thors, omitting some of inconsiderable reputation or length. In this list I follow the authority of Dr. Dibdin, to which no exception will probably be taken :

3. It will be perceived that even in the middle of this century, some far from uncommon writers had not yet been given to the press. But most of the rest had gone through several editions, which it would be tedious to enumerate; and the means of acquiring an extensive, though not in all respects very exact, erudition might perhaps be nearly as copious as at present. In consequence, probably, among other reasons, of these augmented stores of classical literature, its character underwent a change. It became less polished and elegant, but more laborious and profound. The German or Cisalpine type, if I may use the word, prevailed over the Italian, the school of Budæus over that of Bembo; nor was Italy herself exempt from its ascendancy. This advance of erudition at the expense of taste was perhaps already perceptible in 1550, for we cannot accommodate our arbitrary divisions to the real changes of things; yet it was not hitherto so evident in Italy, as it became in the latter part of the century. The writers of this age, between 1550 and 1600, distinguish themselves from their predecessors not only by a disregard for the graces of language, but by a more prodigal accumulation of quotations, and more elaborate efforts to discriminate and to prove their positions. Aware of the censors whom they may encounter in an increasing body of scholars, they seek to secure themselves in the event of controversy, or to sustain their own differences from those who have gone already over the same ground. Thus books of critical as well as antiquarian learning often contain little of original disquisition, which is not interrupted at every sentence by quotation, and in some instances are hardly more than the adversaria, or common-place books, in which the learned were accustomed to register their daily observations in study. A late German historian remarks the contrast between the Commentary of Paulus Cortesius on the scholastic philosophy, published in 1503, and the Mythologia of Natalis Comes, in 1551. The first, in spite of its subject,

is classical in style, full of animation and good sense; the second is a tedious mass of quotations, the materials of a book rather than a book, without a notion of representing any thing in its spirit and general result (a). This is, in great measure, a characteristic of the age, and grew worse towards the end of the century. Such a book as the Annals of Baronius, the same writer says, so shapeless, so destitute of every trace of eloquence, could not have appeared in the age of Leo. But it may be added, that, with all the defects of Baronius, no one, in the age of Leo, could have put the reader in the possession of so much knowledge.

4. We may reckon among the chief causes of this diminution of elegance in style, the increased culture of the Greek language; not certainly that the great writers in Greek are inferior models to those in Latin, but because the practice of composition was confined to the latter. Nor was the Greek really understood, in its proper structure and syntax, till a much later period. It was however a sufficiently laborious task, with the defective aids then in existence, to learn even the single words of that most copious tongue; and in this some were eminently successful. Greek was not very much studied in Italy; we may perhaps say, on the contrary, that no one native of that country, after the middle of the century, except Angelus Caninius and Æmilius Portus, both of whom lived wholly on this side of the Alps, acquired any remarkable reputation in it; for Petrus Victorius had been distinguished in the earlier period. It is to France and Germany that we should look for those who made Grecian literature the domain of scholars. It is impossible to mention every name, but we must select the more eminent; not however distinguishing the labourers in the two vineyards of ancient learning, since they frequently lent their service alternately to each.

5. The university of Paris, thanks to the encouragement given by Francis I, stood in the first rank for philological learning; and as no other in France could pretend to vie with her, she attracted students from every part. Toussain, Danes, and Dorat were conspicuous professors of Greek. The last was also one of the celebrated pleiad of French poets, but far more distinguished in the dead tongues than in his own. But her chief boast was Turnebus, so called by the gods, but by men Tournebœuf, and, as some have said, of a Scots family, who must have been denominated Turnbull (6). Turnebus was one of those in

(a) Ranke, Die Papste des 16ten und Turnebus is made both short and long by 17ten Jahrhunderts, i, 484. the Latin poets of the age, but more com(b) Biogr. Univ. The penultimate of monly the latter, which seems contrary to

dustrious scholars who did not scorn the useful labour of translating Greek authors into Latin, and is among the best of that class. But his reputation is chiefly founded on the Adversaria, the first part of which appeared in 1564, the second in 1565, the third, posthumously, in 1580. It is wholly miscellaneous, divided into chapters, merely as resting-places to the reader; for the contents of each are mostly a collection of unconnected notes. Such books, truly adversaria or common-places, were not unusual; but can of course only be read in a desultory manner, or consulted upon occasion. The Adversaria of Turnebus contain several thousand explanations of Latin passages. They are eminent for conciseness, few remarks exceeding half a page, and the greater part being much shorter. He passes without notice from one subject to another the most remote, and has been so much too rapid for his editor, that the titles of each chapter, multifarious as they are, afford frequently but imperfect notions of its contents. The phrases explained are generally difficult; so that this miscellany gives a high notion of the erudition of Turnebus, and it has furnished abundant materials to later commentators. The best critics of that and the succeeding age, Gesner, Scaliger, Lipsius, Barthius, are loud in his praises; nor has he been blamed, except for his excess of brevity and rather too great proneness to amend the text of authors, wherein he is not remarkably successful (a). Montaigne has taken notice of another merit in Turnebus, that with more learning than any who had gone before for a thousand years, he was wholly exempt from the pedantry characteristic of scholars, and could converse upon topics remote from his own profession, as if he had lived continually in the world.

6. A work very similar in its nature to the Adversaria of Turnebus was the Varia Lectiones of Petrus Victorius (Vettori), professor of Greek and Latin rhetoric at Florence during the greater part of a long life, which ended in 1585. Thuanus has said, with some hyperbole, that Victorius saw the revival and al

what we should think right. Even Greek will not help us, for we find him called both ToUpveCos and Toupvn6os. Maittaire, Vitæ Stephanor. vol. iii.

(a) Blount, Baillet. The latter begins his collection of these testimonies by saying that Turnebus has had as many admirers as readers, and is almost the only critic whom envy has not presumed to attack. Baillet, however, speaks of his correction of Greek and Latin passages. I have not observed

any of the former in the Adversaria; the book, if I am not mistaken, relates wholly to Latin criticism, Muretus calls Turnebus, "Homo immensa quadam doctrinæcopia instructus, sed interdum nimis propere, et nimis cupide amplexari solitus est ea quæ in mentem venerant." Varia Lectiones, l. x. c. 18. Muretus, as usual with critics, vineta cædit sua; the same charge might be brought against himself.