thenticity: dubitationes,' says the present editor, tanto excogitatas acumine, tamque eleganti et exquisita doctrina explicatas, ut alteram quæstionem simul commovisse, et magna ex parte profligasse, alteram plane ad exitum suum perduxisse videatur.' Pref. p. viii. This tract gave rise to much discussion, accompanied by some severity of satire against Markland. Dr. Ross, Bishop of Exeter, produced an ironical "Dissertation, in which the defence of P. Sulla ascribed to M. T. Cicero is clearly proved to be spurious, after the manner of Mr. Markland, with some introductory remarks on other writings of the antients never before suspected." London, in 8vo. without date, but certainly in the year 1745 or 1746. In this work, on the slightest grounds of mock-criticism, and with no small degree of humour, he pretended to prove to be spurious the Orations "pro P. Sulla, pro Milone, pro Calio, pro Murana, pro Flacco, two of the Catalinarian Orations, two books of the Tusculan Dispu tations, the second De Finibus B. & M. the epistles of Cælius Rufus, &c., together with two discourses of Tillotson, and one of Atterbury." At the same time, the Bishop's real object was to insinuate the dangerous licentiousness into which Markland's mode of arguing might lead; atque haud dubie,' continues M. WOLF, quod voluit, assecutus est scriptor apud indectam multitudinem, quæ quoniam vera a falsis discernere nescit, facillimè tali rerum assimulatione in fraudem allicitur; viri docti autem, qui opusculum ipsum non legerant, hunc prope novum Harduinum extitisse dolebant.' Pref. p. xi. In answer to this amusing piece of irony, a serious dissertation was written by Bowyer in 1746.

Hitherto the controversy had been confined to this country, owing to its having been carried on in the English language, which was at that time little studied by foreigners. This unscholar-like medium of discussing a literary subject is strongly reprobated by M. WOLF; and with some reason, since it in fact withdrew the question from the consideration of the learned on the Continent, to make it the table-talk of the unlearned in our isle; of those shallow critics

"Who judge of authors' names, not works, and then

Nor praise nor blame the writings, but the men."

This censure is principally bestowed on Middleton, for having declined to answer Tunstall in Latin.

Speaking of the great difficulty of finding judges competent to decide in such discussions, the editor observes:

⚫ Omnino pauci sunt, omni tempore, qui talem causam, qualis hæc nostra st, cognoscere operæ pretium ducant ;-pauciores, qui id facere possint; sed qui iidem et velint et possint, longe paucissimi: atque haud scio

Gga

an

an illa ætate nullus corum, quos novimus, doctorum in Britannia plane idoneus fuerit, cujus sententia res committi posset, præter unum Bentleium. Eo sane praside, Phalaridea disputationis auctore, etsi is sedem doctrinæ suæ in aliis potius scriptoribus quam in Cicerone fixerat,-eo tamen, sive præside sive honorario arbitro, decertare inter se debebant nobiles disceptatores vero vix ingressum hæc studia adspexit Tunstallum; novas Animadversiones Marklanai, morte præventus, non vidit; neque inventus est, quem in illius locum surrogaret Civitas literatorum.' Pref. P. xiv.

Ille

A question of such general interest to literary men could not long remain thus confined. In the course of a few years, it made its way to the Continent; where the opinion of Tunstall and Markland concerning the epistles was generally received, but the conjecture of Markland respecting the four Orations was almost universally scouted.

Ruhnken, in his Velleius Paterculus (p. 109. and 326.) freely rejects the epistles: but, with regard to the Orations, neither in his Aquila Romanus (p. 149. and 160.) nor in his Julius Rufinianus, (p. 200 and 203.)-by both of whom the Oration De Domo is quoted, has he advanced any opinion of his own. On the contrary, in his Velleius, p. 64. 102. 227. he cites as genuine the Oration De Domo; and in his Rutilius Lupus, p. 90. he quotes the oration De Haruspicum Responsis.

Wyttenbach, in Bibl. Crit. vol. ii. P. 3. p. 78. and in his life of his great master, Ruhnken, p. 219. and 290. has given the same opinion in terms still more precise.

Saxe, also, in the first part of his Onomasticum Litterarium, p. 160, after having mentioned what Tunstall had made known concerning the epistles, adds, " Acrius etiam, quod nollem, tibias inflavit Marklandus;" and again, "Vel sic tamen bonum factum, Marklandi subinde argumentationes et suspiciones a vire magno, Jo. Matthia Gesnero, enervatas fuisse."

་

This celebrated defence by Gesner was contained in two Lectures, intitled "Cicero Restitutus," publicly delivered by him in the University of Göttingen in the years 1753 and 1754, and inserted in Tom. 111. Commentar. Soc. Reg. Gött. In these lectures, says M. WOLF, Omnia Marklandi argumenta singillatim excutere et annotationibus suis refutare aggressus est, nulla usquequaque causa reperta, cur a communi litteratorum opinione recedendum censeret,' Pref. p. xvii.; and hence he supposes it to have happened that Ernesti, in his subsequent edition of Cicero, makes no mention whatever of this controversy, and, even in his second edition of the Bibliotheca Fabriciana, T. 1. p. 161. (though he had expresly undertaken to give a Critical History of the works of Cicero,) passes it over with very slight notice, as a literary squabble of small importance. The editor then infers:

Quan

Quam ob causam minimè mirum est, si jam totum illud certamen vix aliquot viris historie litterarie cupidioribus cognitum, a plerisque ne memoria quidem, nedum renovatione, dignum haberi videmus. Itaque non modo leguntur edunturque ista Orationes una cum reliquis monumentis Eloquentia Ciceroniana, sed unam duasve earum, propter insignem scilicet elegantiam, in numerum selectarum, quas vocant, receperunt Editores, scholastica Juventuti a prima ætate prælegendas; ita ut nullus forsitan mensis abeat, quin aliquod auditorium per cultissimas terras Europa vocibus magistrorum resonet, pulchras earum sententias et verba interpretantium.

*

Tot et tantis auctoritatibus quis non moveatur verecundus homo ? quis non deterreatur, quo minus desertæ relictæque causa patrocinium suscipiat? Immo fortius ad publicam opinionem rejicimur testimoniis veterum scriptorum, tum eorum, quos Marklandus nominavit, Pediani, Quintiliani, Arnobii, fortasse Ammiani Marcellini, tum aliorum paulo minore auctoritate, Mamertini junioris, Oratoris panegyrici, Servii, grammatici Virgiliani, Prisciani, tum Rhetorum, quos supra attuli, Aquile et Rufiniani, fortasse etiam Dionis Cassii, Lactantii et Charisii, ac si qui forte alii animadversionem nostram fugerunt. Verum qui in quaque re nihil præter rem spectare didicit, neque extrinsecus suspensas habere judicandi rationes, quamvis prima specie minime verisimile putet, tam mudtis, tamque partim præstantibus viris imposuisse scholasticum hominem imitamento Artis Ciceroniana, non tamen illud ex eo genere esse arbitrabitur, quod plane sit τῶν ἀδυνάτων.” Pref. P. xix.

The method which M. WOLF has adopted in settling the text, and in his Commentary, is very satisfactory. He has principally followed the text of Grævius, but at the same time. professes to have diligently collated with it the MSS. and printed editions of the best character. Whenever he found different readings, supported by the authority of Codices, his object was to select that which was most elegant and most Ciceronian; by which means his text is, in some cases, more Ciceronian than that of any former edition. On the other hand, whenever all or the best authorities were agreed on a particular reading, he has rejected, in favour of it, those alterations which preceding editors had introduced, on bare unsupported conjecture, in their tenderness for the reputation of Cicero ; qua ratione,' he observes, non raro etiam verba emendavi, minus emendatis inferendis, uti monitum est in Orat. ad Quir. p. 124. Pref. p. xxii. Moreover, where the antient and genuine reading has been totally obscured by the blunders of transcribers, and none of the existing Codices throw any light on it, he gives the passage as it has been generally published.

In his Commentary, in order that the mind of the reader may not be distracted from the main point, the editor confines

*Notabile est, Marklandum anno 1776 obiisse, Gesnero autem, cujus libellus eum latere vix potuit, nihil respondisse. Quamquam ex ea re conjici nolim, ipsum ab hoc deductum esse de sententia sua.

Gg3

himself

himself to this consideration, Quid in scribendo sit rectum, quid Latinum, quid Ciceronianum,- quid non.' Pref. p. xxiii. For historical and other information, the reader is referred to prior editions; excepting in a few of the more obscure instances, in which explanations are adduced from Manutius, Hotomanus, &c. as their names annexed will shew. The commentary, on those passages which have been principally contested, presents to us the objection of Markland, with the answer of Gesner; to which M. WOLF subjoins his own decision. It is evident that a disputation of two such men, with such a moderator, must afford an interesting and very useful praxis of criticism.

The critical tests, by which the editor proposes to try the genuineness of these Orations, are six; I. The Rules of Grammar, II. Justness of Reasoning, III. Elegance and other rhetorical Excellencies, IV. Accuracy in Matters of History, V. That political Caution which arises from a Knowlege of the World, VI. Peculiar Character of Style.

Having thus laid down his plan of proceeding, he throws out a suspicion which may perhaps alarm some of his readers, at the same time that it stimulates their curiosity:

• Num in extremis Orationibus Ciceronis etiam alia quædam lateat, non in Senatu dicta, uti creditur, sed in otio scholæ composita. Sed quoniam nemo ante nos talem conjecturam attulit, universe rem indicasse satis habemus, integramque relinquimus iis, qui in his studiis omnia sibi declarari et expediri moleste ferunt; præsertim quum magnopere vereamur, ne boc surdis auribus cantaturi simus, quoniam in illa Oratione pleraque argumenta volelas ex una dissimilitudine characteris ducenda erunt.' Pref. p. xliv.

In the way of Appendix to this introduction, are annexed the prefaces of Markland and Gesner; by which method we are put in possession of the whole of the Materia Critica of those illustrious scholars, without having occasion to refer to their respective publications.

The present state of the question, therefore, as humourously stated by our learned and ingenious editor, is this; Exstat unus libellus accusationis *; auditus est unus disertior patronus † ; tres produximus accusati scriptoris laudatores ‡; reliquum est, ut velut integra re disceptemus, ut per oremus, ut eatur in Consilium." Pref. p. xxv.

We have been thus copious in our account of the Preface, both because the subject of it is very interesting, and because we trust that it will not be expected that we should be diffuse in our examination of the Commentary. A critique of a triple Ruhnken, Wyttenbach, Saxe.

* Markland.

+ Gesner.

kind,

n/

kind, such as we have described the Commentary to be, however amusing in the perusal, must necessarily be a tedious matter for additional criticism; and our readers might be tempted to transfer to us the words used on another occasion by Horace," Nec quarta loqui persona laboret." We trust, however, that we may be allowed to offer a few preparatory remarks applicable to the work itself in general, and more particularly to the nature and style of the Commentary.

Though it be granted that the learned world may possibly (see Pref. p. xix quoted above) have been deceived with respect to the authenticity of these four Orations, it still is certain that, as an imitation of Cicero, they must have very considerable merit; they could not, otherwise, have so long escaped detection. The blunders of the composer cannot be very coarse, or they would have been more palpable; the style cannot be very poor, the Latinity cannot be very provincial, very impure, nor very ungrammatical; if therefore mistakes of this sort do occur, they ought sometimes to be attributed to the injury of time, the inadvertency of successive transcribers, the incuria of the author, &c. and it is fair to use the same candour in correcting them as if the oration were of acknowleged authenticity; and it must be very unfair to criticise, with se verity, passages of which the reading is notoriously corrupt. We lament that Markland, in his objections, has not invariably shewn himself unbiassed by prejudice; and we are ready to notice, where truth will permit us, the superior candour of M. WOLF; thus in p. 60. § 30. he defends, against Markland, the expression divinitus, which had not been noticed by Gesner; and he evinces a similar regard to justice, p. 119. § 20. p. 260. § 112. &c.: but it will hardly be contended that this is universally the case. He might sometimes have been less abusively sarcastic, and his argument would have appeared not less convincing. He says indeed in his preface, p. xxvi.

Unus subinde castigatur, ubi quid commeruit, vetus Scriptor, qui id non sentiet, ac, si sentiret, haberet profecto, quo vel acerbiora maledicta obruere posset, admiratorum suorum per tot sæcula consonantes laudes et præconia.' This may be true, but still his asperity is overcharged; his terms of reprobation are so severe, that his readers cannot always join with him; and he therefore seems, on such occasions, to cavil rather than criticise. On the other hand, as we are to look for errors in small matters, we must not take offence at much minuteness of criticism; where the dispute is about words, much will appear to be hypercritical, which is not so; the critic may seem Nodum in Scirpo quærere, because the patience of his reader happens to fail; and where the critic is really guilty, some indulgence

Gg 4