The philosophic writings of Cicero have descended to us in a more imperfect state than his oratorical dialogues or orations. In consequence of the n.o.ble spirit of freedom and patriotism which they breathe, their proscription would no doubt speedily follow that of their author. There is a common story of a grandson of Augustus concealing one of Cicero"s philosophic works, on being detected while perusing it by his grandfather, and though he received his gracious permission to finish it, the anecdote shews that it was among the _libri prohibiti_. The chief reading, indeed, of Alexander Severus, was the _Republic_ and _Offices_(660): But Alexander was an imperial phnix, which never revived in the Roman empire; and we hear little of Cicero during the reigns of the barbarian sovereigns of Italy in the middle ages.
Petrarch procured an imperfect copy of Cicero"s treatise _De Legibus_, from the Lawyer Raymond Sorranza(661), who had a most extensive library, and to whom, as we have just seen, he had been indebted for a MS. of the dialogue _De Oratore_.
No further discovery was subsequently made of the remaining parts of the work _De Legibus_. The other philosophical writings of Cicero were found by Petrarch among the books in his father"s library, or were recovered for him by the persons whom he employed for this purpose in almost every quarter of Italy: "Abeuntibus amicis," says he, "et, ut fit, petentibus numquid e patria sua vellem, respondebam,-nihil praeter libros Ciceronis."
Petrarch frequently quotes the treatise _De Finibus_, as a work with which he was familiar. Leonard Aretine, however, has been generally considered as the discoverer of that dialogue, as also of the treatise _De Natura Deorum_(662).
"There is no collection of my letters," says Cicero, in one of his epistles to Atticus; "but Tiro has about seventy of them, and you can furnish some more. I must look over and correct them, and then they may be published." This, however, never was accomplished by himself. After the revolution of the Roman state, the publication of his letters must have been dangerous, on account of the freedom with which he expresses himself concerning Octavius, and the ministers of his power. Cornelius Nepos mentions, that some of Cicero"s letters were published, but that sixteen books of Epistles to Atticus, from his consulship to his death, though extant, were by no means in common circulation(663). The reigns of the princes who succeeded Augustus, were not more favourable to freedom than his own; and hence the Familiar Letters, as well as those to Atticus, probably remained long in the cabinets of the curious, before they received any critical inspection. The Letters of Cicero, however, were well known in the middle ages, and even in those times pains were taken to have accurate copies of them. Lupus Ferrariensis procured duplicates of Cicero"s Epistles, in order to collate them with his own MSS., and thus to make up a correct and complete collection(664). John of Salisbury cites two of Cicero"s letters to Caius Ca.s.sius; one of which is now contained in the twelfth, and the other in the fifteenth book of the _Familiar Epistles_. In the Life of Julius Caesar, which pa.s.ses under the name of Julius Celsus, and which was written during the middle ages, extracts are occasionally made from the _Familiar Epistles_. They had become scarce, however, at the time when Petrarch found a copy of them at Verona, a place where he little expected to make such a discovery(665). This old MS., which Victorius thinks of the age of the Florentine Pandects, ultimately came into the Medicean library; and a copy which Petrarch had transcribed from it, was brought from Padua to Florence by Niccolo Niccoli, at whose death it was placed in the library of St Marc in that city(666). Several scholars who inspected both have observed, that the transcript by Petrarch differed in some respects from the original(667). It was also marked with various corrections and glosses, in the hand-writing of Niccolo Niccoli himself(668). All the other MSS. of the Familiar Epistles flowed from this discovered by Petrarch, as we learn from a pa.s.sage of Lagomarsinus, who speaks thus of the different _codices_ of the _Epistolae Familiares_: "Quibus tamen ego codicibus non tantum tribuo, quantum uni illi omnium quotquot ubique terrarum, idem epistolarum corpus continentes, extant, vetustissimo, (et ex quo caeteros omnes qui usquam sunt tanquam e fonte ac capite mana.s.se, et Angelus Politia.n.u.s, et Petrus Victorius memoriae prodiderunt,) qui Florentiae in Mediceo-Laurentianae Bibliothecae XLIX.
adservatur numero IX. extra notatus(669)." There has been a good deal of doubt and discussion how these Letters first came to obtain the t.i.tle of _Familiares_. They are not so called in any original MS. of Cicero, nor are they cited by this name in any ancient author, as Aulus Gellius, or Priscian. These writers generally quote each book of the Epistles by the name of the person to whom the first letter in that book is addressed.
Thus Gellius cites the first book by the name of the Letters to Lentulus, because it commences with a letter to him. Nor are the MSS. in which the appellation of the _Epistolae Familiares_ is employed uniform in the t.i.tle.
In some MSS. they are called _Epistolae Familiares_, in others, _Epistolae ad Familiares_, and in a Palatine MS. _Libri Epistolarum Familiarum_.
Previous to the year 1340, Petrarch also discovered the _Epistles to Atticus_(670) which had been missing for many centuries; and on perusing them, declared that he now recognized Cicero as an inconsiderate and unfortunate old man. He copied them over with his own hand, and arranged them in their proper order. The MS. in his hand-writing pa.s.sed, after his death, into the possession of Coluccio Salutati, and subsequently became the property of Coluccio"s disciple Leonard Aretine. Donatus, the son of Leonard, succeeded to it, and by him it was transferred to Donatus Acciaiolus. After his decease, it fell into the hands of an obscure grammarian, who gave it to Bartollomeo Cavalcanti, in whose library it was consulted by P. Victorius, and was afterwards bestowed on him by the owner. Victorius, highly valuing this MS., which he first recognised to be in the hand-writing of Petrarch, conceived that it would be preserved with greatest security in some public collection; and he accordingly presented it to Cosmo, the first Duke of Tuscany, to be deposited in the Medicean library(671). With regard to the most ancient MS. from which Petrarch made the copy, it unfortunately was lost, as Petrus Victorius laments in one of his Epistles(672). "Utinam inveniretur exemplum, unde has ad Attic.u.m descripsit Petrarca, ut exstat illud, quo usus est in describendis alteris illis, quae Familiares appellantur, de cujus libri antiquitate, omni veneratione digna, magnifice multa vereque alio loco praedicavi." It thus appears, that the Epistles to Atticus were well known to Petrarch. Still, however, as they were scarce in the fifteenth century, Poggio, who found a copy, while attending the Council of Constance, was considered in his own age as the discoverer of the entire collection of the _Epistles to Atticus_, and has been regarded in the same light by modern writers.
The three books of the Letters of Cicero to his brother Quintus, were found by an Italian grammarian, Casparinus of Bergamo, who died in the year 1431; and who some time before his death had taken great pains to amend their corrupted text(673). That they were much corrupted, may be conjectured from what we know of the manner in which they were originally written, for it appears, from one of the Letters of Cicero(674), that Quintus had complained that he could scarcely read some of his former letters. Now, when Quintus could scarcely read his brother"s hand-writing, what must have been the difficulties and mistakes of the _Librarius_ by whom they were first collected and copied?
Cicero"s translation of Aratus appears to have been extant in the ninth century. Lupus of Ferrieres had an imperfect copy of it, and begs a complete copy from his correspondent Ansbald. "Tu autem," says he, "huic nostro cursori Tullium in Arato trade; ut ex eo, quem me impetraturum credo, quae deesse illi Egil noster aperuit, suppleantur.(675)"
Various editions of separate portions of the writings of Cicero were printed before the publication of a complete collection of his works. _The Orations_-the treatise _De Oratore_-the _Opera Philosophica_-the _Epistolae Familiares_-and _Ad Attic.u.m_, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.sistance 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 cla.s.sical editions. Notwithstanding the rage for cla.s.sical 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 pet.i.tion presented, 1472, in their names, to Pope s.e.xtus, 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 enc.u.mbered 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 _Epistolae Familiares_ of Cicero.
Alexander Minutia.n.u.s, 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 pa.s.sage, that Minutia.n.u.s 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, Minutia.n.u.s 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 praescripsit 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 Minutia.n.u.s 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 aesculapius_, printed at Venice in 153437, 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 cla.s.ses; some following the bold changes introduced by Lambinus, and others preferring the more scrupulous text of Victorius. Of the latter cla.s.s 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. 175874,) 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, Schutz 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 _Epistolae Familiares_ has also been adopted. They are no longer printed, as in most other editions, in a chronological series, but are cla.s.sed 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 Francoise_, Tom. II. p. 221; and, for English, to Bruggemann, _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 t.i.tles of those works which have been consulted by me in the compilation of the preceding pages.
AIMERICHIUS.-_Specimen veteris Romanae Literaturae deperditae vel adhuc latentis, seu Syllabus Historicus et Criticus veterum olim notae eruditionis Romanorum, ab urbe condita 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 Abbe 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 t.i.tles 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 p.r.o.nunciation of the Romans, their manner of writing, and the changes which took place in their orthography. In the fifth, the Abbe 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 princ.i.p.al 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 Abbe 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 Philosophiae apud Romanos_. Strasburgh, 1770. 4to.
BECMANNUS.-_Manductio ad linguam Latinam c.u.m Tractatu de Originibus Linguae Latinae_. 1608. 8vo.
*CASAUBON.-_De Satyrica Graecorum Poesi et Romanorum Satira libri duo, in quibus etiam Poetae recensentur, qui in utraque poesi floruerunt_. Halae, 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.-_Quaestura-Partes duae, quarum altera de Ciceronis Vita 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 Schonen Wissenschaften bei den Romern_.
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 diligentia 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 Cla.s.sischen Literatur, oder Anleitung zur Kentniss der Griechischen und Romischen Cla.s.sischen Schriftsteller, ihren Schriften, und der besten Ausgaben, und Uebersetzungen derselben_.
Rudolstadt, 180910.
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 Cla.s.sics 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 Cla.s.sischen Literatur der Griechen und Romer_. Rudolstadt, 1816.
An abridgment of the preceding work.
*FUNCCIUS.-_De Origine et Pueritia, De Adolescentia, Virili aetate, et Senectute Linguae Latinae_. Frankfort, 1720.
This is one of the most learned and valuable works extant on the subject of Latin literature. In the first tract, _De Pueritia_, the author chiefly treats of the origin and progress of the Roman language.
*GAUDENTIUS PAGANINUS.-_De Philosophiae 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.