Scanned text contains errors.
vidual by whom it was composed. In addition to the considerations already indicated, which support this view of the question, it will be observed that the lamentations over the decline of correct taste in eloquence, poetry, and the fine arts, and the invectives against the destructive influence exercised upon the minds of-the young by the system of education then in fashion, and especially by the teachers of declamation, could proceed only from one who had witnessed the introduction,' or at least the full development of that system, and would have been completely out of place at an epoch when the vices here exposed had become sanctioned by universal practice, and had long ceased to excite animadversion or suspicion. Many attempts have been made to account for the strangely mutilated condition in which the piece has been transmitted to modern times. It has been suggested by some that the blanks were caused by the scruples of pious transcribers, who omitted those parts which were most licentious ; while others have not hesitated to declare their conviction that the worst passages were studiously selected. Without meaning to advocate this last hypothesis—and we can scarcely conceive that Burmann was in earnest when he propounded it— it is clear that the first explanation is altogether unsatisfactory, for it appears to be impossible that what was passed over could have been more offensive than much of what was retained. According to another theory, what we now possess must be regarded as striking and favourite extracts, copied out into the common-place book of some scholar in the middle ages ; a supposition applicable to the Supper of Trimalchio and the longer poetical essays, but which fails for the numerous short and abrupt fragments breaking off in the middle of a sentence. The most simple solution of the difficulty seems to be the true one. The existing MSS. proceeded, in all likelihood, from two or three archetypes which may have been so much damaged by neglect, that large portions were rendered illegible, while whole leaves and sections may have been torn out or otherwise destroyed.
The Editio Princeps of the fragments of Petro-nius was printed at Venice, by Bernardinus de Vitalibus, 4 to. 1499 ; and the second at Leipzig, by Jacobus Thanner, in 1500 ; but these editions, and those which followed for upwards of a hundred and fifty years, exhibited much less than we now possess. For, about the middle of the seventeenth century, an individual who assumed the designation of Martinus Statilius, although his real name was Petrus Petitus, found a MS. at Traun in Dalmatia, containing, nearly entire, the Supper of Trimalchio, which was wanting in all former copies. This was published- separately at Padua, in a very incorrect state (8vo. 1664), without the knowledge of the discoverer, again by Petitus himself (8vo. Paris, 1664), and immediately gave rise to a fierce controversy, in which the most learned men of that day took a share, one party receiving it without suspicion as a genuine relic of antiquity, while their opponents with great vehemence contended that it was spurious. The strife was not quelled until the year 1669, when the MS. was despatched from the library of the proprietor, Nicolaus Cippius, at Traun, to Rome, where, having been narrowly scrutinised by the most competent judges, it was finally pronounced to be at least three hundred years old, and, since no
forgery of such a nature could have been executed at that epoch, the sceptics were compelled reluctantly to admit that their doubts were ill founded. The title of the Codex, commonly known as the Codex Traguriensis, was Petronii Arbitri Satyri Frag-menta eoc lihro quinto decimo et seocto decimo, and then follow the words " Num alio genere furi-arum," &c. Stimulated, it would appear, by the interest excited during the progress of this discussion, and by the favour with which the new acquisition was now universally regarded, a certain Francis Nodot published at Rotterdam (12mo. 1693) what professed to be the Satyricon of Pe-tronius complete, taken, it was said, from a MS. found at Belgrade when that city was captured in 1688, a MS. which Nodot declared had been presented to him by a Frenchman high in the imperial service. The fate of this volume was soon decided. The imposture was so palpable that few could be found to advocate the pretensions put forth on its behalf, and it was soon given up by all. It is sometimes, however, printed along with the genuine text, but in a different type, so as to prevent the possibility of mistake. Besides this, a pretended fragment, said to have been obtained from the monastery of St. Gall, was printed in 1800, with notes and a French translation by Lallemand, but it seems to have deceived nobody.
The best edition which has yet appeared, which is so comprehensive as entirely to supersede all its predecessors, is that of Pe.trus Burmannus, 4to. Traj. ad Rhen. 1709 ; and again much enlarged and improved, 2 vol. 4to. Amst. 1743. It embraces a vast mass of annotations, prolegomena and dissertations, collected from the writings of different critics. Those who may prefer an impression of more moderate size, will. find the edition of Antonius, 8vo. Lips. 1781, correct and serviceable.
We find in the Latin Anthology, and subjoined to all the larger editions of the Satyricon, a number of short poems bearing the name of Petronius. These have been collected from a great variety of different sources, and are the work of many different hands, it being very doubtful whether any of them ought to be ascribed to Petronius Arbiter.
(The numerous biographies, dissertations, &c. by Sambucus, Gyraldus, Goldastus, Solichius, Gonsalius de Salas, Valesius, &c., collected in the edition of Burmann. Among more modern autho rities, we may specify Cataldo Janelli, Codex Pe~ rottin. Neapol. 1811, vol. ii. p. cxxiii.; Dunlop, History of Fiction, cap. ii. ; Niebuhr, Klein. His- torisch. Scfirift. vol. i. p. 337, and Lectures edited by Schmitz, vol. ii. p. 325 ; Orelli, Corpus Inscrip. Lot. No. 1175; Weichert, Poetarum Lat. Reliq. p. 440 ; Meyer, Antliolog. Lat. vol. i. p. Ixxiii. ; Wellauer, in Jahn's Jahrbb. Suppl. Band, x. p. 194 ; and especially Studer, in Rheinisclies Museum, Neue Folge, vol. ii. 1. p. 50, ii. 2. p. 202, and Ritter, in the same work, vol. ii. 4. p. 561.) [W. R,]
PETRONIUS (YlerpoovLos), a writer on pharmacy, who lived probably in the beginning of the first century after Christ, as he is mentioned by Dioscorides (De Mater. Med. praef. vol. i. p. 2), who classes him among the later authors (comp. St. Epiphan. Adv. Haeres. i. 1. § 3, p. 3, ed. Colon. 1682). Fabricius (Bill. Gr. vol. xiii. p. 361, ed. vet.) supposes his name to have been Petronius Niger