printed before the publication of a complete collection of his works. _The
Orations_—the treatise _De Oratore_—the _Opera Philosophica_—the _Epistolæ
Familiares_—and _Ad Atticum_, were all edited in Italy between the years
1466 and 1471—most of them being printed at Rome by Sweynheim and
Pannartz. The most ancient printing-press in Italy was that established at
the Monastery of Subiaco, in the Campagna di Roma, by these printers.
Sweynheim and Pannartz were two German scholars, who had been induced to
settle at that convent by the circumstance that it was chiefly inhabited
by German monks. In 1467, they went from Subiaco, to Rome(676); after this
removal, they received in correcting their editions, the assistance of a
poor but eminent scholar, Giandrea de Bussi; and were aided by the
patronage of Andrea, Bishop of Aleria, who furnished prefaces to many of
their classical editions. Notwithstanding the rage for classical MSS.
which had so recently existed, and the novelty, usefulness, and importance
of the art which they first introduced into Italy, as also the support
which they received from men of rank and learning, they laboured under the
greatest difficulties, and prosecuted their undertaking with very
inadequate compensation, as we learn from a petition presented, 1472, in
their names, to Pope Sextus, by the chief patron, the Bishop of Aleria.
Their necessities were probably produced by the number of copies of each
impression which they threw off, and which exceeding the demand, they were
so encumbered by those left on their hands, as to be reduced to the
greatest poverty and distress(677). The first book which they printed at
Rome, was the _Epistolæ Familiares_ of Cicero.
Alexander Minutianus, who published an edition of the whole works at
Milan, 1498, in four volumes folio, was the first person who comprised the
scattered publications of Cicero in one uniform book. Harles informs us,
in one passage, that Minutianus did not consult any MSS. in the
preparation of this edition, but merely collated the editions of the
separate parts of Cicero’s writings previously published, so that his work
is only a continued reimpression of preceding editions(678); but he
elsewhere mentions, that he had inspected the MSS. of the Orations which
Poggio had brought from Germany to Italy(679). In the Orations, Minutianus
chiefly followed the Brescian edition, 1483, which was itself founded on
that of Rome. The work was printed off, not according to the best
arrangement, but as the copies of the preceding editions successively
reached him, which he himself acknowledges in the preface. “Sed quam
necessitas præscripsit dum vetustiora exemplaria ex diversis et longinquis
locis exspectamus.” “If we peruse Saxius,” says Mr Dibdin, “we shall see
with what toil, and at what a heavy expense, this celebrated work of
Minutianus was compiled.” De Bure and Ernesti are lavish in their praises
of its typographical beauty. The latter says it is printed “grandi modulo,
chartis et literis pulchris et splendidis.” The Aldine edition, which was
published in parts from 1512 to 1523, is not accounted a very critical or
correct one, though the latter portion of it was printed under the care of
Naugerius. It would be endless to enumerate the subsequent editions of
Cicero. That of Petrus Victorius, however, whom Harles calls _Ciceronis
Æsculapius_, printed at Venice in 1534–37, in four volumes folio, should
not be forgotten, as there is no commentator to whom Cicero has been more
indebted than to Victorius, particularly in the correction and emendation
of the Epistles. The edition of Lambinus, Paris, 1566, also deserves
notice. Lambinus was an acute and daring commentator, who made many
corrections on the text, but adopted some alterations too rashly. From his
time downwards, Harles thinks that the editors of Cicero may be divided
into two classes; some following the bold changes introduced by Lambinus,
and others preferring the more scrupulous text of Victorius. Of the latter
class was Gruterus, who, in his edition published at Hamburgh, 1618,
appears to have obstinately rejected even the most obvious emendations
which had been recently made on the text of his author. The three editions
of Ernesti’s Cicero, (Lips. 1737, Hal. Sax. 1758–74,) and the three of
Olivet’s, (Paris, 1740, Geneva, 1758, Oxon. 1783,) are too well known to
be particularized or described. Olivet did not collate MSS.; but he
compared with each other what he considered as the four most important
editions of Cicero; those of P. Victorius, Paullus Manutius, Lambinus, and
Gruterus. In 1795, the first volume of a new edition of Cicero, by Beck,
was printed at Leipsic, and since that period, three more volumes, at long
intervals, have fallen from the press. The last volume which appeared, was
in 1807; and along with the three by which it was preceded, comprehends
the Orations of Cicero. The preface contains a very full account of
preceding editions, and the most authoritative MSS. of Cicero. Ernesti’s
editions were adopted as the basis of the text; but the editor departs
from them where he sees occasion. He does not propose many new emendations
of his own; but he seems a very acute judge of the merit of various
readings, and a judicious selector from the corrections of others. While
this edition of Beck was proceeding in Germany, Schütz brought forth
another, which is now completed, except part of the _Index Latinitatis_.
There are few notes subjoined to the text; but long summaries are prefixed
to each oration and work of Cicero; and the _Rhetorica ad Herennium_ is
introduced by an ample dissertation concerning the real author of that
treatise. A new arrangement of the _Epistolæ Familiares_ has also been
adopted. They are no longer printed, as in most other editions, in a
chronological series, but are classed according to the individuals to whom
they are addressed. The whole publication is dedicated to Great Britain
and the Allied Sovereigns, in a long columnar panegyric.
There have also been lately published in Germany, several learned and
critical editions of separate portions of the works of Cicero,
particularly his Philosophical Writings. The edition of all his
Philosophic Treatises, by Goerenz, which is now proceeding and already
comprehends the _Academica_, the dialogues _De Legibus_ and _De Finibus_,
is distinguished by intelligent Prefaces and Excursuses on the periods of
the composition of the respective Dialogues; as also on the design of the
author in their composition.
The translations of Cicero are so numerous, that for the Italian
translations I must refer the reader to Paitoni, _Biblioteca degli autori
antichi Greci e Latini Volgarizzati_, Tom. I. p. 219; and Argelati,
_Biblioteca degli Volgarizzatori_, Tom. I. p. 214. For French versions, to
Goujet, _Bibliotheque Françoise_, Tom. II. p. 221; and, for English, to
Brüggemann, _View of the Editions and Translations of the Ancient Greek
and Latin authors_, p. 481.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
For the benefit of those who wish to prosecute their inquiries into the
subject of Roman Literature, I have subjoined a note of some of the most
important Books which treat of the subject. An asterisk is prefixed to the
titles of those works which have been consulted by me in the compilation
of the preceding pages.
AIMERICHIUS.—_Specimen veteris Romanæ Literaturæ deperditæ vel adhuc
latentis, seu Syllabus Historicus et Criticus veterum olim notæ
eruditionis Romanorum, ab urbe conditâ ad Honorii Augusti excessum, eorum
imprimis quorum Latina opera vel omnino vel ex parte desiderantur_.
Ferrara, 1784. 8vo.
“This work is intended to give an idea of Roman literature, from the
foundation of the city to the death of the Emperor Honorius. The preface,
written by a friend of the author, gives an account of the manner in which
the Romans lived, both in the capital and in the provinces, during this
long period. The historical and literary Syllabus contains, under nine
articles, a variety of literary matters. In the first, the Abbé
Aimerichius gives us brief notices, and a critical review of the ancient
Roman writers, both Pagan and Christian, whose works were extant in public
or private libraries, before the death of the Emperor Honorius. In the
second, we have the titles and subjects of several works which have been
lost, but which have been cited or indicated by contemporary writers, or
writers nearly such, whose testimonies are related by our author. The
third contains an account of the most celebrated public or private
libraries, that were known at Rome before the death of Honorius: and, in
the fourth, we have the author’s inquiries concerning the pronunciation of
the Romans, their manner of writing, and the changes which took place in
their orthography. In the fifth, the Abbé treats of the magistracies that
could not be obtained, either at Rome or in the provinces, but by men of
letters, as also of rites and sacrifices, of luxury, riches, public shows,
&c. In the sixth, he gives his particular opinion concerning the ancient
literature of the Romans, and the mixture of the Latin and Greek languages
which they employed, both in their conversation and in their writings. The
seventh contains an indication of the principal heresies that disturbed
the church, from the time of the Apostles to that of Honorius; and the
eighth several memorable facts and maxims, not generally known, which
belong to the literary, civil, military, and ecclesiastical history of
this period. In the concluding article, the Abbé takes notice of the Latin
works which had been lost for a considerable time, and shows how, and by
whom, they were first discovered.”—From this account, which I have
extracted from Horne’s _Introduction to the Study of Bibliography_, I
regret extremely that I have had no opportunity of consulting the work of
Aimerichius.
BLESSIG.—_De Origine Philosophiæ apud Romanos_. Strasburgh, 1770. 4to.
BECMANNUS.—_Manductio ad linguam Latinam cum Tractatu de Originibus Linguæ
Latinæ_. 1608. 8vo.
*CASAUBON.—_De Satyrica Græcorum Poësi et Romanorum Satira libri duo, in
quibus etiam Poëtæ recensentur, qui in utrâque poësi floruerunt_. Halæ,
1774. 8vo.
This treatise, which is one of the most learned and agreeable productions
of Casaubon, is the source of almost everything that has been written by
modern authors, on the subject of the satiric poetry of the Romans.
Casaubon traces its early history in the Fescennine verses, the Atellane
fables, and the satires of Ennius and Lucilius, and vindicates to the
Romans the invention of this species of composition, for which, he
contends, they had no model in the poetry of the Greeks.
CELLARIUS.—_Dissertatio de Studiis Romanorum Literariis_. Halle, 1698.
4to.
CORRADUS.—_Quæstura—Partes duæ, quarum altera de Ciceronis Vitâ et
Libris—Altera Ciceronis Libros permultis locis emendat._ Lips. 1754. 8vo.
*CRUSIUS.—_Lives of the Roman Poets_. London, 1733. 2 Vols.
*EBERHARDT.—_Uber den Zustand der Schönen Wissenschaften bei den Römern_.
Altona, 1801. 8vo.
This work was written by a Swede, and in the Swedish language. It
contains, in its original form, a very superficial and inaccurate sketch
of the subject; but some valuable notes and corrections accompany the
German translation.
*FABRICIUS.—_Bibliotheca Latina, digesta et aucta diligentiâ Jo. Aug.
Ernesti_. Lips. 1773. 3 Tom. 8vo.
The well-known and justly-esteemed _Bibliotheca_ of Fabricius gives an
account of all the Latin writers from Plautus to Marcian Capella. In most
of the articles we have a biographical sketch of the author—a list of his
writings—an account of the most authoritative MSS. of his works—of the
best editions, and of the most celebrated translations in the modern
languages of Europe.
FUHRMANN.—_Handbuch der Classischen Literatur, oder Anleitung zur Kentniss
der Griechischen und Römischen Classischen Schriftsteller, ihren
Schriften, und der besten Ausgaben, und Uebersetzungen derselben_.
Rudolstadt, 1809–10.
Two of the volumes of this work relate to Roman literature. It is chiefly
bibliographical, containing very full accounts of the editions and
translations of the Classics which have appeared, particularly in Germany;
but there are also some critical accounts of the works of the Roman
authors: these are chiefly extracted from Journals and Reviews, and, in
consequence, the author frequently repeats the same thing in different
words, and still more frequently contradicts himself.
*FUHRMANN.—_Anleitung zur Geschichte der Classischen Literatur der
Griechen und Römer_. Rudolstadt, 1816.
An abridgment of the preceding work.
*FUNCCIUS.—_De Origine et Pueritiâ, De Adolescentiâ, Virili Ætate, et
Senectute Linguæ Latinæ_. Frankfort, 1720.
This is one of the most learned and valuable works extant on the subject
of Latin literature. In the first tract, _De Pueritiâ_, the author chiefly
treats of the origin and progress of the Roman language.
*GAUDENTIUS PAGANINUS.—_De Philosophiæ ap. Romanos Ortu et Progressu_.
Pisa, 1643, 4.
A very dull and imperfect account of the state of philosophy among the
Romans, from the earliest periods to the time of Boethius.
*HANKIUS. (MART.)—_De Romanarum Rerum Scriptoribus_. Lips. 1687. 4to.
The first part of this work contains a succinct account of the ancient
Roman Annalists and Historians. The latter part relates to modern writers
who treated of Roman affairs.
*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Introductio in Notitiam Literaturæ Romanæ,
imprimis Scriptorum Latinorum_. Noriberg. 1781. 2 Tom. 8vo.
This work of Harles, as far as it extends, is written on the same plan,
and is much of the same description, as the _Bibliotheca_ of Fabricius. It
is not continued farther, however, than the Augustan age inclusive.
*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Brevior Notitia Literaturæ Romanæ, imprimis
Scriptorum Latinorum_. Lips. 1788. 1 Tom. 8vo.
*HARLES. (TH. CHRIST.)—_Supplementa ad Breviorem Notitiam Literaturæ
Romanæ_. Lips. 1788. 2 Tom. 8vo.
This work, and the preceding, are on the same plan as the _Introductio_;
but bring down the history of Roman writers, and the editions of their
works, to the latest periods. It is much to be regretted, that these works
of Harles had not been incorporated into one; since, taken separately,
each is incomplete, and collectively, they abound in repetitions.
*KLÜGLING. (C. F.)—_Supplementa ad Breviorem Notitiam Literaturæ Romanæ_.
Lips. 1817.
This Supplement to Harles, contains an account of the editions of the
Classics which had appeared chiefly in Germany, subsequent to the
publication of the _Brevior Notitia_.
KÖNIG.—_De Satirâ Romanorum_. Oldenburgh, 1796.
KRIEGK.—_Diatribe de Veterum Romanorum Peregrinationibus Academicis_.
Jenæ, 1704. 4to.
LEO (ANNIBAL DI).—_Memorie di Pacuvio_. Neapol. 1763.
MEIEROTTO.—_De Præcipuis rerum Romanarum Scriptoribus_. Berlin, 1792.
folio.
*MÜLLER.—_Einleitung zu nöthiger Kentniss und Gebrauche der alten
Lateinischen Schriftsteller_. Dresden, 1747. 5 Tom. 8vo.
*MOINE D’ORGEVAL.—_Considerations sur le Progrés des Belles Lettres chez
les Romains_. Paris, 1749.
*OSANNUS.—_Analecta Critica, Poësis Romanorum scænicæ reliquias
illustrantia_. Berlin, 1717.
This is a work of considerable ingenuity and research. It contains some
discussion concerning the date at which regular comedies and tragedies
were first exhibited at Rome; but it is chiefly occupied with comparisons
between the Fragments of the ancient Latin Dramatists, and the
corresponding passages in the Greek originals.
*SAGITTARIUS (CASP.)—_Commentatio de Vitâ et Scriptis Liv. Andronici,
Nævii, Ennii, Cæcilii, Pacuvii, Attii, Attilii, Lucilii, Afranii,
Catonis_. Altenburg, 1672.
This is a small volume of 110 pages, which has now become extremely
scarce.
SAGITTARIUS (CASP.)—_De Vitâ, scriptis, editionibus, interpretibus,
lectione, atque imitatione Plauti, Terentii, Ciceronis_. Altenburg, 1671.
*SCHOELL.—_Histoire Abregée de la Litterature Romaine_. Paris, 1815. 4
Tom. 8vo.
See above. Preface, p. xiii.
*TIRABOSCHI.—_Storia della Litteratura Italiana_. Modena, 1787. Tom. I.
and II.
See above. Preface, p. xiii.
*VOSSIUS (GERARD).—_De Historicis Latinis Libri tres_. Lugd. Bat. 1651.
*WALCHIUS.—_Historia Critica Latinæ Linguæ_. Lips. 1761.
*ZIEGLER.—_De Mimis Romanorum_. Gotting. 1789.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
+--------------+--------+--------+
| | Born. | Dies. |
| | A.U.C. | A.U.C. |
|L. Andronicus | | 534 |
|Nævius | | 550 |
|Ennius | 515 | 585 |
|Plautus | 525 | 570 |
|Cæcilius | | 586 |
|Terence | 560 | 594 |
|Pacuvius | 534 | 624 |
|Attius | 584 | 664 |
|Lucilius | 605 | 659? |
|Lucretius | 658 | 702 |
|Catullus | 667 | 708? |
|Laberius | | 710 |
|Cato | 519 | 605 |
|Varro | 637 | 727 |
|Sallust | 668 | 718 |
|Cæsar | 656 | 709 |
|Hortensius | 640 | 703 |
|Cicero | 647 | 710 |
+--------------+--------+--------+
INDEX
Afranius, his Comedies, vol. i. p. 170.
Agriculture, advantages of Italy for, ii. 6–11.
Antias, Q. Valerius, Latin Annalist, ii. 74.
Antipater, Cælius, Latin Annalist, ii. 72.
Antonius, Marcus, character of his eloquence, ii. 117.
His death, 119.
Arcesilaus founds the New Academy, ii. 208.
Asellio, Sempronius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.
Atellane Fables, i. 229.
Attius, his Tragedies, i. 214.
Brutus, his Historical Epitomes, ii. 107.
Cæcilius, his Comedies, i. 168.
Cæcina, his history, ii. 108.
Cæsar compared with Xenophon, ii. 94.
His Commentaries, 95–101.
His Ephemeris, whether the same work with his Commentaries,
101.
His Anticatones, 102.
His Analogia, 103.
Calvus, Licinius, his Epigrams, i. 322.
His orations, ii. 131.
Carmen Saliare, i. 43.
Carneades teaches the Greek philosophy at Rome, ii. 211.
Cato, the Censor, his work on Agriculture, ii. 12–16.
His Orations, 16.
His work De Originibus, 18.
On Medicine, 20–21.
Catullus, i. 271–320.
Cethegus, Marcus, an orator, ii. 110.
Cicero, his Orations, ii. 152.
Compared with Demosthenes, 192.
His works on Rhetoric, 193.
De Oratore, 195.
Brutus, 198.
The Orator, 199.
Topica, 200.
Rhetorica ad Herennium, inquiry concerning the author of, 202.
His philosophical works—De Legibus, 223.
De Finibus, 229.
Academica, 232.
Tusculanæ Disputationes, 236.
De Naturâ Deorum, 243.
De Officiis, 257.
De Senectute, 259.
De Republica, 263.
His Epistles, 278.
Columna Rostrata, inscription on the, i. 46.
Cotta, his style of oratory, ii. 122.
Crassus, Lucius, character of his eloquence, ii. 120.
His death, ibid.
Compared with Antony, 121.
Decemviral Laws, ii. 134.
Dialogue, remarks on this species of composition, ii. 194.
Eloquence, Roman, commencement of, ii. 109.
Ennius, his tragedies, i. 67.
Annals, 78.
Translation of Euhemerus, 94.
Etruscans, their origin, i. 20.
Their conquests, 26.
Religion, 29.
Arts, 35.
Eugubian Tables, i. 47.
Fabius Pictor, Latin Annalist, ii. 67–71.
Fratres Arvales, hymn of the, i. 43.
Galba, Sergius, an orator, ii. 110.
Gracchi, oratory of the, ii. 113.
Hirtius, his continuation of Cæsar’s Commentaries, ii. 105.
History, Roman, uncertainty of, ii. 57–67.
Hortensius, his luxury and magnificence, ii. 124.
His villas at Tusculum, Bauli, and Laurentum, 124, 125.
Character of his eloquence, 127.
His descendants, 130, Note.
Jurisconsults, Roman, account of, ii. 138.
Laberius, i. 328.
Lælius, his oratory compared with that of Scipio, ii. 111.
Latin Language, its origin, i. 32.
Its changes, 48.
Laws, Roman, ii. 133–138.
Leges Regiæ, ii. 133.
Livius Andronicus, i. 54–58.
Lucceius, his History of the Social War, ii. 107.
Lucilius, i. 238–248.
Lucretius, i. 250–271.
Lucullus, his patronage of learning, ii. 51.
Luscius Lavinius, i. 171.
Magna Græcia, its settlements, i. 50.
Mimes, their origin and subjects, i. 324.
Nævius, i. 58–62.
Pacuvius, i. 209.
Plautus, i. 96–168.
Philosophy, Greek, introduction of, at Rome, ii. 209.
Plebiscita, account of the, ii. 136.
Prætor, account of the office of, ii. 141.
Publius Syrus, i. 332.
Quadrigarius, Claudius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.
Sallust, his character, ii. 82.
His Gardens, ibid.
His conspiracy of Catiline, and Jugurthine war, 84–88.
His Roman History, 92.
Satire, Roman, origin of, i. 232.
Senatusconsultum, what, ii. 137.
Sisenna, Roman Annalist, ii. 75.
Sulpicius, his worthless character, ii. 121.
His style of oratory, 122.
Sylla, his library, ii. 50.
His Memoirs of his Life, 77.
His character, 78.
Terence, i. 175–206.
Compared with Plautus, 206.
Theatre, Roman, its construction, i. 337–353.
Tyrannio, his library, ii. 52.
Trabea, i. 173.
Varro, his farms and villas, ii. 25.
His work on Agriculture, 28–34.
De Lingua Latina, 34.
Other works of Varro, 40.
FINIS.
JAMES KAY, JUN. PRINTER.
FOOTNOTES
_ 1 Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis_, T. II. c. 20.
_ 2 Antiquitat. Rom._ Lib. I.
_ 3 Geograph._ Lib. VI.
_ 4 Hist. Nat._ Lib. XVIII. c. 11.; XXXVII. c. 12.
5 Virgil, _Georg._ Lib. II.
6 Plutarch, _in Numa_.
7 Livy, _Epitome_, Lib. XVIII. Valer. Maxim. Lib. IV. c. 4. § 6.
8 Cicero, _De Senectute_, c. 16.
9 Rapin, _Hortorum_, Lib. IV.
10 Bonstetten, _Voyage dans le Latium_, p. 274.
11 J. C. L. Sismondi, _Tableau de l’Agriculture Toscane_, and
Chasteauvieux, _Lettres Ecrites d’Italie_. Paris, 1816. 2 Tom.
12 Plutarch, _in Cato._
13 Plutarch, _in Cato._
14 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XIV. c. 4; Lib. XVI. c. 39.
15 Plutarch, _in Cato._
16 Ibid.
_ 17 In Cato._
18 C. 160.
19 Cicero, _Brutus_, c. 17.
20 Vegetius, Lib. I. c. 8.
21 Plutarch, _in Cato._
22 Valerius Maximus, Lib. VIII. c. 7. Valerius says, he was in his 86th
year; but Cato did not survive beyond his 85th. Cicero, _in Bruto_,
c. 20. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XIX. c. 1.
23 Livy, Lib. XXXIX. c. 40.
24 Lib. XXXIV. c. 2.
_ 25 Noct. Attic._ Lib. VII. c. 3.
_ 26 Brutus_, c. 17.
27 Lib. XXXIX. c. 40.
_ 28 Noct. Attic._ Lib. X. c. 3.
_ 29 Hist. Nat._ Lib. VIII. c. 5.
_ 30 Brutus_, c. 17.
_ 31 Brutus_, c. 87.
32 Quintil. _Inst. Orat._ Lib. III. c. 1.
33 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXV. c. 2.
34 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXV. c. 2.
35 Livy, Lib. IV. c. 25.
36 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXIX. c. 1.
37 Plutarch, _in Cato._
38 Plin. _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XX. c. 9.
39 Ibid. Lib. XXIX. c. 1.
40 Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ Lib. XXIX. c. 1.
_ 41 Stor. del. Let. Ital._ Part. III. Lib. III. c. 5. § 5.
42 See Spon, _Recherches Curieuses d’Antiquité_. Diss. 27. Bayle,
_Dict. Hist._ art. Porcius, Rem. H.
In what degree of estimation medicine was held at Rome, and by what
class of people it was practised, were among the _quæstiones vexatæ_
of classical literature in our own country in the beginning and
middle of last century. Dr Mead, in his _Oratio Herveiana_, and
Spon, in his _Recherches d’Antiquité_, followed out an idea first
suggested by Casaubon, in his animadversions on Suetonius, that
physicians in Rome were held in high estimation, and were frequently
free citizens; that it was the surgeons who were the _servile
pecus_; and that the erroneous idea of physicians being slaves,
arose from confounding the two orders. These authors chiefly rested
their argument on classical passages, from which it appears that
physicians were called the friends of Cicero, Cæsar, and Pompey.
Middleton, in a well known Latin dissertation, maintains that there
was no distinction at Rome between the physician, surgeon, and
apothecary, and that, till the time of Julius Cæsar at least, the
art of medicine was exercised only by foreigners and slaves, or by
freedmen, who, having obtained liberty for their proficiency in its
various branches, opened a shop for its practice.—_De Medicorum apud
veteres Romanos degentium Conditione Dissertatio_. _Miscellaneous
Works_, Vol. IV. See on this topic, _Schlæger, Histor. litis, De
Medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentium Conditione. Helmst._ 1740.
_ 43 Noct. Attic._ Lib. VII. c. 10.
_ 44 De Officiis_, Lib. I. c. 29. Multa sunt multorum facete dicta: ut
ea, quæ a sene Catone collecta sunt, quæ vocant apophthegmata.
_ 45 Sat._ Lib. I. 2.
46 For Cato’s family, see Aulus Gellius, _Noct. Attic._ Lib. XIII. c.
19.
47 We have many minute descriptions of the villas of luxurious Romans,
from the time of Hortensius to Pliny, but there are so few accounts
of those in the simpler age of Scipio, that I have subjoined the
description of Seneca, who saw this mansion precisely in the same
state it was when possessed and inhabited by the illustrious
conqueror of Hannibal. “Vidi villam structam lapide quadrato, murum
circumdatum sylvæ, turres quoque in propugnaculum villæ utrimque
subrectas. Cisternam ædificiis et viridibus subditam, quæ sufficere
in usum exercitûs posset. Balneolum angustum, tenebricosum ex
consuetudine antiquâ. Magna ergo me voluptas subit contemplantem
mores Scipionis et nostros. In hoc angulo, ille Carthaginis horror,
cui Roma debet quod tantum semel capta est, abluebat corpus
laboribus rusticis fessum; exercebat enim operâ se, terramque, ut
mos fuit priscis, ipse subigebat. Sub hoc ille tecto tam sordido
stetit—hoc illum pavimentum tam vile sustinuit.” Senec. _Epist._ 86.
48 Lib. II.
_ 49 Trionfo della Fama_, c. 3.
50 Varro, _De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. II. proœm.
51 Cæsar, _Comment. de Bello Civili_, Lib. II. c. 17, &c.
52 Suetonius, _in Jul. Cæs._ c. 44.
_ 53 Epist. Fam._ Lib. IX. Ep. 6. Ed. Schütz.
_ 54 De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. II.
55 Cicero, _Philip._ II. c. 40.
56 See Castell’s _Villas of the Ancients_.
_ 57 De Re Rusticâ_, Lib. III. c. 5.
_ 58 Classical Tour in Italy_.
59 Appian, _De Bello Civili_, Lib. IV. 47.