, than to the corruptions of Pomponius Lætus. Cortius
chiefly erred in conceiving that Sallust’s conciseness consisted solely in
paucity of words, so that he always preferred the readings where the
greatest number of them were thrown out, though the meaning was thereby
obscured, and sometimes altogether lost. The readings in Havercamp’s
edition are all founded on those of Wasse and Gruter. The text is
overloaded with notes: “Textus,” says Ernesti, “velut cymba in oceano, ita
in notis natat.” The various readings are separated from the notes, being
inserted between the text and the commentary. In the first volume, we have
the text of Sallust, and the annotations—in the second, the prefaces of
different editors of Sallust—his life—the fragments of his works—and the
judgments pronounced by ancient authors on his writings. The text of
Teller’s edition, Berlin, 1790, is formed on that of Cortius, but departs
from it, where the editor conceived himself justified by the various
readings of a rare and ancient edition, published at Brescia, 1495, which
he had consulted. It is totally unprovided with _prolegomena_, or notices,
with regard to the life and writings of the author, or his works; but
there is appended to it a recension of the celebrated Spanish Translation,
executed under the auspices of the Infant Don Gabriel, and a very full
_Index Latinitatis_. The best of the recent German editions, is that of
Lange, Halle, 1815. In this work, the editor chiefly follows Havercampus.
His great object was to restore the purity of the text, which he believed
to have been greatly corrupted by the rash and unauthorized alterations of
preceding editors, more particularly of Cortius. Notes are subjoined,
partly illustrative of Sallust’s genius and talents, and partly of that
portion of Roman history, of which he treated.
Sallust has been translated into _Italian_, by a Genoese of the name of
Agost. Ortica, (Venice, 1518). The work of Ortica also comprehends a
version of Cicero’s fourth Catilinarian orations, and the supposed reply
of Catiline. The style is barbarous, involved, and obscure, and in some
passages nearly unintelligible. In point of style, the translation of
Lelio Carani (Florence, 1530) is purer, but it is too paraphrastic, and
has not always accurately expressed the meaning of the original. The
version of Paulo Spinola (1564) was scarcely more happy. These three
translations having become scarce by the middle of last century, and being
defective in many of the most essential qualities of a translation, the
Doctor Battista Bianchi, Professor of Latin at Sienna, undertook an
improved translation, in which he attempted to imitate the brevity of
Sallust, though he did not, like some of his predecessors, insert obsolete
Italian words, corresponding to the antique Latin expressions adopted by
his original. To this translation, first printed at Venice, 1761, there is
prefixed a long and elaborate preface, in which the author discusses the
historical and literary merits of Sallust, and enumerates the translations
of his works which had at that time appeared in the different languages of
Europe. After this follows the life of the Latin author. There are
likewise annotations at the foot of the page, and an index at the end of
the whole. The next Italian translation of any note which appeared, was
that by Alfieri, which is considered in Italy as a masterpiece: His prose
style, which was founded on that of the classic writers, qualified him
admirably for the task.
There have been more translations of Sallust in _French_, than in any
other language. It was translated, it is said, as far back as the reign of
King John of France, who died in 1364. “Le Roi Jean,” says Villaret,
“ainsi qu’on l’a rapporté, avoit fait entreprendre des versions de
quelques auteurs Latins, tels que Salluste et Tite-Live(643).” I do not
suppose, however, that this translation was given to the press on the
invention of printing. The first version printed was that of Baudoin, in
1617; which was succeeded, in the course of the same century, by the
futile attempts of Cassagne and Du Teil. The version of the Abbé Le
Masson, which appeared in the commencement of the ensuing century, was
accompanied with a defence of the moral character of the historian. It was
followed, in a few years afterwards, by that of the Abbé Thyvon, which,
though it does not convey an adequate idea of the strength and sententious
brevity of the original, is for the most part extremely faithful to the
meaning of the author. Its deficiency in the former qualities, seems to
have induced M Dotteville to attempt a new translation, as he appears to
be always striving at terseness and conciseness of style. “His Sallust,”
says the most recent English translator, “like his Tacitus, is harsh and
dry; and his fruitless endeavours to vie in brevity with either historian,
are sufficient to prove, if such proof were needful, how absurd an attempt
it is in any translator, for the sake of seizing some peculiar feature of
resemblance, or some fancied grace of diction, to violate the genius of
his native language.” A similar criticism is extended, in the following
paragraph, to the version of M. Beauzie, though it is admitted to be the
most faithful and accurate that ever appeared in the French language. The
translation of Dotteville was first printed in 1760, and that of Beauzie
fifteen years afterwards. About the same time M. de Brosses, President of
the Parliament of Dijon, published a History of Rome during the Seventh
Century, which professes to be chiefly made up from the fragments of
Sallust. The War of Jugurtha comes first in the historical
arrangement—then follow the events which intervened between that contest
and the Conspiracy of Catiline, taken from the fragments of Sallust, which
are interwoven with the body of the narrative—and, lastly, the Conspiracy.
The work, which extends to three volumes 4to, comprehends very full notes,
and includes a life of Sallust, which, though written in an indifferent
style, displays considerable learning and research. Although the version
of De Brosses was generally accounted one of the best translations of the
Classics, which had appeared in the French, or any other language, it does
not seem to have been considered as precluding subsequent attempts. A
translation by Dureau Delamalle appeared in 1808, and one by Mollevaut,
yet more recent, which has gone through at least three editions. Still,
however, many persons in France prefer the version of Dotteville to the
more modern translations.
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.