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 classics 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 Æmilius 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 Ælius 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 period594. 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 Calliopius595. 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 Politian596, who wrote on it, in his own hand, that he had never seen one [pg A-29]more ancient:—“Ego, Angelus Politianus, homo 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 library597.

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 priority598. The Terence printed by Pynson in 1497, was, I believe, the first Latin classic 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 (1517–21), the Stephenses (1529–52, &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 illustration of difficult passages.” 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 Tragœdiâ et Comœdiâ,—and a treatise, compiled by the editor from the best authorities, concerning the scenic representations of the Romans.

Bentley’s first edition of Terence was printed at Cambridge in the same year with that of Westerhovius. One of Bentley’s great objects was the reformation of the metres of Terence, concerning which he prefixed a learned dissertation. The boldness of his alterations on the text, which were in a great measure calculated to serve this purpose, drew down on him, in his own age, the appellation of “slashing Bentley,” and repeated castigation from subsequent editors.

Of the more recent editions, that of Zeunius (Leipsic, 1774) is deservedly accounted the best in point of critical excellence. There are, however, three German editions still more recent; that by Schmieder, (Halle, 1794,) by Bothe, (Magdeburg, 1806,) and by Perlet, (Leipsic, 1821;) which last is chiefly remarkable for its great number of typographical errors—about as numerous as those in one of the old English Pearl Bibles.

The plays of Terence being much less numerous than those of Plautus, translations of the whole of them appeared at an earlier period, both in Italian and French. The first complete Italian translation of Terence was in prose. It is dedicated to Benedetto Curtio, by a person calling himself Borgofranco; but from the ambiguity of some expressions in this dedication, there has been a dispute, whether he be the author, or only the editor of the version—Fontanini supporting the former, and Apostolo Zeno the latter proposition599. It was first printed at Venice, 1533; and Paitoni enumerates six subsequent editions of it in the course of the sixteenth century. The next version was that of Giovanni Fabrini, which, as we learn by the title, is rendered word for word from the original; it was printed at Venice, [pg A-30]1548. A third prose translation, published at Rome, 1612, is dedicated to the Cardinal Borghese by the printer Zanetti, who mentions, that it was the work of an unknown author, which had fallen accidentally into his hands: Fontanini, however, and Apost. Zeno, have long since discovered, that the author was called Cristoforo Rosario. Crescimbeni speaks favourably of a version by the Marchioness of Malespini. Another lady, Luisa Bergalli, had translated in verso sciolto, and printed separately, some of the plays of Terence: These she collected, and, having completed the remainder, published them together at Venice, in 1733. In 1736, a splendid edition of a poetical translation of Terence, and accompanied by the Latin, was printed at Urbino, with figures of the actors, taken from a MS. preserved in the Vatican. It is written in verso sciolto, except the prologues, which are in versi sdruccioli. The author, who was Nicholas Fortiguerra, and who died before his version was printed, says, that the comedies are nunc primum Italicis versibus redditæ600; but in this he had not been sufficiently informed, as his version was preceded by that of Luisa Bergalli, and by many separate translations of each individual play. A translation of two of Terence’s plays, the Andria and Eunuchus, into versi sdruccioli, by Giustiano de Candia, was printed by Paullus Manutius in 1544601. Three of Terence’s plays, the Andria, Eunuchus, and Heautontimorumenos, were subsequently translated in versi sdruccioli, by the Abbé Bellaviti, and published at Bassan in 1758.

It is not certain who was the author of the first French translation of Terence, or even at what period he existed. Du Verdier and Fabricius say, he was Octavien de Saint Gelais, Bishop of Angouleme, who lived in the reign of Charles VIII. This, however, is doubtful, since Pierre Grosnet, a French poet, contemporary with the Bishop, while mentioning the other classics which he had translated, says nothing of any version of Terence by him, but expressly mentions one by Gilles Cybile—

The author, whoever he may be, mentions, that the translation was made by order of the King; but he does not specify by which of the French monarchs the command was given. His work was first printed, but without date, by Anthony Verard, so well known as the printer of some of the earliest romances of chivalry; and as Verard died in 1520, it must have been printed before that date603. It is in one volume folio, ornamented with figures in wood-cuts, and is entitled, Le Grant Therence en François, tant en rime qu’en prose, avecques le Latin. As this title imports, there is both a prose and verse translation; and the Latin text is likewise given. It is difficult to say which of the translations is worst; that in verse, which is in lines of eight syllables, is sometimes almost unintelligible, and the variation of masculine and feminine rhymes, is scarcely ever attended to.

The translation, printed 1583, with the Latin text, and of which the author is likewise unknown, is little superior to that by which it was preceded. Beauchamp, in his Recherches sur les Théatres de France, mentions two other translations of the sixteenth century—one in 1566, the other in 1584. The first by Jean Bourlier, is in prose—the second is in rhyme, and is translated verse for verse. Mad. Dacier includes all the versions of the sixteenth century in one general censure, only excepting that of the Eunuch by Baif, printed 1573, in his jeux poëtiques. It is in lines of eight and ten syllables, and was undertaken by order of Queen Catharine, mother of Charles IX. Mad. Dacier pronounces it to be a good translation, except that, in about twenty passages, the sense of the original author has been mistaken. It is remarked by Goujet, in his Bibliothéque Françoise, that if Mad. Dacier had [pg A-31]been acquainted with the Andrian, by Bonaventure des Perriers, printed in 1537, she would have made an exception in favour of it also. Bonaventure was the valet of Margaret, Queen of Navarre, and after her death the editor of her tales, and himself the author of a collection in a similar taste. He wrote at a time when the French language was at its highest perfection, being purified from the coarseness which appeared in the romances of chivalry, and yet retaining that energy and simplicity, which it in a great measure lost, soon after the accession of the Bourbons. This version was one of Bonaventure’s first productions, as, in the Avis aux Lecteurs, he says, “Que c’etait son apprentissage:” he intended to have translated the whole plays of Terence, but was prevented by his tragical death. The same comedy chosen by Bonaventure des Perriers, was translated into prose by Charles Stephens, brother of the celebrated printers.

About this period, the Gentlemen of the Port-Royal, in France, paid considerable attention to the education of youth, and to the cultivation of classical learning. M. de Sacy, a distinguished member of that religious association, and well known in his day as the author of the Heures de Port-Royal, translated into prose the Andria, Adelphi, and Phormio604. This version, which he printed in 1647, under the assumed name of M. de Saint-Aubin, is much praised in the Parnasse Reformé, and the Jugemens des Sçavans. There were many subsequent editions of it, and some even after the appearance of the translation by Mad. Dacier. The version of the other three comedies, by the Sieur de Martignac, was intended, and announced as a supplement, or continuation of the work of M. de Sacy.

It still remains for me to mention the translation of Terence by Mad. Dacier. This lady was advised against the undertaking by her friends, but she was determined to persevere605. She rose at five o’clock every morning, during a whole winter, in the course of which she completed four comedies; but having perused them at the end of some months, she thought them too much laboured and deficient in ease. She therefore threw them into the fire, and, with more moderation, recommenced her labour, which she at length completed, with satisfaction to herself and the public. Her translation was printed in 1688, 3 vols. 12mo, accompanied with the Latin text, a preface, a life of the poet, and remarks on each of his pieces. She has not entered, as in her translations of Plautus, into a particular examination of every scene, but has contented herself with some general observations. This lady has also made considerable changes as to the commencement and termination of the scenes and acts; and her conjectures on these points are said to have been afterwards confirmed by an authoritative and excellent MS., discovered in the Bibliothéque de Roi606. The first edition was improved on, in one subsequently printed at Rotterdam in 1717, which was also ornamented with figures from two MSS. There is yet a more recent translation by Le Monnier, 1771, which is now accounted the best.

The first translation which appeared in this country, and which is entitled “Terence in Englysh,” is without date, but is supposed to have been printed in 1520. It was followed by Bernard’s translation, 1598—Hoole’s, 1670—Echard’s, 1694—and Dr Patrick’s, 1745. All those prose versions are flat and obsolete, and in many places unfaithful to their original. At length Colman published a translation in familiar blank verse, in which he has succeeded extremely well. He has seldom mistaken the sense of his author, and has frequently attained to his polished ease of style and manner. The notes, which have been judiciously selected from former commentators, with some observations of his own, form a valuable part of the work.

The work of Lucretius, like the Æneid of Virgil, had not received the finishing hand of its author, at the period of his death. The tradition that Cicero revised it, and gave it to the public, does not rest on any authority more ancient than that of Eusebius; and, had the story been true, it would probably have been mentioned in some part of Cicero’s voluminous writings, or those of the early critics. Eichstädt607, while he denies the revisal by Cicero, is of opinion that it had been corrected by some critic or grammarian; and that thus two MSS., differing in many respects from each other, had descended to posterity—the one as it came from the hand of the poet, and the other as amended by the reviser. This he attempts to prove from the great inequality of the language—now obsolete and rugged—now polished and refined—which difference can only, he thinks, be accounted for, from the original and corrected copies having been mixed together in some of those middle-age transcriptions, on which the first printed editions were formed. The old grammarians, too, he alleges, frequently quote verses of Lucretius, which no longer compose parts of his poem, and which therefore must have been altogether omitted by the corrector; and, finally, the readings in the different MSS. are so widely different, that it is incredible that the variations could have proceeded from the transcribers or interpolators, and could have been occasioned only by the author or reviser of the poem.

But though not completely polished by the author, there is no ground for the conjecture, that the poem ever consisted of more than the present six books—an opinion which seems to have originated in an orthographical error, and which is contradictory to the very words of the poet himself.608

The work of Lucretius does not appear to have been popular at Rome, and the MSS. of it were probably not very numerous in the latter ages of the empire. It is quoted by Raban Maur, Abbot of Fulda, in his book De Universo609, which was written in the ninth century. The copies of it, however, seem to have totally disappeared, previous to the revival of literature; but at length Poggio Bracciolini, while attending the Council of Constance, whither he repaired in 1414, discovered a MS. in the monastery of St Gal, about twenty miles from that city610. It is from the following lines, in a Latin elegy, by Cristoforo Landini, on the death of this celebrated ornament of his age, that we learn to whom we are indebted for the first of philosophic poems. Landini, recording the discoveries of his friend, exclaims—

Poggio sent the newly-discovered treasure to Niccolo Niccoli, who kept the original MS. fourteen years. Poggio earnestly demanded it back, and at length ob[pg A-33]tained it; but before it was restored, Niccoli made from it, with his own hand, a transcript, which is still extant in the Laurentian library611.

The edition published at Verona, 1486, which is not a very correct one, was long accounted the Editio Princeps of Lucretius. A more ancient impression, however, printed at Brescia, 1473, has recently become known to bibliographers. It was edited by Ferrandus from a single MS. copy, which was the only one he could procure. But though he had not the advantage of collating different MSS., the edition is still considered valuable, for its accuracy and excellent readings. There are, I believe, only three copies of it now extant, two of which are at present in England. The text of Lucretius was much corrupted in the subsequent editions of the fifteenth century, and even in that of Aldus, published at Venice in 1500, of which Avancius was the editor, and which was the first Latin classic printed by Aldus612. This was partly occasioned by the second edition of 1486 being unfortunately chosen as the basis of all of them, instead of the prior and preferable edition, printed at Brescia. In a few, but very few readings, the second edition has improved on the first, as, for example, in the beautiful description of the helplessness of a new-born infant—

where the Brescian edition reads indignus, instead of indigus. And again, in the fifth book—

where the Brescian edition reads pollicere, instead of pellicere, which seems to be wrong. At length Baptista Pius, by aid of some emendations of his preceptor, Philippus Beroaldus, to which he had access, and by a laborious collation of MSS., succeeded in a great measure in restoring the depraved text of his author to its original purity. His edition, printed at Bologna in 1511, and the two Aldine editions, published in 1515, under the superintendence of Nevagero, who was a much better editor than Avancius, continued to be regarded as those of highest authority till 1563, when Lambinus printed at Paris an edition, prepared from the collation of five original MSS., and all the previous editions of any note, except the first and second, which seem to have been unknown to him. The text, as he boasts in the preface, was corrected in 800 different places, and was accompanied by a very ample commentary. Lambinus was succeeded by Gifanius, who was more a grammarian than an acute or tasteful critic. He amassed together, without discrimination, the notes and conjectures on Lucretius, of all the scholars of his own and the preceding age. Douza, in a sot of satirical verses, accused him of having appropriated and published in his edition, without acknowledgment, some writings of L. Fruterius, which had been committed to him on death-bed, in order to be printed. His chief merit lies in what relates to grammatical interpretation, and the explanation of ancient customs, and in a more ample collection of parallel passages than had hitherto been made. The editions of D. Pareus, (Frankfort, 1631,) and of Nardius, (Florence, 1647,) were not better than that of Gifanius; and the Delphin edition of Lucretius, by M. Le Fay, has long been known as the very worst of the class to which it belongs. “Notæ ejus,” says Fabricius, “plenæ sunt pudendis hallucinationibus.” Indeed, so much ashamed of it were his colleagues, and those who directed this great undertaking of the Delphin classics, that they attempted, though unsuccessfully, to suppress it.

Nearly a century and a half had elapsed, from the first publication of the edition of Lambinus, without a tolerable new impression of Lucretius being offered to the public, when Creech, better known as the translator of Lucretius, printed, in 1695, a Latin edition of the poet, to whose elucidation he had devoted his life. His study of the Epicurean system, and intimate acquaintance with the works of Gassendi, [pg A-34]fully qualified him for the philosophic illustration of his favourite author. On the whole, however, Havercamp’s edition, Leyden, 1725, is the best which has yet appeared of Lucretius. It was prepared from the collation of twenty-five MSS., as well as of the most ancient editions, and contained not only the whole annotations of Creech and Lambinus, but also some notes of Isaac Vossius, which had not previously been printed. The prefaces of the most important editions are prefixed; and the only fault which has been found with it is, that in his new readings the editor has sometimes injured the harmony of the versification. Lucretius certainly can not be considered as one of the classics who have been most fortunate in their editors and commentators. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, he failed to obtain the care of the most pre-eminent critics of the age, and was thus left to the conjectures of second-rate scholars. It was his lot to be assigned to the most ignorant and barbarous of the Delphin editors; and his catastrophe has been completed by falling into the hands of Wakefield, whose edition is one of the most injudicious and tasteless that ever issued from the press. In preparing this work, which is dedicated to Mr Fox, the editor had the use of several MSS. in the University of Cambridge and the British Museum; and also some MS. notes of Bentley, found in a copy of a printed edition, which originally belonged to Dr Mead. In his preface, he expresses himself with much asperity against Mr Cumberland, for withholding from him some other MS. notes of Bentley, which were in his possession. It would have been fortunate for him if he had never seen any of Bentley’s annotations, since many of his worst readings are derived from that source. By an assiduous perusal of MSS. and the old editions, he has restored as much of the ancient Latin orthography, as renders the perusal of the poet irksome, though, by his own confession, he has not in this been uniform and consistent; and he has most laboriously amassed, particularly from Virgil, a multitude of supposed parallel passages, many of which have little resemblance to the lines with which they are compared. The long Latin poem, addressed to Fox, lamenting the horrors of war, does not compensate for the very brief and unsatisfactory notices, as to every thing that regards the life and writings of the poet, and the previous editions of his works. The commentary is dull, beyond the proverbial dulness of commentaries; and wherever there was a disputed or doubtful reading, that one is generally selected, which is most tame and unmeaning—most grating to the ear, and most foreign, both to the spirit of the poet, and of poetry in general. I shall just select one instance from each book, as an example of the manner in which the finest lines have been utterly destroyed by the alteration of a single word, or even letter, and I shall choose such passages as are familiar to every one. In his magnificent eulogy of Epicurus, in the first book, Lucretius, in admiration of the enlightened boldness of that philosopher, described him as one—

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 passages 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 principal 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 Abbé 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 meaning613. It was a good deal amended, however, in the second edition, 1659, under circumstances of which the author introduces an account in the list of his works subjoined to his translation of Virgil. Gassendi, who had profoundly studied the system of Epicurus and Lucretius, having procured a copy of Ma[pg A-37]rolles’ first edition, he sent a few days before his death for the author, and pointed out to him, with his own hand, those passages in which he thought his translation defective, and also supplied him with a number of notes in illustration of the poet. The Abbé 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 Privilége 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 substituted 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 rehearsed 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 it614. This abortive attempt of Moliere incited the Abbé 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 12338615.

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:—

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 recherché. 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, [pg A-38]illustrated 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 Wasse. 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 publishing it vainly, its ill success at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest616.” 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 God 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 God, and the ministries of eucharist and prayer617.”

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 finishing, than ambitious of finishing 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 parts618.” It is also remarked by Dr Drake, “that in this version the couplet has led in almost [pg A-39]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 versification619.” The ample notes with which the translation is accompanied, are chiefly extracted from the works of Gassendi. 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 passages, 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 passages 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 passages 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 analysis 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.