positions of the classical writers must still be more highly estimated than an acquaintance with the circumstances connected with the publication of printed copies. We should more readily acknowledge the services of Bibliographers, if they were more communicative respecting the real and comparative merits of editions. In all writers of this class, there is, we think, a very remarkable deficiency in this respect. Entire pages are frequently employed in discussing the merits of a title-page, in examining the evidence for an early or a later date, in assigning to its editor or printer a nameless edition, or in determining its place of publication, while, at the conclusion of the article, the most important particulars remain untold. The praise, too, is so general, and so indiscriminately applied, as to be in many cases altogether unmeaning. And perhaps it would not be an offence against charity to hint, that the encomiums on some productions have not been preceded by a careful reading or critical examination of their contents. If they have not always conferred essential benefits upon scholars, they have, however, been of great service to booksellers, and have had their influence in the marts of literature.

The present Bibliographer, Mr. Moss, has .freely availed himself of the labours of his predecessors, to whom he acknowledges his obligations, and whose names are cited as his authorities, their publications being referred to for more minute information. In addition to the descriptions of editions of the classical authors, his Manual comprises notices of works relating to the correction or illustration of their texts, and accounts of the various translations of each into the Modern languages of Europe. These are very useful accompaniments, particularly the former, by which students will be directed to the most valuable sources of information, for the understanding of the difficulties and the appreciation of the excellencies of the books which they may have occasion to peruse. In respect to translations, Mr. Moss has not only described such works as include entire versions of each author, but has consulted various miscellanies for the purpose of being enabled to refer his readers to versions of detached passages or separate subjects, occurring in the volumes of different writers. He has even supplied references to periodical publications, containing translations or remarks illustrative of passages in the Greek and Latin Classics. His enumerations under almost every division of his work, bear ample testimony to the diligence with which he has laboured in the several departments of bibliography included in his plan. That omissions are to be detected in a work of this kind, cannot be surprising; nor can it be expected that the accounts of books or the judge

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

ments passed upon them, when, as in these volumes, so much dependence was to be placed on the reports of others, should, in every instance, be correct. We shall notice some particulars which have occurred to us in our examination of the work, in which deficiencies might be supplied, and errors require to be corrected ; but, when due allowance is made for the difficulties of the task, the merit must be conceded to Mr. Moss, of having provided for collectors and students a copious and useful . Manual of Classical Bibliography.'

From Mr. Moss's preface, we were prepared to expect that an account would be given in these volumes of every ancient Greek and Latin author, fairly coming under the denomination • Classic. From the avowed exclusion of some works which are usually considered as forming parts of a classical library, (as the Writers on the Sciences, and the Authors of works of Romance,) we could not complain of being disappointed at not meeting with notices of Dioscorides, Heliodorus, Hippocrates, Longus, and others; but, as the reason assigned by Mr. Moss for the omission of the authors which he has passed by, is, that they scarcely seem to belong to that class of elegant literature to which his volumes are devoted, we might expect to see noticed by him the various works which his own limitation includes. Why, then, has he excluded from his enumeration and descriptions, the Greek Anthologia, Epictetus, Lycophron, and some others, which should have a place in every list of classic authors?

The very disproportionate manner in which Mr. Moss has treated of the works brought under notice, is a blemish in the volumes before us which no critic can pass by without animadversion. To Æsop alone, half as many pages are given, as are bestowed on Theocritus, Theophrastus, Thucydides, Valerius Flaccus, Valerius Maximus,' Velleius Paterculus, Virgil, and Xenophon together. To Cornelius Nepos, thirteen pages are assigned, while only three are devoted to Thucydides. Mr. Moss announces, indeed, at the conclusion of his account of the editions of Terence, that the reader will receive only abridged notices of the remaining authors; and we can readily credit his statement, that this abridgement was the most critical and painful part of his laborious and difficult office, though we cannot so easily perceive the necessity of it. That the alteration is to the detriment of the work, his own notice fully implies; and he should, from the beginning, have remembered, that a fair and discreet distribution of his materials is to be expected from every compiler who would take credit with his reader for being a judicious one.

Of the Authors themselves whose works come successively

under notice in these volumes, no account is furnished; the name is merely given, with the date of the time in which they respectively lived. Biography was not the Compiler's ubject; but we must remark on the faulty manner in which Mr. Moss has affixed the letters denoting the different eras. The years before Christ and the years after. Christ, are both marked alike, A.C. If dates be affixed in any case, they should be correctly affixed; otherwise they become useless or deceptive. The impropriety might easily have been avoided by affixing B. C. and A. C., as the case might require, or, as Mr. Moss has done in a solitary instance, by using the customary notation, A. D. for the years after Christ.

Mr. Moss professes to furnish the prices which the more valuable articles have obtained at the sales of celebrated collections, as well as to notice in many instances the present prices, for the purpose of enabling the Tyro in Bibliography to form some idea of the market value of different editions, In executing this part of his design, he has been very irregular and defective. Prices are sometimes omitted, where they might easily have been supplied, and are in many other cases very incorrectly inserted. Of the omissions, we may give one instance in the description (Vol. I. p. 356) of the Boke of Tulle of

Olde Age, and Boke of Friendship,' printed by Caxton 1481, in which no price is stated. A copy of this work sold at the Roxburgh sale for 1151, and another at Mr. Willett's for 2101. In perusing the items of cost which appear in the Manual,' the difference of prices is frequently to be noticed, as the Bibliomania was high or low among the collectors. The sums at which the books of Maittaire were sold, may excite our regret that the disposal of them was not reserved for happier times. Maittaire's copy of Æsop, Fol. Venet. 1505, sold for twenty shillings. The same work produced at the Pinelli sale, 4.; at the Duke of Roxburgh's, 91. His Aulus Gellius, Editio Princeps, brought only eight shillings and sixpence: a copy of the same publication sold at the Pinelli sale for 721. 75.6d. Callimachus, Editio Princeps, Maittaire's, was sold for thirtysix shillings : at the Roxburgh sale, a copy went for sixty guineas. At the sale of Maittaire's books, a copy of the Edițio Princeps of Diodorus Siculus, accompanied by Arrian's Periplus, &c. printed by Froben and Episcopius, at Basil, in 1533, and Ælian's Various History, printed at Rome in 1545, brought no more than one solitary shilling. Maittaire's copy of Homer's Batrachomyomachia, Editio Princeps, sold for sixteen shillings; Dr. Askew's, for fourteen guineas. At the Duke of Roxburgh's sale, a copy of the Editio Princeps of


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Isocrates, Mediol. 1493, sold for 81. 18s. 6d.: Maittaire's brought only seven shillings and sixpence. Mr. Moss should have used his priced catalogues, as we have already remarked, with more uniformity. Of the value of many rare books, an account must be sought elsewhere than in his pages.

The Justini Historia, Roma, Udal. Gal. sine anno, is described as a very rare and beautiful edition, but no price is affixed. This is the case with the Lucan, Venet. 1477,

a very rare and • beautiful edition, and very highly esteemed by the curious ;' and in numerous other instances.- A copy of the Justin brought seventeen guineas at the Duke of Roxburgh's sale, and a copy of the Lucan, 61. 2s. 6d.

Mr. Moss might have included in his enumeration of Rare Editions of Apuleius, the following article: "Apulei Asinus Aureus, cum Commentario Philippi Beroaldi. Bononiæ, 1500.”

We may refer to the notice of Butler's Æschylus as a specimen of the inutility of the entries which are frequently introduced into Bibliographical Manuals; it is as follows:

• Cant. 8vo. 1809. Gr. et Lat. Butleri, ex recens. Stanleii. . This impression of Stanley's edition of Æschylus is in little request, notwithstanding the additions which it contains, because it is not a good one. There is an impression in 3 vols. 4to. same date, which cost 71. 10s. 2d. Brunet. t. iii. p. 488. 8 vols. 3l. 18s.

Can any description be more unmeaning than this ?. What information is conveyed to a reader by the statement that the edition is not a good one ? In what particulars is it defective or faulty? We expect from our bibliographical guides some reasons to be assigned for their depreciation of a work, and cannot consider it as creditable to them, to put forth decisions so vague and unsatisfactory.

Blomfield's editions of the separate tragedies are noticed, simply by the insertion of their titles in an abridged form, with the dates of their publication. We observe some omissions and inaccuracies in respect to them. The second edition of the Septem contra Thebas was published in 1817: the first edition of the Persæ appeared in 1814. Since Mr. Moss's work was put to press, the third edition of the S. c. T. has been issued, and the Chophorce has been added to the former publications of the learned Editor, who may perhaps find leisure from the avocations of his elevated station, to complete a design which every scholar approves, and would be glad to see perfected. . The Septem c. Thebas is included in Burton's Pentalogia, to which Mr. Moss has not assigned a place among either the editions or the commentaries, in any part of his work. Mr. Boyd's prose version of the Agamemnon, and Mr. Symmons's

[ocr errors]

poetical translation of the same tragedy, may now be added to the list of Translations in this • Manual.'

The edition of Aristophanes, Ams. 16mo. 1670, Gr. et Lat. is attributed to Faber (Vol. I. p. 94), and is described as • a beautiful edition, and in much greater request than the Leyden edition of 1624, which served as its model.' The Amst. edition is a reprint of the Leyden one, with some additional notes and observations, but was not edited by Faber, though it contains his version of one of the plays, accompanied with his critical remarks.

The Cæsar, Lond. 8vo. 1742. Bentleii. p. 236, was edited by Thomas Bentley, who was nephew to Dr. Bentley. We refer to this article in connexion with the following notice of Callimachus. • Lond. 8vo. 1741. Gr. et Lat. (Et Theognis.) of this edition,

Of the editor of the Glasgow edition, in the address to the reader, thus observes : “ Editio demum accurata illa quæ prodiit in 8vo. Londini,

1741, edente eruditissimo Viro Anonymo." Bentley is said to have been the anonymous editor here spoken of; whose edition, says Dr. Harwood, is not inferior to any one of Callimachus.'

The Callimachus of 1741 was edited, not by Dr. Bentley, but by Thomas Bentley.

In describing the several editions of Cicero, Mr. Moss has satisfied himself with merely inserting the shortest possible notice of the 8vo. editions of Oxford 1816, and London 1819. We should have been better pleased if he had favoured us with some critical account of these respective publications, for the guidance and benefit of young scholars. . The beauty of the London edition is very attractive, and in this respect far excels the other, but it cannot be highly commended for its correctness. It has the advantage, however, of being accompanied with Olivet's notes, separately in three volumes, not noticed by Mr. Moss, and with the Lexicon of Nizolius, in other three; forming altogether a set of books which cannot be too highly commended for convenience and elegance, and to which we regret that more attention was not given by the editor and printer. To the Commentaries and Translations noticed by Mr. Moss, additions might easily be made. A translation of The Oration for

Marcellus,' was published in 1745, as a specimen of a new translation of Cicero's select Orations. Tunstall's and Markland's Observations on the Epistles of Cicero and Brutus have a place in the list of Commentators, but Middleton's Vindication of their genuineness is not distinctly noticed. Weiske's

Commentarius perpetuus et plemus in Orationem pro Marcello;' and the Disputatio de Oratione Marcelliana' of Spalding, are

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »