History of Roman Literature from its Earliest Period to the Augustan Volume II Part 18

The first edition of Wakefield's Lucretius was printed at London in 1796; the second at Glasgow, 1813, which is rendered more valuable than the first, by a running collation in the last volume of the readings of the _Editio Princeps_, printed at Brescia; that of Verona, 1486-Venice 1495-the Aldine edition, 1500-and the Bipontine, 1782, which places in a very striking point of view the superiority of the _Editio Princeps_ over those by which it was immediately succeeded. At the end of this edition, there are published some MS. notes and emendations, taken from Bentley's own copy of Faber's edition of Lucretius, in the library of the British Museum. They are not of much consequence, and though a few of them are doubtless improvements on Faber's text, yet, taken as a whole, they would injure the lines of the poet, should they be unfortunately adopted in subsequent editions.

Eichstadt, in his recent impression, published at Leipsic, has chiefly followed the text of Wakefield, but has occasionally deviated from it when he thought the innovations too bold. He had the advantage of consulting the _Editio Princeps_, which no modern editor enjoyed. He has prefixed Wakefield's prefaces, and a long dissertation of his own, on the Life and Poetical Writings of Lucretius, in which he scarcely does justice to the poetical genius of his author. The first volume, containing the text and a very copious verbal index, was printed at Leipsic in 1801. It is intended that the second volume should comprise the commentary, but it has not yet been published.

There is hardly any poet more difficult to translate happily than Lucretius. In the abstruse and jejune philosophical discussions which occupy so large a proportion of the poem, it is hardly possible, without a sacrifice of perspicuity, to retain the harmony of versification; and, in the ornamental pa.s.sages, the diction is so simple, pure, and melodious, that it is an enterprize of no small difficulty to translate with fidelity and elegance.

In consequence, perhaps, of the freedom of his philosophical, and a misrepresentation of his moral tenets, Lucretius was longer of being rendered into the _Italian_ language than almost any other cla.s.sic. It was near the end of the seventeenth century, before any version was executed, when a translation into _verso sciolto_, was undertaken by Marchetti, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy in the University of Pisa.

Marchetti has evidently translated from the edition of Lambinus-the best which had at that time appeared. His version, however, though completed in the seventeenth century, was not published till 1717, three years after his death, when it was printed, with the date of London, under the care of a person styling himself Antinoo Rullo, with a prefatory dedication to the great Prince Eugene, in which the editor terms it, "la piu grande, e la piu bella poetic' opera che nel pa.s.sato secolo nascesse ad accrescere un nuovo lume di gloria ad Italia." Public opinion, both in Italy and other countries, has confirmed that of the editor, and it is universally admitted, that the translator has succeeded in faithfully preserving the spirit and meaning of the Latin original, without forfeiting any of the beauties of the Italian language. It has been said, that such was the freedom and freshness of this performance, that unless previously informed as to the fact, no one could distinguish whether the Latin or Italian Lucretius was the original. Graziana, himself a celebrated poet, who had perused it in MS., thus justly characterizes its merits, in a letter addressed to the author:-"you have translated this poem with great felicity and ease; unfolding its sublime and scientific materials in a delicate style and elegant manner; and, what is still more to be admired, your diction seldom runs into a lengthened paraphrase, and never without the greatest judgment." The perusal of this admirable translation was forbidden by the inquisition, but the prohibition did not prevent a subsequent impression of it from being printed at Lausanne, in 1761. This edition, which is in two volumes, contains an Italian translation of Polignac's Anti-Lucretius, by F. Maria Ricci. The editor, Deregni, indeed declares that he would not have ventured to publish any translation of Lucretius, however excellent, unless accompanied by this powerful antidote. There are prefixed to this edition historical and critical notices; as also the preface, and the _Protesta del Traduttore_, which had been inserted in the first edition.

Most of the _French_ translations of Lucretius are in prose. Of all sorts of poetry, that called didactic, which consists in the detail of a regular system, or in rational precepts, which flow from each other in a connected train of thought, suffers least by being transfused into prose. Almost every didactic poet, however, enriches his work with such ornaments as spring out of his subject, though not strictly attached to it; but in no didactic poem are these pa.s.sages so numerous and so charming as in that of Lucretius; and, accordingly, in a prose translation, while all that is systematic or preceptive may be rendered with propriety, all that belongs to embellishment, and which forms the princ.i.p.al grace of the original, appears impertinent and misplaced. The earliest translation of Lucretius into the French language, was by Guillaume des Autels, about the middle of the sixteenth century. The Abbe Morolles, already mentioned as the translator of Plautus and Terence, turned Lucretius into French prose: Of this version there were two editions, the first of which was printed in 1650. It was addressed to Christina, Queen of Sweden; and, as the author had been very liberal to this princess in compliment, he hoped she would be equally liberal in reward; but he was much deceived, and of this disappointment he bitterly complains in his Memoirs. Of this translation, Goujet remarks, that one is constantly obliged to have recourse to the Latin text, in order to comprehend its meaning(613). It was a good deal amended, however, in the second edition, 1659, under circ.u.mstances of which the author introduces an account in the list of his works subjoined to his translation of Virgil. Ga.s.sendi, who had profoundly studied the system of Epicurus and Lucretius, having procured a copy of Marolles'

first edition, he sent a few days before his death for the author, and pointed out to him, with his own hand, those pa.s.sages in which he thought his translation defective, and also supplied him with a number of notes in ill.u.s.tration of the poet. The Abbe was thus provided with ample materials for the improvement of his work, and so pleased was he with his second edition, that he got a prohibition against reprinting the first introduced into the _Privilege_ of the second. He inserted in it a _Discours Apologetique_, defending the translating and reading of Lucretius, and prefixed a dedication to M. Lamoignon, President of the Parliament, whom he now subst.i.tuted for Queen Christina. Moliere having seen the first edition of Marolles' prose translation, was thereby induced to render Lucretius into French verse. His original intention was to have versified the whole poem, but he afterwards confined his rhymes to the more decorative parts, and delivered the rest in plain prose. As he proceeded with his version, he uniformly rehea.r.s.ed it both to Chapelle and Rohaut, who jointly testified their approbation of the performance. But it was destined to perish when brought very near its completion. A valet of the translator, who had charge of his dress-wig, being in want of paper to put it into curl, laid hold of a loose sheet of the version, which was immediately rent to pieces, and thrown into the fire as soon as it had performed its office. Moliere was one of the most irritable of the _genus irritabile vatum_, and the accident was too provoking to be endured. He resolved never to translate another line, and threw the whole remainder of his version into the flames, which had thus consumed a part of it(614).

This abortive attempt of Moliere incited the Abbe Marolles to render the whole of Lucretius into verse. He completed this task in less than four months, and published the fruits of his labour in 1677. Rapidity of execution, however, is the only merit of which he has to boast. His translation is harsh, flat, and inverted; and it is also very diffuse: The poem of Lucretius consists of 7389 lines, and the version of not less than 12338(615).

Lucretius was subsequently translated into prose by the Baron des Coutures. His version, printed at Paris 1685, is somewhat better in point of style than those of Marolles, but is not more faithful to the original, being extremely paraphrastic. A Life of Lucretius, drawn up from the materials furnished by Hubert, Gifanius, Lambinus, and other commentators, is prefixed, and to every book is appended a small body of notes, which shew that the author was better acquainted with his subject than Marolles.

Still, however, the poem of Lucretius was not much known in France during the seventeenth century, either in the original or translated form.

Chaulieu, one of the most elegant and polished poets of that age, was so little acquainted with the moral lessons which it inculcated, as to write the following lines:-

-- "Epicure et Lucrece M'ont appris que la Sagesse Veut qu'au sortir d'un repas, Ou des bras de sa maitresse, Content l'on aille la bas."

At length La Grange translated Lucretius in 1768, and Le Blanc de Guillet in 1788. Brunet speaks highly of the version of La Grange, which he seems to think is the best in the French language, and he says that of Le Blanc de Guillet is _peu recherche_. Mr Good, in mentioning the various translations of Lucretius, does not allude to the production of La Grange, but speaks highly of the version of Le Blanc de Guillet. He is sometimes, he admits, incorrect, and still more frequently obscure: "On the whole, however," he continues, "it is a work of great merit, and ranks second amid the translations of Lucretius, which have yet appeared in any nation:" Of course, it ranges immediately next to that of Marchetti. This version is accompanied with the Latin text in alternate pages. It is decorated with plates, ill.u.s.trated by notes, and introduced by a comprehensive preliminary discourse, which contains a biography of the original author, drawn up from Gifanius and Creech, and also some general observations on the Epicurean philosophy.

The first attempt to transfer the poem of Lucretius into the _English_ language, was made by Evelyn, the celebrated author of the _Sylva_. It was one of his earliest productions, having been printed in 1656. It was accompanied by an appendix of notes, which show considerable acquaintance with his subject, and there are prefixed to it complimentary letters or verses by Waller, Fanshaw, Sir Richard Brown, and Christopher Wa.s.se.

Evelyn commenced his arduous task with great enthusiasm, a due admiration of his original, and anxious desire to do it full justice. On actual trial, however, he became conscious of his own inability to produce, as he expresses it, "any traduction to equal the elegancy of the original;" and he accordingly closed his labours with the first book. To this resolution, the negligent manner in which his specimen of the translation was printed, contributed, as he alleges, in no small degree. Prefixed to the copy in the library at Wotton, is this note in his own handwriting: "Never was book so abominably misused by the printer; never copy so negligently surveyed, by one who undertook to look over the proof-sheets with all exactness and care, namely, Dr Triplet, well known for his ability, and who pretended to oblige me in my absence, and so readily offered himself.

This good I received by it, that publis.h.i.+ng it vainly, its ill success at the printer's discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest(616)."

This pretended disgust, however, at the typography of his Lucretius, was probably a pretext. It is more likely that he was deterred from the farther execution of his version, either by its want of success, or by the hints which he received from some of his friends concerning the moral and religious danger of his undertaking. "For your Lucretius," says Jeremy Taylor, in a letter to him, dated 16th April, 1656, "I perceive you have suffered the importunity of your too kind friends to prevail with you. I will not say to you that your Lucretius is as far distant from the severity of a Christian as the fair Ethiopian was from the duty of Bishop Heliodorus; for indeed it is nothing but what may become the labours of a Christian gentleman, those things only abated which our evil age needs not: for which also I hope you either have by notes, or will by preface, prepare a sufficient antidote; but since you are engaged in it, do not neglect to adorn it, and take what care of it it can require or need; for that neglect will be a reproof of your own act, and look as if you did it with an unsatisfied mind; and then you may make that to be wholly a sin, from which, only by prudence and charity, you could before be advised to abstain. But, sir, if you will give me leave, I will impose such a penance upon you, for your publication of Lucretius, as shall neither displease G.o.d nor you; and since you are busy in these things which may minister directly to learning, and indirectly to error, or the confidences of men, who, of themselves, are apt enough to hide their vices in irreligion, I know you will be willing, and will suffer to be entreated, to employ the same pen in the glorification of G.o.d, and the ministries of eucharist and prayer(617)."

In 1682, Creech, who was deterred by no such religious scruples, published his translation of the whole poem of Lucretius. As a scholar, he was eminently qualified for the arduous undertaking in which he had engaged: but he wrote with such haste, that his production everywhere betrays the inaccuracies of an author who acquiesces in the first suggestions of his mind, and who is more desirous of finis.h.i.+ng, than ambitious of finis.h.i.+ng well. Besides, he is at all times rather anxious to communicate the simple meaning of his original, than to exhibit any portion of the ornamental garb in which it is arrayed. Hence, though generally faithful to his author, he is almost everywhere deficient in one of the most striking characteristics of the Roman poet-grandeur and felicity of expression. He is often tame, prosaic, and even doggerel; and he sometimes discovers the conceits of a vitiated taste, in the most direct opposition to the simple character and majestic genius of his Roman original. Pope said, "that Creech had greatly hurt his translation of Lucretius, by imitating Cowley, and bringing in turns even into some of the most grand parts(618)." It is also remarked by Dr Drake, "that in this version the couplet has led in almost every page to the most ridiculous redundancies. A want of taste, however, in the selection of language, is as conspicuous in Creech as a deficiency of skill and address in the management of his versification(619)." The ample notes with which the translation is accompanied, are chiefly extracted from the works of Ga.s.sendi. A number of commendatory poems are prefixed, and among others one from Evelyn, in which he acknowledges, that Creech had succeeded in the glorious enterprize in which he himself had failed. Dryden was also much pleased with Creech's translation, but this did not hinder him from versifying some of the higher and more ornamental pa.s.sages, to which Creech had hardly done justice, as those at the beginning of the first and second books, the concluding part of the third book, against the fear of death, and of the fourth concerning the nature of love. On these fine pa.s.sages Dryden bestowed the ease, the vigour, and harmony of his muse; but though executed with his accustomed spirit, his translations want the majestic solemn colouring of Lucretius, and are somewhat licentious and paraphrastic. For this, however, he accounts in his Poetical Miscellanies, in mentioning his translations in comparison with the version of Creech.

"The ways of our translation," he observes, "are very different-he follows Lucretius more closely than I have done, which became an interpreter to the whole poem, I take more liberty, because it best suited with my design, which was to make him as pleasing as I could. He had been too voluminous had he used my method in so long a work, and I had certainly taken his, had I made it my business to translate the whole."

The translations by Creech and Dryden are both in rhyme. That of Mr Good, printed in 1805, is in blank verse, and it may well be doubted if this preference was conducive to the successful execution of his purpose. The translation is accompanied with the original text of Lucretius, printed from Wakefield's edition, and very full notes are subjoined, containing pa.s.sages exhibiting imitations of Lucretius by succeeding poets. The preface includes notices of preceding editions of his author, and the explanation of his own plan. Then follow a Life of Lucretius, and an Appendix to the Life, comprehending an a.n.a.lysis and defence of the system of Epicurus, with a comparative sketch of most other philosophical theories, both ancient and modern.

The translation of Mr Good was succeeded, in 1813, by that of Dr Busby, which is in rhyme, and is introduced by enormous _prolegomena_ on the Life and Genius of Lucretius, and the Philosophy and Morals of his Poem.

CATULLUS.

The MSS. of Catullus were defaced and imperfect, as far back as the time of Aulus Gellius(620), who lived in the reigns of Adrian and the Antonines; and there were _variae lectiones_ in his age, as well as in the fifteenth century. There was a MS. of Catullus extant at Verona in the tenth century which was perused by the Bishop Raterius, who came from beyond the Alps, and who refers to it in his Discourses as a work he had never seen till his arrival at Verona. Another was possessed in the fourteenth century by Pastrengo, a Veronese gentleman, and a friend of Petrarch(621), who quotes it twice in his work _De Originibus_; but these and all other MSS. had entirely disappeared amid the confusions with which Italy was at that time agitated, and Catullus may, therefore, be considered as one of the cla.s.sics brought to light at the revival of literature. The MS. containing the poems of Catullus was not found in Italy, but in one of the monasteries of France or Germany, (Scaliger says of France,) in the course of the fifteenth century, and according to Maffei, in 1425(622). All that we know concerning its discovery is contained in a barbarous Latin epigram, written by Guarinus of Verona, who chose to give his information on the subject in an almost unintelligible riddle. It was prefixed to an edition of Catullus, printed in Italy 1472, where it is ent.i.tled _Hextichum Guarini Veronensis Oratoris Clariss. in libellum V. Catulli ejus concivis_:

"Ad Patriam venio longis de finibus exul: Causa mei reditus compatriota fuit.

Scilicet a calamis tribuit cui Francia nomen, Quique notat turbae praetereuntis iter.

Quo licet ingenio vestrum celebrate Catullum Quovis sub modio clausa papyrus erat."

The first line explains that the MS. was brought to Italy from beyond the Alps, and the second that it was discovered by a countryman of Catullus, that is, by a citizen of Verona. The third line contains the grand _conundrum_. Some critics have supposed that it points out the name of a monastery where the MS. was discovered; others, that it designates the name of the person who found it. Lessing is of this last opinion; and, according to his interpretation, the line implies, that it was discovered by some one whose name is the French word for quills or pens, that is, _plumes_. The name nearest this is Plumatius, on which foundation Lessing attributes the discovery of Catullus to Bernardinus Plumatius, a great scholar and physician of Verona, who flourished during the last half of the fifteenth century(623). This conjecture of Lessing was better founded than he himself seems to have been aware, as the second syllable in the name Plumatius is not remote from the French verb _hater_, which, in one sense, as the epigram expresses it-

"Notat turbae praetereuntis iter."

Lucius Pignorius, who thinks that these lines were not written by Guarinus of Verona, but that the MS. was discovered by him, also conjectures that it was found in a barn, since it is said in the last line, that it was concealed _sub modio_, and bushels are nowhere but in barns(624). This is taking the line in its most literal signification, but the expression probably was meant only as proverbial.

The wretched situation in which this MS. was found, and the circ.u.mstance of its being the only one of any antiquity extant, sufficiently accounts for the numerous and evident corruptions of the text of Catullus, and for the editions of that poet presenting a greater number of various and contradictory readings than those of almost any other cla.s.sic.

After this MS. was brought to Italy, it fell into the hands of Guarinus of Verona, who took much pains in correcting it, and it was further amended by his son Baptista Guarinus, as a third person of the family, Alexander Guarinus, informs us, in the _promium_ to his edition of Catullus, 1521, addressed to Alphonso, third Duke of Ferrara. Baptista Guarinus, as Alexander farther mentions in his _promium_, published an edition of Catullus from the MS. which he had taken so much pains to correct, but without any commentary. This edition, however, has now entirely disappeared; and that of 1472, printed by Spira, at Venice, in which Catullus is united with Tibullus and Propertius, is accounted the _Editio Princeps_. The different editions in which these poets have appeared conjoined, will be more conveniently enumerated hereafter: both in them, and in the impressions of Catullus printed separately, the editors had departed widely from the corrected text of Baptista Guarinus. Accordingly, Alexander Guarinus, in 1521, printed an edition of Catullus, with the view of restoring the genuine readings of his father and grandfather, who had wrought on the ancient MS. which was the prototype of all the others. It would appear, however, that the erroneous readings had become inveterate.

Maffei, in his _Verona Ill.u.s.trata_(625), points out the absurd and unauthorized alterations of Vossius and Scaliger on the pure readings of the Guarini.

Muretus took charge of an edition of Catullus, which was printed by the younger Aldus Manutius in 1558. This production is not accounted such as might be expected from the consummate critic and scholar by whom it was prepared. Isaac Vossius had commented on Catullus; but his annotations lay concealed for many years after his death, till they were at length brought to light by his amanuensis Beverland, who, by means of this valuable acquisition, was enabled to prepare the best edition which had yet appeared of Catullus, and which was first printed in London in 1684. His commentary was on every point profoundly learned.-"Poetam," says Harles, "commentario eruditissimo, ita tamen ut inverecundia illi interdum haud cederet, ill.u.s.travit." Vulpius published a yet better edition at Padua, in 1737, in the preparation of which he made great use of the _Editio Princeps_. In the notes, he has introduced a new and most agreeable species of commentary,-ill.u.s.trating his author by parallel pa.s.sages from the ancient and modern poets, particularly the Italian; not such parallel pa.s.sages as Wakefield has ama.s.sed, where the words _qui_ or _atque_ occur in both, but where there is an obvious imitation or resemblance in the thought or image. He has also prefixed a diatribe _De Metris Catullianis_.

In the year 1738, a curious fraud was practised with regard to Catullus.

Carradini de Allio, a scholar of some note, published at Venice an edition, which he pretended to have printed from an ancient MS.

accidentally discovered by him in a pottery, without a cover or t.i.tle-page, and all besmeared with filth. It was dedicated to the Elector of Bavaria; and though one of the most impudent cheats of the sort that had been practised since the time of Sigonius and Annius Viterbiensis, it imposed on many learned men. The credit it obtained, introduced new disorders into the text of Catullus; and when the fraud was at length detected, the contriver of it only laughed at the temporary success of his imposture.

Doering, in early life, had printed an edition of the princ.i.p.al poem of Catullus, the _Epithalamium of Peleus and Thetis_. Encouraged by the success of this publication, he subsequently prepared a complete edition of Catullus, which came forth at Leipsic in 1788.

The _Epithalamium of Peleus and Thetis_, the chief production of Catullus, was translated into _Italian_ by Ludovico Dolce, and printed in 1538, at the end of a small volume of miscellaneous works dedicated to t.i.tian. In the colophon it is said, "Il fine dell' epitalamio tradotto per M. Lod.

Dolce, in verso sciolto." This Epithalamium was also translated in the eighteenth century, into _Ottava Rima_, by Parisotti, with a long preface, in which he maintains that the _ottava_, or _terza rima_, is better adapted for the translation of the Latin cla.s.sics than _versi sciolti_.

Ginguene, in the preface to his French translation of this Epithalamium, mentions three other Italian versions of the last century, those of Neruci, Torelli, and the Count d'Ayano, all of which, he says, possess considerable merit. He also informs us, that Antonio Conti had commenced a translation of this poem, which was found incomplete at his death; but it was accompanied by many valuable criticisms and annotations, which have been much employed in a Memoir inserted in the transactions of the French Academy, by M. D'Arnaud, whose plagiarisms from the Italian author have been pointed out at full length by M. Ginguene, in his preface. Conti completed a translation of the _Coma Berenices_ in _versi sciolti_, accompanied by an explanation of the subject, and learned notes, which was printed along with his works at Venice, in 1739. The _Coma Berenices_ was also translated in _terza rima_ by the Neapolitan Saverio Mattei, and by Pagnini in _versi sdruccioli_. At length, in 1803, M. Ugo Foscolo, now well known in this country as the author of the Letters of Jacopo Ortis, printed at Milan a translation of this elegy, in blank verse, under the t.i.tle of _La Chioma di Berenice, poema di Callimaco, tradotto da Valerio Catullo, volgarizzato ed ill.u.s.trato da Ugo Foscolo_. The version is preceded by four dissertations; the text is accompanied with notes, and followed by fourteen _considerazioni_, as they are called, in which the author severely censures and satirizes the pedantic commentators and philologers of his country. Mr Hobhouse, in his _Ill.u.s.trations of Childe Harold_(626), says, that the whole lucubration, extending to nearly 300 pages of large octavo, is a grave and continued irony on the verbal criticisms of commentators. "Some of the learned," he continues, "fell into the snare, and Foscolo, who had issued only a few copies, now added a Farewell to his readers, in which he repays their praises, by exposing the mysteries and abuses of the philological art. Those whom he had deceived must have been not a little irritated to find that his frequent citations were invented for the occasion, and that his commentary had been purposely sprinkled with many of the grossest faults."

The whole works of Catullus were first translated into Italian by the Abbot Francis Maria Biacca of Parma, who concealed his real designation, according to the affected fas.h.i.+on of the times, under the appellation of Parmindo Ib.i.+.c.hense, _Pastor Arcade_. The Abbot died in 1735, and his version was printed at Milan after his death, in 1740, in the twenty-first volume of the General Collection of Italian Translations from the Ancient Latin Poets. The most recent Italian version is that of Puccini, printed at Pisa in 1805. It is very deficient in point of spirit; and the last English translator of Catullus observes, "that it is chiefly remarkable for the squeamishness with which it omits all warmth in the love verses, while it unblus.h.i.+ngly retains some of the most disgusting pa.s.sages."

The _French_ have at all times dealt much in prose translations of the Cla.s.sics. These did not suit very well for the epic poems, or even comedies or the Romans; and were totally abhorrent from the lyrical or epigrammatic productions of Catullus. A great deal of the beauty of every poem consists in the melody of its numbers. But there are certain species of poetry, of which the _chief_ merit lies in the sweetness and harmony of versification. A boldness of figures, too-a luxuriance of imagery-a frequent use of metaphors-a quickness of transition-a freedom of digression, which are allowable in every sort of poetry, are to many species of it essential. But these are quite unsuitable to the character of prose, and when seen in a prose translation, they appear preposterous and out of place, because they are never found in any original prose composition. Now, the beauties of Catullus are precisely of that nature, of which it is impossible to convey the smallest idea in a prose translation. Many of his poems are of a lyric description, in which a greater degree of irregularity of thought, and a more unrestrained exuberance of fancy, are permitted than in any other kind of composition.

To attempt, therefore, a translation of a lyric poem into prose, is the most absurd of all undertakings; for those very characters of the original, which are essential to it, and which const.i.tute its highest beauty, if transferred to a prose translation, become unpardonable blemishes. What could be more ridiculous than a French prose translation of the wild dithyrambics of Atis, or the fervent and almost phrenzied love verses to Lesbia? It is from poetry that the elegies of Catullus derive almost all their tenderness-his amorous verses all their delicacy, playfulness, or voluptuousness-and his epigrams all their sting.

That indefatigable translator of the Latin poets, the Abbe Marolles, was the first person who _traduced_ Catullus in French. He was an author, of all others, the worst qualified to succeed in the task which he had undertaken, as his heavy and leaden pen was ill adapted to express the elegant light graces of his original. His prose translation was printed in 1653. It was succeeded, in 1676, by one in verse, also by Marolles, but of which only thirty copies were thrown off and distributed among the translator's friends. La Chapelle (not the author of the _Voyage_) translated most of the poems of Catullus, and inserted them in his _Histoire Galante_, ent.i.tled the _Amours de Catulle_, printed in 1680, which relates, in the style of an amatory prose romance, the adventures and intrigues of Catullus, his friends, and mistresses. The next translation, though not of the whole of his pieces, is by M. Pezay, printed 1771, who misses no opportunity of ridiculing Marolles and his work. It is in prose, as is also a more recent French translation by M.

Noel, Paris, 1806. The first volume of Noel's work contains the _Discours Preliminaire_ on the Life, Poetry, Editions, and Translations of Catullus; and the version itself, which is accompanied with the Latin text. The second volume comprises a very large body of notes, chiefly exhibiting the imitations of Catullus by French poets. Brunet mentions a translation still more recent, by M. Mollevaut, which is in verse, and proves that more justice may be done to Catullus in rhyme than prose.

An _English_ translation of Catullus, usually ascribed to Dr Nott, was published anonymously in 1795, accompanied with some valuable annotations.

He was the first to give, as he himself says, the whole of Catullus, without reserve, and in some way or other, to translate all his indecencies. This version adheres very closely to the original, and has the merit of being simple and literal, but it is meagre and inelegant: it is defective in ease and freedom, and but seldom presents us with any of those graces of poetry, and indeed almost unattainable felicities of diction, which characterize the original. While writing this, the poetical translation by Mr Lamb has come to my hands. It is also furnished with a long preface and notes, which appear to be tasteful and amusing. The chief objections to the translation are quite the reverse of those which have been stated to the version by which it was preceded-it seems defective in point of fidelity, and is too diffuse and redundant. No author suffers so much by being diluted as Catullus, and he can only be given with effect by a brevity as condensed and _piquant_ as his own. Indeed, the thoughts and language of Catullus throw more difficulties in the way of a translator, than those of almost any other cla.s.sic author. His peculiarities of feeling-his idiomatic delicacies of style-that light ineffable grace-that elegant ease and spirit, with which he was more richly endued than almost any other poet, can hardly pa.s.s through the hands of a translator without being in some degree sullied or alloyed.

LABERIUS-PUBLIUS SYRUS.

The only fragment of any length or importance which we possess of Laberius, has been saved by Macrobius, in his _Saturnalia_. The fragments of Publius Syrus were chiefly preserved by Seneca and Au. Gellius, and the scattered maxims which they had recorded, were collected in various MSS.

of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They were first printed together, under the superintendence of Erasmus, in 1502, as revised and corrected from a MS. in the University of Cambridge. Fabricius published some additional maxims, which had not previously been printed, in 1550.

Stephens edited them at the end of his Fragments from the Greek and Latin Comic Poets, 1564; and Bentley published them along with Terence and the Fables of Phaedrus, at Cambridge, in 1726. An improved edition, which had been prepared by Gruter, was printed under the superintendence of Havercamp, from a MS. after his death. The most complete edition, however, which has yet appeared, is that published by Orellius, at Leipsic, 1822.

It contains 879 maxims, arranged in alphabetical order, from which, at least as the editor a.s.serts, all those which are spurious have been rejected, and several that are genuine added. A Greek version of the maxims, by Jos. Scaliger, is given by him on the opposite side of the page, and he has appended a long commentary, in which he has quoted all the maxims of preceding or subsequent authors, who have expressed sentiments similar to those of Publius Syrus.

The sentences were translated into _English_ from the edition of Erasmus, under the following t.i.tle: "Proverbs or Adagies, with newe Additions, gathered out of the Chiliades of Erasmus, by Richard Taverner. Hereunto be also added, Mimi Publiani. Imprinted at Lo'don, in Fletstrete, at the signe of the Whyte Harte. _c.u.m privilegio ad imprimendum solum._" On the back of the t.i.tle is "the Prologe of the author, apologizing for his slender capacitie;" and concluding, "yet my harte is not to be blamed." It contains sixty-four leaves, the last blank. On the last printed page are the "Faultes escaped in printynge," which are seven in number. Beneath is the colophon, "Imprinted at London by Richarde Bankes, at the Whyte Harte, 1539." This book was frequently reprinted. James Elphinston, long known to the public by his unsuccessful attempt to introduce a new and uniform mode of spelling into the English language, translated, in 1794, "The Sentencious Poets-Publius dhe Syrrian-Laberius dhe Roman Knight, &c.

arrainged and translated into correspondent Inglish Mezzure(627)."

CATO-VARRO.