History of Roman Literature from its Earliest Period to the Augustan Volume II Part 16

PLAUTUS.

There can be no doubt that even the oldest MSS. of Plautus were early corrupted by transcribers, and varied essentially from each other. Varro, in his book _De a.n.a.logia_, ascribes some phrase of which he did not approve, in the _Truculentus_, to the negligence of copyists. The Latin comedies, written in the age of Plautus, were designed to be represented on the stage, and not to be read at home. It is therefore, probable, that, during the reign of the Republic at least, there were few copies of Plautus's plays, except those delivered to the actors. The dramas were generally purchased by the aediles, for the purpose of amusing the people during the celebration of certain festivals. As soon as the poet's agreement was concluded with the aedile, he lost his right of property in the play, and frequently all concern in its success. It seems probable, therefore, that even during the life of the author, these magistrates, or censors employed by them, altered the verses at their own discretion, or sent the comedy for alteration to the author: But there is no doubt that, after his death, the actors changed and modelled the piece according to their own fancy, or the prevailing taste of the public, just as Cibber and Garrick wrought on the plays of Shakspeare. Hence new prologues, adapted to circ.u.mstances, were prefixed-whole verses were suppressed, and lines properly belonging to one play, were often transferred to another. This corruption of MSS. is sufficiently evinced by the circ.u.mstance, that the most ancient grammarians frequently cite verses as from a play of Plautus, which can now no longer be found in the drama quoted. Thus, a line cited by Festus and Servius, from the _Miles_, does not appear in any MSS. or ancient edition of that comedy, though, in the more recent impressions, it has been inserted in what was judged to be its proper place(574), Farther-Plautus, and indeed the old Latin writers in general, were much corrupted by transcribers in the middle ages, who were not fully acquainted with the variations which had taken place in the language, and to whom the Latin of the age of Constantine was more familiar than that of the Scipios. They were often puzzled and confused by finding a letter, as c, for example, introduced into a word which they had been accustomed to spell with a g, and they not unfrequently were totally ignorant of the import or signification of ancient words. In a fragment of Turpilius, a character in one of the comedies says, "Qui mea verba venatur pestis arcedat;" now, the transcriber being ignorant of the verb _arcedat_, wrote _ars cedat_, which converts the pa.s.sage into nonsense(575).

The comedies of Plautus are frequently cited by writers of the fourteenth century, particularly by Petrarch, who mentions the amus.e.m.e.nt which he had derived from the _Casina_(576). Previous, however, to the time of Poggio, only eight of them were known, and we consequently find that the old MSS.

of the fourteenth century just contain eight comedies(577). By means, however, of Nicolas of Treves, whom Poggio had employed to search the monasteries of Germany, twelve more were discovered. The plays thus brought to light were the _Bacchides_, _Menaechmi_, _Mostellaria_, _Miles Gloriosus_, _Mercator_, _Pseudolus_, _Pnulus_, _Persa_, _Rudens_, _Stichus_, _Trinummus_, _Truculentus_. As soon as Poggio heard of this valuable and important discovery, he urged the Cardinal Ursini to despatch a special messenger, in order to convey the treasure in safety to Rome.

His instances, however, were not attended to, and the MSS. of the comedies did not arrive till two years afterwards, in the year 1428, under the charge of Nicolas of Treves himself(578). They were seized by the Cardinal immediately after they had been brought to Italy. This proceeding Poggio highly resented; and having in vain solicited their restoration, he accused Ursini of attempting to make it be believed that Plautus had been recovered by his exertions, and at his own expense(579). At length, by the intervention of Lorenzo, the brother of Cosmo de Medici, the Cardinal was persuaded to intrust the precious volume to Niccolo Niccoli, who got it carefully transcribed. Niccolo, however, detained it at Florence long after the copy from it had been made; and we find his friend Ambrosio of Camaldoli using the most earnest entreaties on the part of the Cardinal for its rest.i.tution.-"Cardinalis Ursinus Plautum suum recipere cupit. Non video quam ob causam, Plautum illi rest.i.tuere non debeas, quem olim transcripsisti. Oro, ut amicissimo homini geratur mos(580)." The original MS. was at length restored to the Cardinal, after whose death it fell into the possession of Lorenzo de Medici, and thus came to form a part of the Medicean library. The copy taken by Niccolo Niccoli was transferred, on his decease, along with his other books, to the convent of St Mark.

From a transcript of this copy, which contained the twelve newly-recovered plays, and from MSS. of the other eight comedies, which were more common and current, Georgius Merula, the disciple of Filelfo, and one of the greatest Latin scholars of the age, formed the first edition of the plays of Plautus, which was printed by J. de Colonia and Vindelin de Spira, at Venice, 1472, folio, and reprinted in 1482 at Trevisa. It would appear that Merula had not enjoyed direct access to the original MS. brought from Germany, or to the copy deposited in the Marcian library; for he says, in his dedication to the Bishop of Pavia, "that there was but one MS. of Plautus, from which, as an archetype, all the copies which could be procured were derived; and if, by any means," he continues, "I could have laid my hands on it, the _Bacchides_, _Mostellaria_, _Menaechmi_, _Miles_, and _Mercator_, might have been rendered more correct; for the copies of these comedies, taken from the original MS., had been much corrupted in successive transcriptions; but the copies I have procured of the last seven comedies have not been so much tampered with by the critics, and therefore will be found more accurate." Merula then compares his toil, in amending the corrupt text, to the labours of Hercules. His edition has usually been accounted the _editio princeps_ of Plautus; but I think it is clear, that at least eight of the comedies had been printed previously: Harles informs us, that Morelli, in one of his letters, had thus written to him:-"There is an edition of Plautus which I think equally ancient with the Venetian one of 1472; it is _sine ulla nota_, and has neither numerals, signatures, nor catch-words. It contains the following plays: _Amphitryo_, _Asinaria_, _Aulularia_, _Captivi_, _Curculio_, _Casina_, _Cistellaria_, _Epidicus_(581)." Now, it will be remarked, that these were the eight comedies current in Italy before the important discovery of the remaining twelve, made by Nicholas of Treves, in Germany; and the presumption is, that they were printed previous to the date of the edition of Merula, because by that time the newly-recovered comedies having got into circulation, it is not likely that any editor would have given to the world an imperfect edition of only eight comedies, when the whole dramas were accessible, and had excited so much interest in the mind of the public.

Eusebius Scutarius, a scholar of Merula, took charge of an edition, which was amended from that of his master, and was printed in 1490, Milan, folio, and reprinted at Venice 1495.

In 1499, an edition was brought out at Venice, by the united labour of Petrus Valla, and Bernard Saracenus. To these, succeeded the edition of Jo. Bapt. Pius, at Milan, 1500, with a preface by Phillip Beroald. Taubman says, that "omnes editiones mangonum ma.n.u.s esse pa.s.sas ex quo Saracenus et Pius regnum et tyrannidem in literis habuere." In the Strasburg impression, 1508, the text of Scutari has been followed, and about the same time there were several reprints of the editions of Valla and Pius.

The edition of Charpentier, in 1513, was prepared from a collation of different editions, as the editor had no MSS.; but the editions of Pius and Saracenus were chiefly employed. Charpentier has prefixed arguments, and has divided the lines better than any of his predecessors; and he has also arranged the scenes, particularly those of the _Mostellaria_, to greater advantage.

Few Latin cla.s.sics have been more corrupted than Plautus, by those who wished to amend his text. In all the editions which had hitherto appeared, the perversions were chiefly occasioned by the anxiety of the editors to bend his lines to the supposed laws of metre. Nic. Angelius, who superintended an edition printed by the Giunta at Florence, 1514, was the first who observed that the corruptions had arisen from a desire "ad implendos pedum numeros." He accordingly threw out, in his edition, all the words which had been unauthorizedly inserted to fill up the verses.

From some MSS. which had not hitherto been consulted, he added several prologues to the plays; and also the commencement of the first act of the _Bacchides_, which Lascaris, in one of his letters to Cardinal Bembo, says he had himself found at Messina, in Sicily. These, however, though they have been inserted into all subsequent editions of Plautus, are evidently written by a more modern hand than that of Plautus. Two editions were superintended and printed by the Manutii, 1516 and 1522; that in 1522, though prepared by F. Asula.n.u.s, from a MS. corrected in the hand of the elder Aldus and Erasmus, is not highly valued(582). Two editions, by R.

Stephens, 1529 and 1530, were formed on the edition of the Giunta, with the correction of a few errors. These were followed by many editions in Italy, France, and Germany, some of which were merely reimpressions, but others were accompanied with new and learned commentaries.

To no one, however, has Plautus been so much indebted as to Camerarius, whose zeal and diligence were such, that there was scarcely a verse of Plautus which did not receive from him some emendation. In 1535, there had appeared at Magdeburg six comedies (_Aulularia_, _Captivi_, _Miles Gloriosus_, _Menaechmi_, _Mostellaria_, _Trinummus_,) which he had revised and commented on, but which were published from his MS. without his knowledge or authority. The privilege of the first complete edition printed under his own direction, is dated in 1538.

The text and annotations of Camerarius now served as the basis for most of the subsequent editions. The Plantin editions, of which Sambucus was the editor, and which were printed at Antwerp 1566, and Basil 1568, contain the notes and corrections of Camerarius, with about 300 verses more than any preceding impression.

Lambinus, in preparing the Paris edition, 1577, collated a number of MSS.

and ama.s.sed many pa.s.sages from the ancient grammarians. He only lived, however, to complete thirteen of the comedies; but his colleague, Helias, put the finishing hand to the work, and added an index, after which it came forth with a prefatory dedication by Lambinus's son. On this edition, (in which great critical learning and sagacity, especially in the discovery of _double entendres_, were exhibited,) the subsequent impressions, Leyden, 1581(583), Geneva, 1581, and Paris 1587, were chiefly formed.

Lambinus, in preparing his edition, had chiefly trusted to his own ingenuity and learning. Taubman, the next editor of Plautus of any note, compiled the commentaries of others. The text of Camerarius was princ.i.p.ally employed by him, but he collated it with two MSS. in the Palatine library, which had once belonged to Camerarius; and he received the valuable a.s.sistance of Gruterus, who was at that time keeper of the library at Heidelberg. Newly-discovered fragments-the various opinions of ancient and modern writers concerning Plautus-a copious _index verborum_-a preface-a dedication to the triumvirs of literature of the day, Joseph Scaliger, Justus Lipsius, and Casaubon-in short, every species of literary apparatus accompanied the edition of Taubman, which first appeared at Frankfort in 1605. It was very inaccurately printed, however; so incorrectly indeed, that the editor, in a letter addressed to Jungerman, in September 1606, acknowledges that he was ashamed of it. Philip Pareus, who had long been pursuing similar studies with those of Taubman, embraced the opportunity, afforded by the inaccuracy of this edition, of publishing in Frankfort, in 1610, a Plautus, which was professedly the rival of that which had been produced by the united efforts of Taubman and Gruterus, and which had not only disappointed the expectations of the public, but of the learned editors themselves. Their feelings on this subject, and the _opposition Plautus_ edited by Pareus, stimulated Taubman to give an amended edition of his former one. This second impression, which is much more accurate than the first, was printed at Wittenberg in 1612, and was accompanied with the dissertation of Camerarius _De Fabulis Plautonicis_, and that of Jul. Scaliger, _De Versibus Comicis_. Taubman died the year after the appearance of this edition: Its fame, however, survived him, and not only retrieved his character, which had been somewhat sullied by the bad ink and dirty paper of the former edition, but completely eclipsed the cla.s.sical reputation of Pareus. Envious of the renown of his rivals, that scholar obtained an opportunity of inspecting the MSS. which had been collated by Taubman and Gruterus. These he now compared more minutely than his predecessors had done, and published the fruits of his labour at Neustadt, in 1617. This was considered as derogating from the accuracy and critical ingenuity of Gruterus, and insulting to the manes of Taubman.-"Hinc jurgium, tumultus Grutero et Pareo." Gruterus attacked Pareus in a little tract, ent.i.tled _Asini c.u.mani fraterculus e Plauto electis electus per Eustathium Schwarzium puerum_, 1619, and was answered by Pareus not less bitterly, in his _Provocatio ad Senatum Critic.u.m adversus personatos Pareomastigos_. From this time Pareus and Gruterus continued to print successive editions of Plautus, in emulation and odium of each other. Gruterus printed one at Wittenberg in 1621, with a prefatory invective against Pareus, and with the _Euphemiae amicorum in Plautum Gruteri_. Pareus then attempted to surpa.s.s his rival, by comprehending in his edition a collection of literary miscellanies-as Bullengerus' description of Greek and Roman theatres. At length Pareus got the better of his obstinate opponent, in the only way in which that was possible-by surviving him; he then enjoyed an opportunity of publishing, unmolested, his last edition of Plautus, printed at Frankfort, 1641, containing a Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Plautus; the Eulogies p.r.o.nounced on him; Remarks on his Versification; a diatribe _de jocis et salibus Plautinis_; an exhibition of his Imitations from the Greek Poets; and, finally, the _Euphemiae_ of Learned Friends. Being now relieved of all apprehensions from the animadversions of Gruterus, he boldly termed his edition "Absolutissimam, perfectissimam, omnibusque virtutibus suis ornatissimam."

I have now brought the history of this notable controversy to a conclusion. During its subsistence, various other editions of Plautus had been published-that of Isaac Ponta.n.u.s, Amsterdam, 1620, from a MS. in his own possession-that of Nic. Heinsius, Leyden, 1635, and that of Buxhornius, 1645, who had the advantage of consulting a copy of Plautus, enriched with MS. notes, in the handwriting of Joseph Scaliger.

Gronovius at length published the edition usually called the _Variorum_.

Bentley, in his critical emendations on Menander, speaks with great contempt of the notes which Gronovius had compiled. The first Variorum edition was printed at Leyden in 1664, the second in 1669, and the third, which is accounted the best, at Amsterdam, 1684.

The Delphin edition was nearly coeval with these Variorum editions, having been printed at Paris, 1679. It was edited under care of Jacques l'uvre or Operarius, but is not accounted one of the best of the cla.s.s to which it belongs. The text was princ.i.p.ally formed on the last edition of Gruterus, and the notes of Taubman were chiefly employed. The _Prolegomena_ on the Life and Writings of Plautus, is derived from various sources, and is very copious. None of the old commentators could publish an edition of Plautus, without indulging in a dissertation _De Obscnis_.

In every Delphin edition of the cla.s.sics we are informed, that _consultum est pudori Serenissimi Delphini_; but this has been managed in various ways. Sometimes the offensive lines are allowed to remain, but the _interpretatio_ is omitted, and in its place star lights are hung out alongside of the pa.s.sage: but in the Delphin Plautus they are concentrated in one focus, "_in gratiam_," as it is expressed, "_provectioris aetatis_,"

at the end of the volume, under the imposing t.i.tle "PLAUTI OBSCNA:"

"And there we have them all at one full swoop; Instead of being scattered through the pages, They stand forth marshalled in a handsome troop, To meet the ingenuous youth of future ages.

Till some less rigid editor shall stoop To call them back into their separate cages; Instead of standing staring all together, Like garden G.o.ds, and not so decent either(584)."

What is termed the Ernesti edition of Plautus, and which is commonly accounted the best of that poet, was printed at Leipsic, 1760. It was chiefly prepared by Aug. Otho, but Ernesti wrote the preface, containing a full account of the previous editions of Plautus.

The two editions by the Vulpii were printed at Padua, 1725 and 1764.

The text of the second Bipontine edition, 1788, was corrected by Brunck.

The plan of the Bipontine editions of the Latin cla.s.sics is well known.

There are scarcely any annotations or commentary subjoined; but the text is carefully corrected, and an account of previous editions is prefixed.

In the late edition by Schmieder (Gottingen, 1804), the text of Gronovius has been princ.i.p.ally followed; but the editor has also added some conjectural emendations of his own. The commentary appears to have been got up in considerable haste. The preliminary notices concerning the Life and Writings of Plautus, and the previous editions of his works, are very brief and unsatisfactory. There is yet a more recent German edition by Bothe, which has been published in volumes from time to time at Berlin.

Two MSS. never before consulted, and which the editor believes to be of the eleventh or twelfth century, were collated by him. His princ.i.p.al aim in this new edition is to restore the lines of Plautus to their proper metrical arrangement.

With a similar view of restoring the proper measure to the verses, various editions of single plays of Plautus have, within these few years, been printed in Germany. Of this sort is the edition of the _Trinummus_, by Hermann (Leipsic, 1800), and of the _Miles_ (Weimar, 1804), by Danz, who has made some very bold alterations on the text of his author.

_Italy_ having been the country in which learning first revived,-in which the MSS. of the Cla.s.sics were first discovered, and the first editions of them printed,-it was naturally to be expected, that, of all the modern tongues of Europe, the cla.s.sics should have been earliest translated into the Italian language. Accordingly we find, that the most celebrated and popular of them appeared in the _Lingua Volgare_, previous to the year 1500(585).

With regard to Plautus, Maffei mentions, as the first translation of the _Amphitryon_, a work in _ottava rima_, printed without a date. This work was long believed to be a production of Boccaccio(586), but it was in fact written by Ghigo Brunelleschi, an author of equal or superior antiquity, and whose initials were mistaken for those of Giovanni Boccaccio. Though spoken of by Maffei as a dramatic version, it is in fact a tale or novel founded on the comedy of Plautus, and was called _Geta e Birria_(587).

Pandolfo Collenuccio was the first who translated the _Amphitryon_ in its proper dramatic form, and _terza rima_. He was in the service of Hercules, first Duke of Ferrara, who made this version be represented, in January, 1487, in the splendid theatre which he had recently built, and on occasion of the nuptials of his daughter Lucretia. The _Menechmi_, partly translated in _ottava_ and partly in _terza rima_, was the first piece ever acted on that theatre. The Este family were great promoters of these versions; which, though not printed till the sixteenth century, were for the most part made and represented before the close of the fifteenth. The dramatic taste of Duke Hercules descended to his son Alphonso, by whose command Celio Calcagnino translated the _Miles Gloriosus_. Paitoni enumerates four different translations of the _Asinaria_, in the course of the sixteenth century, one of which was acted in the monastery of St Stephen's, at Venice.

There were also a few versions of particular plays in the course of the _eighteenth_ century; but Paitoni, whose work was printed in 1767, mentions no complete Italian translation of Plautus, nor any version whatever of the _Truculentus_, or _Trinummus_. The first version of all the comedies was that of Nic. Eug. Argelio, which was accompanied by the Latin text, and was printed at Naples, 1783, in 10 volumes 8vo.

The subject of translation was early attended to in _France_. In the year 1540, a work containing rules for it was published by Steph. Dolet, which was soon followed by similar productions; and, in the ensuing century, its principles became a great topic of controversy among critics and scholars.

Plautus, however, was not one of the cla.s.sics earliest rendered. Though Terence had been repeatedly translated while the language was almost in a state of barbarism, Plautus did not appear in a French garb, till clothed in it by the Abbe Marolles, at the solicitation of Furetiere, in 1658. The Abbe, being more anxious to write many than good books, completed his task in a few months, and wrote as the sheets were throwing off. His translation is dedicated to the King, Louis XIV., and is accompanied by the Latin text. We shall find, as we proceed, that almost all the Latin authors of this period were translated into French by the indefatigable Abbe de Marolles. He was unfortunately possessed of the opulence and leisure which Providence had denied to Plautus, Terence, and Catullus; and the leisure he enjoyed was chiefly devoted to translation. "Translation,"

says D'Israeli, "was the mania of the Abbe de Marolles; sometimes two or three cla.s.sical victims in a season were dragged into his slaughter-house.

The notion he entertained of his translations was their closeness; he was not aware of his own spiritless style and he imagined that poetry only consisted in the thoughts, and not in the grace and harmony of verse(588)."

De Coste's translation of the _Captivi_, in prose, 1716, has been already mentioned. This author was not in the same hurry as Marolles, for he kept his version ten years before he printed it. He has prefixed a Dissertation, in which he maintains, that Plautus, in this comedy, has rigidly observed the dramatic unities of time and place.

Mad. Dacier has translated the _Amphitryon_, _Rudens_, and _Epidicus_. Her version, which is accompanied by the Latin text, and is dedicated to Colbert, was first printed 1683. An examination of the defects and beauties of these comedies, particularly in respect of the dramatic unities, is prefixed, and remarks by no means deficient in learning are subjoined. Some changes from the printed Latin editions are made in the arrangement of the scenes. In her dissertation on the _Epidicus_, which was a favourite play of Plautus himself, Mad. Dacier attempts to justify this preference of the poet, and wishes indeed to persuade us, that it is a faultless production. Goujet remarks that one is not very forcibly struck with all the various beauties which she enumerates in perusing the original, and still less sensible of them in reading her translation.

M. de Limiers, who published a version of the whole plays of Plautus in 1719, has not rendered anew those which had been translated by Mad. Dacier and by De Coste, but has inserted their versions in his work. These are greatly better than the others, which are translated by Limiers himself.

All of them are in prose, except the _Stichus_ and _Trinummus_, which the author has turned into verse, in order to give a specimen of his poetic talents. In the versifications, he has placed himself under the needless restraint of rendering each Latin line by only one in French, so that there should not be a verse more in the translation than the original; the consequence of which is, that the whole is constrained and obscure.

Examinations and a.n.a.lyses of each piece, expositions of the plots, with notices of Plautus' imitations of the ancient writers, and those of the moderns after him, are inserted in this work.

In the same year in which Limiers published his version, Gueudeville brought out a translation of Plautus. It is a very free one; and Goujet says, it is "Plaute travesti, plutot que traduit." He attempts to make his original more burlesque by exaggerations; and by singular hyperbolical expressions; the _obscna_ are a good deal enhanced; and he has at the end formed a sort of table, or index, of the obscene pa.s.sages, referring to their proper page, which may thus be found without perusing any other part of the drama. The professed object of the table is, that the reader may pa.s.s them over if he choose.

A contemporary journal, comparing the two translations, observes,-"Il semble que M. Limiers s'attache davantage a son original, et qu'il en fait mieux sentir le veritable caractere; et que le Sieur Gueudeville est plus badin, plus vif, plus bouffon(589)." Fabricius pa.s.ses on them nearly the same judgment(590).

The _English_ were early acquainted with the plays of Plautus. It appears from Holinshed, that in the eleventh year of King Henry VIII.-that is, in 1520-a comedy of Plautus was played before the King(591). We are informed by Miss Aikin, in her _Memoirs of the Court of Elizabeth_, that when that Queen visited Cambridge in 1564, she went on a Sunday morning to King's Chapel, to hear a Latin sermon, _ad clerum_; "and in the evening, the body of this solemn edifice being converted into a temporary theatre, she was there gratified with a representation of the _Aulularia_ of Plautus(592)."

It has been mentioned in the text, that, in 1595, there appeared a translation of the _Menaechmi_ of Plautus, by W. W.-initials which have generally been supposed to stand for William Warner, author of _Albion's England_. In 1694, Echard published a prose translation of the three comedies which had been selected by Mad. Dacier-the _Amphitryon_, _Epidicus_, and _Rudens_. It is obvious, however, that he has more frequently translated from the French, than from his original author. His style, besides, is coa.r.s.e and inelegant; and, while he aims at being familiar, he is commonly low and vulgar. Some pa.s.sages of the _Amphitryon_ he has translated in the coa.r.s.est dialogue of the streets:-"By the mackins, I believe Phbus has been playing the good fellow, and's asleep too! I'll be hanged if he ben't in for't, and has took a little too much of the creature." In every page, also, we find the most incongruous jumble of ancient and of modern manners. He talks of the Lord Chief Justice of Athens, of bridewell, and aldermen; and makes his heathen characters swear British and Christian oaths, such as, "By the Lord Harry!-'Fore George!-'Tis as true as the Gospel!"

In the year 1746, Thomas Cooke, the well-known translator of Hesiod, published proposals for a complete translation of Plautus, but he printed only the _Amphitryon_. Dr Johnson has told, that Cooke lived twenty years on this translation of Plautus, for which he was always taking in subscriptions(593).

In imitation of Colman, who, in his Terence, had introduced a new and elegant mode of translation in familiar blank verse, Mr Thornton, in 1667, published a version of seven of the plays after the same manner,-_Amphitryon_, _Miles Gloriosus_, _Captivi_, _Trinummus_, _Mercator_, _Aulularia_, _Rudens_. Of these, the translation of the _Mercator_ was furnished by Colman, and that of the _Captivi_ by Mr Warner. Thornton intended to have translated the remaining thirteen, but was prevented by death. The work, however, was continued by Mr. Warner, who had translated the _Captivi_. To both versions, there were subjoined remarks, chiefly collected from the best commentators, and from the notes of the French translators of Plautus.

TERENCE.

The MSS. of Terence which were coeval with the age of the author, or shortly posterior to it, were corrupted from the same cause as the MSS. of Plautus. Varro says, that, in his time, the copies of Terence then existing were extremely corrupt. He is, however, one of the cla.s.sics whose works cannot properly be said to have been discovered at the revival of literature, as, in fact, his comedies never were lost. They were commented on, during the later ages of the empire, by aemilius Asper, Valerius Probus, Martius Salutaris, Flavius Caper, and Helenius Acro; and towards the end of the fifth century, Rufinus wrote a diatribe on the metres of Terence. Sulpicius Apollinaris, a grammarian of the second century, composed arguments to the plays, and aelius Donatus commented on them in the fourth century. The person styling himself Calliopius, revised and amended, in the eighth century, a MS. which was long preserved in the Vatican. Eugraphius commented on Terence, again, in the tenth, and Calpurnius in the middle of the fifteenth century. Guiniforte delivered lectures on Terence at Novarra in 1430, and Filelfo at Florence about the same period(594). Petrarch, too, when Leontius Pilatus, disgusted with Italy, returned to his native country, gave him a copy of Terence as his travelling companion,-a foolish present, as Petrarch adds, for there is no resemblance between the most gloomy of all the Greeks, and the most lively of the Africans. As Petrarch at this time seems to have cordially disliked Leontius, it is not probable that the copy of Terence he gave him was very scarce. All this shows, that the six plays of Terence were not merely extant, but very common in Italy, during the dark ages. One of the oldest MSS. of Terence, and that which was probably used in the earliest printed editions, was preserved in the Vatican library: Fabricius has described it as written by Hrodogarius in the time of Charlemagne, and as revised by Calliopius(595). Another MS. of Terence in the Vatican library, is one which, in the sixteenth century, had fallen into the possession of Cardinal Bembo. It had been revised by Politian(596), who wrote on it, in his own hand, that he had never seen one more ancient:-"Ego, Angelus Politia.n.u.s, h.o.m.o vetustatis minime incuriosus, nullum me vidisse, ad hanc diem, codicem vetustiorem fateor." Its age, when Fabricius wrote, in 1698, was, as that author testifies, more than a thousand years, which places its transcription at the latest in 698. In this MS. there is a division of verses which is not employed in that above mentioned, written by Hrodogarius. Politian corrected from it, with his own hand, a copy which was in the Laurentian library, and collated with it another, which subsequently belonged to Petrus Victorius. After the death of Cardinal Bembo, this ancient MS. came into the possession of Fulvius Ursinus, and was by him bequeathed to the Vatican library(597).

There is much uncertainty with regard to the _Editio Princeps_ of Terence, and, indeed, with regard to most of the editions of his works which appeared during the fifteenth century. That printed by Mentelin at Strasburg, without date, but supposed to be 1468, seems now to be considered as having the best claims to priority(598). The Terence printed by Pynson in 1497, was, I believe, the first Latin cla.s.sic published in this country. The earliest editions of Terence are without any separation of verses, the division of them having been first introduced in the edition of 1487, according to the arrangement made by Politian from Cardinal Bembo's copy. Westerhovius, in the _prolegomena_ to his edition, 1726, enumerates not fewer than 248 editions of Terence previous to his time. Though the presses of the Aldi (151721), the Stephenses (152952, &c.), and the Elzevirs (1635), were successively employed in these editions, the text of Terence does not seem to have engaged the attention of any of the most eminent scholars or critics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the exception of Muretus. The edition of Faernus, (Florence, 1565,) for which various valuable MSS. were collated, became the foundation of almost all subsequent impressions, particularly that of Westerhovius, which is usually accounted the best edition of Terence. It is nevertheless declared, by Mr Dibdin, "to be more admirable for elaborate care and research, than the exhibition of any critical niceties in the construction of the text, or the ill.u.s.tration of difficult pa.s.sages." It contains the Commentaries of Donatus, Calpurnius, and Eugraphius, and there are prefixed the Life of Terence, attributed to Suetonius,-a dissertation of D. Heinsius, _Ad Horatii de Plauto et Terentio judicium_,-Evanthius, _De Tragdia et Comdia_,-and a treatise, compiled by the editor from the best authorities, concerning the scenic representations of the Romans.