« PreviousContinue »
Amsterdam 1724, both adding considerably to the collection of Davies.
In 1777 some slight improvements in the text were made in Ernesti's edition, but the first edition of importance after Davies is that by Heindorf 1817. He was a sound scholar with an open eye and independent judgment and, though he relied too much on inferior codices, especially on his Codex Glogavianus, and was too much disposed to alter, yet, if I am not mistaken, an examination of my critical notes will show that a larger number of accepted emendations have proceeded from him than from almost any other single editor. The edition of Moser and Creuzer cum notis variorum Leipzig 1818, and the smaller edition by Moser 1821, are both very disappointing. Moser is laborious, but he appears to me to have been the least intelligent of the editors whom I have consulted, and Creuzer had no critical judgment. Their Apparatus Criticus, which professes to contain the collations of twenty new mss, is very confused and careless, as may be seen by comparing it with Baiter's collations. The notes of F. A. Wolf and Wyttenbach given at the end are mostly of an elementary character. The great improvement in the text was commenced by Orelli in his first edition 1826–1830. Allen (Alanus) brought out an edition with Latin notes, London 1836.
These are chiefly grammatical and critical, containing some good emendations e.g. nimis callide 1 70, venantis ii 126. The edition with German notes by G. F. Schömann 1850 (4th and last in 1876), is deservedly the most popular up to the present time. He is a sensible scholar, who had shown his interest in the theology of the Ancients by a variety of
essays and commentaries, and he has made good use of the notes of Davies. He was also the first to notice many of the difficulties of the text, but he complains that it was impossible for him to give full explanations within the limits allowed him, and it would certainly be too much to say that he had succeeded in clearing up all difficulties. Some of his emendations have been generally accepted, e.g. afficiendum for efficiendum in i 19, of which he was the first to offer a rational explanation, as he was also of 11 9 by changing the reading of the uss nulli viri into nulla cum viri. With his edition should be consulted his papers on the text contained in his Opuscula vol. I pp. 274-384, iv pp. 336-359 (de Epicuri theologia) and N. Jahrb. for 1875 pp. 685—695. It is scarcely worth while to mention the text of Ast 1829, and the elementary German editions by Seibt 1834, and Freund in his Schüler-Bibliothek. The latter is the more recent and much the fuller of the two, but neither has contributed anything of his own to the elucidation of the book. Reinhold Klotz did a good deal to improve the text in his edition 1869, and his Adnotationes Criticae ad M. Tullii Ciceronis librum de N. D. primum in 4 parts, Leipzig 1867—1869. He is the author of the excellent emendation a parvis enim for apparuisse in I 80. But no scholar has done so much as Madvig in his Opuscula and his edition of the De Finibus to improve both the text and the interpretation of Cicero. We may perhaps be of opinion that only a small proportion of his conjectures are likely to find a place in the final text, but the arguments by which they are supported are always full of instruction. The best existing texts are those of Baiter 1864 and C. F. W. Müller 1878, on which more is said in the Introduction to my first volume.
Besides Olivet's French translation already noticed, may be mentioned the German translations by Meyer (with useful notes) ed. 2, 1832, by Schröder 1841, by R. Kühner 1863, with analysis and notes, which are perhaps less original than might have been expected from so distinguished an editor and grammarian, but which do not seem to me to deserve the contempt with which die neueste Uebersetzung is constantly alluded to by Schömann. A still later translation by J. H. Kirchmann (Leipzig 1875) is a very ignorant and unscholarly performance. Two English translations may be named, as fairly idiomatic; both are anonymous, but the latter (London 1741) is understood to be by Thomas Francklin, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. It is what the Germans call a Tendenz-schrift' by a follower of Shaftesbury (see the notes on pp. 4, 87, 263). The older translation appeared in 1683. It is written from the ordinary point of view and contains copious explanatory notes of an elementary kind.
I proceed to give a list of illustrative works.
Fabricatio hominis a Cicerone libro secundo de Natura Deorum descripta cum annotationibus Alberti Novicampiani 1551 Cracoviae. (In the British Museum. The writer compares Cicero with Galen, but makes no attempt to explain the obscurities of the former.)
Uranologion of Petavius. Paris 1630. (Contains the ancient
Berlin 1782. pp. 364.
Kindervater. Anmerkungen und Abhandlungen philosophischen und
philologischen Inhalts über C.'s Bücher von der Natur der Götter. 1796. (Not of much value.)
The publications of this century are arranged in alphabetical order, the more important being marked with an asterisk.
A. Becker. Comm. Crit. ad Cic. 1 N. D. Budingen 1865.
zu Cicero's Büchern de N. D. Gera 1870. See on the same
subject Ebert below. C. M. Bernhardt. De Cicerone Graecae philosophiae interprete.
Berlin 1865. Birkholtz. Cicero Medicus 1806. (Merely a Chrestomathia Cicero
niana.) *A. Brieger. Beiträge zur Kritik einiger philosophischen Schriften
des Cicero. Posen 1873. *Bywater. Aristotle's Dialogue on Philosophy in J. of Philology VII
p. 64–87. Cambridge 1876. Victor Clavel. De Cicerone Graecorum interprete. Paris 1869. (Of
very little value.) Cobet. Variae Lectiones pp. 460–463. Leyden 1873. *Deiter. In Rhein. Mus. 1882 pp. 314—317 Zum codex Vossianus 86.
(Contains corrections and additions to Baiter's collation of B.) De Ciceronis codice Leidensi 118 denuo collato. Emdae 1882. De Ciceronis codicibus Vossianis 84 et 86 denuo excussis. Auricae
1885. (I only know of these two from Deiter’s review of my edition in the Berliner philologischer Wochenschrift 30 May
1885.) *Detlefsen. In the Wiener Sitzungs-Berichte vol. 21 (1856) p. 117.
(Describes codex V.) Dietrich. Commentationes criticae de locis quibusdam Ciceronis 1850.
(Not seen.) *H. Ebeling. Handschriftliches zu Cicero de divinatione in Philo
logus XLIII. 4, pp. 702—707. *A. Ebert. (Cicero and Minucius Felix.) In Abhandl. d. sächs.
Gesellschaft d. Wiss. (phil. hist. Kl.) for 1868 pp. 328 foll., 354
foll., 367 foll. P. J. Elvenich. Adumbratio legum artis criticae cum var. crit. in Cic.
de N. D. Bonn 1821.
*J. Forchhammer. Annotationes Criticae ad Ciceronis de Natura
Deorum libros in the Nordisk Tidskrift for Filologi. Copen
hagen 1880 pp. 23—53. C. Förtsch. Quaestiones Tullianae. Naumburg 1837. (Contains a
careful examination of N. D. i 11, 25, III 84.) G. S. Francke. Geist und Gehalt der Cic. Bücher von der Natur der
Götter. Altona 1806. (A discussion as to Cicero's own sentiments
on theology.) J. A. Froude. Divus Caesar in vol. 3 of Short Studies 1884. Halm. Zur Handschriftenkunde der Ciceronischen Schriften. Munich
1850. N. Jahrb. for 1859 pp. 759–778. (On the mss of the Leges. A is
described as full of erasures, B as utterly disordered, one page
sometimes made up of four unconnected fragments.) Heidtmann. Zur Kritik und Interpretation der Schrift Cicero's de
Natura Deorum. Neustettin 1858. (Learned and intelligent
but rather too bold.) *R. Hirzel. Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften.
1 Theil. De Natura Deorum. Leipzig 1877. (An excellent
book on the Sources of the Dialogue.) Höfig. C.'s Ansicht v. d. Staatsreligion. Krotoschin pp. 75. (I have
not seen this.) Horstig. Die Gottheit: was sagt Cicero in seine Schrift darüber als
Heide und Philosoph ? Leipzig 1823. *Krahner. Grundlinien zur Geschichte des Verfalls der römischen
Staatsreligion. Halle 1837. *A. B. Krische. Die theologischen Lehren d. griechischen Denker.
Göttingen 1840. (A very learned and able examination of the Epicurean sketch of early philosophy contained in N. D.
I SS 25—41.) R. Kühner. M. Tullii Ciceronis in philosophiam ejusque partes
merita. Hamburg 1825. (A book which might very easily be,
but has not yet been, superseded.) Lengnick. Ad emendandos explicandosque Cic. l. de N. D. quid ex
Philodemi tepi ecceßelas redundet. Halle 1872. A. Matthiae. Observatt. de nonnullis locis libri i de natura deorum
in his Vermischte Schriften. Altenburg 1833. Menière. Cicéron Médecin. 1862. (Very slight.) *C. F. W. Müller in Fleckeisen's J. B. 1864 pp. 127—147, 261-281, 605—631. (Important for the text.)
O. M. Müller. Ciceronis libris de N. D. non extremam manum
accessisse. Bromberg 1839. Peter. Comm. de Ciceronis N. D. i 19. 1861. Philodemus. For the literature see vol. 1 p. xlii foll. and Lengnick
above. E. Reinhold. De Interpretatione tņs atpodnyews Epicureae in Cicero
nis libro I de N. D. Jena 1840. Schultze. Specimen variarum lectionum e codd. Lagomarsinianis
librorum Ciceronis de N. D. descriptarum. 1847. *Schwencke in Jahrb. f. class. Philol. 1879 pp. 49–66, 129–142.
(On the sources of N. D. criticising Hirzel.) *Schwencke in N. Jahrb. f. Philol. u. Pädag. 1882. pp. 613–633.
(On N. D. 1 49. Both articles deserve careful attention.) W. Scott in Journal of Philology vol. xii pp. 212—247 on 'The phy
sical constitution of the Epicurean Gods.' (An able defence of
Lachelier's view mentioned in my vol. 1 p. 147 n.) Stamm. De Ciceronis libro de N. D. interpolationibus. Breslau
1873. Thiaucourt. Essai sur les Traités Philosophiques de Cicéron et leurs
sources grecques. Paris 1885. (A convenient summary of the
latest investigations.) *Vahlen. Zu Cicero's philosophische Schriften in Zeitschrift f. d.
Österr. Gymn. 1873 pp. 241—247. (On N. D. 11 6, 147, 111 35.
Natura Deorum as opposed to Baiter's Deorum Natura.) Vaucher. In Ciceronis libros philosophicos curae criticae. Lau
sanne 1865. Wessele-Scholten. Dissertatio de philosophiae Ciceronianae loco qui
est de divina natura. Amsterdam 1783. (Not seen.) *Wopkens. Lectiones Tullianae, ed. Hand, 1829. * Zeller. Religion u. Philosophie bei den Römern. Berlin 1867. (For other books on the religious philosophy of the Ancients see my
Guide to the Choice of Classical Books under the head of Mythology and Religion.)