his father) of a family of great printers, began his labours at Paris in 1554, with the princeps editio of Anacreon (a). He had been educated in that city under Danes, Toussain and Turnebus (b); and, though equally learned in both languages, devoted himself to Greek, as being more neglected than Latin (c). The press of Stephens might be called the central point of illumination to Europe. In the year 1557 alone, he published, as Maittaire observes, more editions of ancient authors than would have been sufficient to make the reputation of another author. His publications, as enumerated by Niceron (I have not counted them in Maittaire) amount to 103, of which by far the greater part are classical editions, more valuable than his original works. Baillet says of Henry Stephens, that he was second only to Budæus in Greek learning, though he seems to put Turnebus and Camerarius nearly on the same level. But perhaps the majority of scholars would think him superior on the whole to all the three; and certainly Turnebus, whose Adversaria are confined to Latin interpretation, whatever renown he might deserve by his oral lectures, has left nothing that could warrant our assigning him an equal place. Scaliger, however, accuses Henry Stephens of spoiling all the authors he edited by wrong alterations of the text (d). This charge is by no means unfrequently brought against the critics of this age.

14. The year 1572 is an epoch in Greek literature, by the publication of Stephens's Thesaurus. A lexicon had been pub

(a) An excellent life of Henry Stephens, as well as others of the rest of his family, was written by Maittaire, but which does not supersede those formerly published by Almeloveen. These together are among the best illustrations of the philological history of the 16th century that we possess. They have been abridged, with some new matter, by Mr. Greswell, in his Early History of the Parisian Greek Press. Almeloveen, Vitæ Stephanorum, p. 60. Maittaire, p. 200.

(6) Almeloveen, p. 70. His father made him learn Greek before he had acquired Latin. Maittaire, p. 198.

(c) The life of Stephens in the 36th volume of Niceron is long and useful. That in the Biographie Universelle is not bad, but enumerates few editions published by this most laborious scholar, and thus reduces the number of his works to twenty-six. Huet says (whom I quote from Blount), that Stephens may be called "The Translator par excellence;" such is his diligence and accuracy, so happy his skill in giving

the character of his author, so great his perspicuity and elegance.

(d) Omnes quotquot edidit, editve libros, etiam meos, suo arbitrio jam corrupit et deinceps corrumpet. Scalig. Prima, p. 96. Against this sharp, and perhaps rash, judgment, we may set that of Maittaire, a competent scholar, though not like Scaliger, and without his arrogance and scorn of the world. Henrici editiones ideo miror, quod eas, quam posset accuratissime aut ipse aut per alios, quos complures noverat, viros eruditos, ad omnium tum manuscriptorum tum impressorum codicum fidem, non sine maximo delectu et suo (quo maxime in Græcis præsertim pollebat) aliorumque judicio elaboravit. Vitæ Stephanorum, t. ii. p. 284. No man perhaps ever published so many editions as Stephens; nor was any other printer of so much use to letters; for he knew much more than the Aldi or the Juntas. Yet he had planned many more publications, as Maittaire has collected from what he has dropped invarious places, p. 469.

lished at Basle in 1562, by Robert Constantin, who, though he made use of that famous press, lived at Caen, of which he was a native. Scaliger speaks in a disparaging tone both of Constantin and his lexicon. But its general reputation has been much higher. A modern critic observes, that "a very great proportion of the explanations and authorities in Stephens's Thesaurus are borrowed from it (a)." We must presume that this applies to the first edition, for the second, enlarged by Emilius Portus, which is more common, did not appear till 1591 (b). "The principal defects of Constantin," it is added, "are first the confused and ill-digested arrangement of the interpretation of words, and secondly, the absence of all distinction between primitives and derivatives." It appears by a Greek letter of Constantin, prefixed to the first edition, that he had been assisted in his labours by Gesner, Henry Stephens, Turnebus, Camerarius, and other learned contemporaries. He gives his authorities, if not so much as we should desire, very far more than the editors of the former Basle lexicon. This lexicon, as was mentioned in the first volume, is extremely defective and full of errors, though a letter of Grynæus, prefixed to the edition of 1539, is nothing but a strain of unqualified eulogy, little warranted by the suffrage of later scholars. I found, however, on a loose calculation, the number of words in this edition to be not much less than 50,000 (c).

(a) Quarterly Review, vol. xxvii.

(6) The first edition of this Lexicon sometimes bears the name of Crespin, the printer at Basle; and both Baillet and Bayle have fallen into the mistake of believing that there were two different works. See Niceron, vol. xxvii.

(c) Henry Stephens in an epistle, De suæ Typographiæ statu ad quosdam amicos, gives an account of his own labours on the Thesaurus. The following passage on the earlier lexicons may be worth reading. Iis quæ circumferuntur lexicis Græco-Latinis primam imposuit manum monachus quidam, frater Johannes Crastonus, Placentinus, Carmelitanus; sed cum is jejunis expositionibus, in quibus vernaculo etiam sermone interdum, id est Italico, utitur, contentus fuisset, perfunctorie item constructiones verborum indicasset, nullos autorum locos proferens ex quibus illæ pariter et significationes cognosci possent; multi postea certatim multa hinc inde sine ullo delectuac judicio excerpta inseruerunt. Donec tandem indoctis typographis de augenda lexicorum mole inter se certantibus, et præmia iis qui id præstarent propo

nentibus, quæ jejunæ, et, si ita loqui licet, macilentæ antea erant expositiones, adeo pingues et crassæ redditæ sunt, ut in illis passim nihil aliud quam Booticam suem agnoscamus. Nam pauca ex Budæo, aliisque idoneis autoribus, et ea quidem parum fideliter descripta, utpote parum intellecta, multa contra ex Lapo Florentino, Leonardo Aretino, aliisque ejusdem farinæ interpretibus, ut similes habent labra lactucas, in opus illud transtulerunt. Ex iis quidem certe locis in quorum interpretatione felix fuit Laurentius Valla, paucissimos protulerunt ; sed pro perverso suo judicio, perversissimas quasque ejus interpretationes, quales prope innumeras a me annotatas in Latinis Herodoti et Thucydidis editionibus videbis, delegerunt egregii illi lexicorum seu consarcinatores seu interpolatores, quibus, tamquam gemmis, illa insignirent. Quod si non quam multa, sed duntaxat quam multorum generum errata ibi sint, commemorare velim, merito certe exclamabo, τί πρῶτον, τί δ ̓ ἔπειτα, τί δ ̓ ὑσο Tátov naraλew; vix enim ullum vitii genus posse a nobis cogitari aut fingi existimo, cujus ibi aliquod exemplum non extat,

15. Henry Stephens had devoted twelve years of his laborious life to this immense work, large materials for which had been collected by his father. In comprehensive and copious interpretation of words it not only left far behind every earlier dictionary, but is still the single Greek lexicon; one which some have ventured to abridge or enlarge, but none have presumed to supersede. Its arrangement, as is perhaps scarce necessary to say, is not according to an alphabetical, but radical order; that is, the supposed roots following each other alphabetically, every derivative or compound, of whatever initial letter, is placed after the primary word. This method is certainly not very convenient to the uninformed reader; and perhaps, even with a view to the scientific knowledge of the language, it should have been deferred for a more advanced stage of etymological learning. The Thesaurus embodies the critical writings of Budæus and Camerarius, with whatever else had been contributed by the Greek exiles of the preceding age and by their learned disciples. Much, no doubt, has since been added to what we find in the Thesaurus of Stephens, as to the nicety of idiom and syntax, or to the principles of formation of words, but not, perhaps, in copiousness of explanation, which is the proper object of a dictionary. "The leading defects conspicuous in Stephens," it is said by the critic already quoted, "are inaccurate or falsified quotations, the deficiency of several thousand words, and a wrong classification both of primitives and derivatives. At the same time, we ought rather to be surprised that, under existing disadvantages, he accomplished so much even in this last department, than that he left so much undone."

16. It has been questioned among bibliographers, whether there are two editions of the Thesaurus; the first in 1572, the second without a date, and probably after 1580. The affirmative seems to be sufficiently proved (a). The sale, however, of so voluminous and expensive a work did not indemnify its author; and it has often been complained of, that Scapula, who had been employed under Stephens, injured his superior by the pub

p. 156. He produces afterwards some gross instances of error.

(a) Niceron (vol. xxvi.) contends that the supposed second edition differs only by a change in the title-page, wherein we find rather an unhappy attempt at wit, in the following distich aimed at Scapula: Quidam Tμvoy me capulo tenus abdidit

ensem:

Eger eram a scapulis; sanus at huc redeo.

But it seems that Stephens, in his Palæstra de Lipsii Latinitate, mentions this second edition, which is said by those who have examined it, to have fewer typographical errors than the other, though it is admitted that the leaves might be intermixed without inconvenience, so close is the resemblance. Vid. Maittaire, p. 356-360. Brunet, Man. du Libr. Greswell, vol. ii. p. 289.

lication of his well-known abridgment in 1579. The fact, however, that Scapula had possessed this advantage, rests on little evidence, and his preface, if it were true, would be the highest degree of effrontery it was natural that some one should abridge so voluminous a lexicon. Literature, at least, owes an obligation to Scapula (a). The temper of Henry Stephens, restless and uncertain, was not likely to retain riches; he passed several years in wandering over Europe, and having wasted a considerable fortune amassed by his father, died in a public hospital at Lyons in 1598 (b), "opibus," says his biographer, atque etiam ingenio destitutus in nosocomio."

66

17. The Hellenismus of Angelus Caninius, a native of the Milanese, is merely a grammar. Tanaquil Faber prefers it not only to that of Clenardus, but to all which existed even in his own time. It was published at Paris in 1555. Those who do not express themselves so strongly, place him above his predecessórs. Caninius is much fuller than Clenardus; the edition by Crenius, (Leyden, 1700), containing 380 pages. The syntax is very scanty; but Caninius was well conversant with the mutations of words, and is diligent in noting the differences of dialects, in which he has been thought to excel. He was acquainted

(a) Maittaire says that Scapula's lexicon is as perfidious to the reader as its author was to his master, and that Dr. Busby would not suffer his boys to use it, p. 358. But this bas hardly been the general opinion. See Quarterly Review, ubi supra.

(6) Casaubon writes frequently to Scaliger about the strange behaviour of his father-in-law, and complains that he had not even leave to look at the books in the latter's library, which he himself scarce ever visited. Nosti hominem, nosti mores, nosti quid apud eum possim, hoc est, quam nibil possim, qui videtur in suam perniciem conspirasse. Epist. 21. And, still more severely, Epist. 41. Nam noster, et si vivens valensque, pridem numero hominum, certe doctorum, eximi meruit; ea est illius inhumanitas, et quod invitus dico, delirium; qui libros quoslibet veteres, ut Indici gryphi aurum, aliis invidet, sibi perire sinit, sed quid ille habeat aut non juxta scio ego cum ignavissimo. After Stephens's death, he wrote in kinder terms than he had done before; but regretting some publications, by which the editor of Casaubon's letters thinks he might mean the Apologie pour Herodote, and the Palæstra de Justi Lipsii Latinitate; the former of which, a very wellknown book, contains a spirited attack on

the Romish priesthood, but with less regard either for truth or decorum in the selection of his stories than became the character of Stephens; and the latter is of little pertinence to its avowed subject. Henry Stephens had long been subject to a disorder natural enough to laborious men, quædam actionum consuetarum satietas et fastidium, Maittaire, p. 248.

Robert Stephens had carried with him to Geneva in 1550, the punches of his types, made at the expense of Francis I., supposing, perhaps, that they were a gift of the king. On the death, however, of Henry Stephens, they were claimed by Henry IV., and the senate of Geneva restored them. They had been pledged for 400 crowns, and Casaubon complains as of a great injury, that the estate of Stephens was made answerable to the creditor, when the pledge was given up to the king of France. See Le Clerc's remarks on this in Bibliothèque Choisie, vol. xix. p. 219. Also a vindication of Stephens by Maittaire from the charge of having stolen them, (Vitæ Stephanorum, i. 34.) and again in Greswell's Parisian Press, i. 399. He seems above the suspicion of theft; but whether he had just cause to think the punches were his own, it is now impossible to decide.

with the digamma, and with its Latin form. I will take this opportunity of observing that the Greek grammar of Vergara, mentioned in the first volume of this work and of which I now possess the Paris edition of 1557, printed by William Morel (ad Complutensem editionem excusum et restitutum) appears superior to those of Clenardus or Varenius. This book is doubtless very scarce; it is plain that Tanaquil Faber, Baillet, Morhof, and, I should add, Nicolas Antonio, had never seen it (a), nor is it mentioned by Barnet or Watts (6). There is however, a copy in the British Museum. Scaliger says that it is very good, and that Caninius has borrowed from it the best parts (c). Vergara had, of course, profited by the commentaries of Budæus, the great source of Greek philology in western Europe; but he displays, as far as I can judge by recollection more than comparison, an ampler knowledge of the rules of Greek than any of his other contemporaries. This grammar contains 438 pages, more than 100 of which are given to the syntax. A small grammar by Nunez, published at Valencia in 1555, seems chiefly borrowed from Clenardus or Vergara.

18. Peter Ramus, in 1557, gave a fresh proof of his acuteness and originality, by publishing a Greek grammar, with many important variances from his precursors. Scaliger speaks of it with little respect; but he is habitually contemptuous towards all but his immediate friends (d). Lancelot, author of the Port Royal grammar, praises highly that of Ramus, though he reckons it too intricate. This grammar I have not seen in its original state, but Sylburgius published one in 1582, which he professes to have taken from the last edition of the Ramean grammar. It has been said that Laurence Rhodomann was the first who substituted the partition of the declensions of Greek nouns into three for that of Clenardus, who introduced or retained the prolix and unphilosophical division into ten (e). But Ramus is clearly

་

(a) Blount, Baillet.

(6) Antonio says it was printed at Alcala, 1573; deinde Parisiis, 1550. The first is of course a false print; if the second is not so likewise, he had never seen the book.

(c) Scaligerana Secunda. F. Vergara, Espagnol, a composé une bonne grammaire Grecque, mais Caninius a pris tout le meilleur de tous, et a mis du sien aussi quelque chose dans son Hellenismus. This, as Bayle truly observes, reduces the eulogies Scaliger has elsewhere given Caninius to very little. Scaliger's loose expressions are not of much value. Yet he who had seen Vergara's

grammar, might better know what was original in others, than Tanaquil Faber, who had never seen it.

(d) Scaligerana. Casaubon, it must be owned, who had more candour than Scaliger, speaks equally ill of the grammar of Ramus. Epist. 878.

(e) Morhof, 1. iv. c. 6. Preface to translation of Matthiæ's Greek grammar. The learned author of this preface has not alluded to Ramus, and though he praises Sylburgius for his improvements in the mode of treating grammar, seems unacquainted with that work which I mention in the text. Two