, where Erasmus, however, is
nonchalantly
listed (p.
Allinson - Lucian, Satirist and Artist
Wright'9 edition of Eunapius (The Loeb Class.
Libr.
).
74. Cf. J. Rentsch, Das Totengesprdch in der Litteratur, Plauen, 1805, p. 17, note.
75 Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, ed. at. , The Loeb Classical Lib. , p. 348.
76. See K. Krumbacher (cf. Bibliography), p. 405, § 211 and Rentsch, op. ext. , p. 21.
77. Sandys, op. cit. , I. p. 4gi.
78. Sandys, op. cit. , p. 399.
79. Krumbacher, op. cit. , pp. 526-536, § 219.
80. See detailed resume in Rentsch, op. cit. , pp. 21 ff.
Also see Krumbacher, p. 218, for Psellus as Lucianic pam phleteer.
81. Cf. Krumbacher, op. cit. , pp. 492-495, and Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 22.
82. See Krumbacher, op. cit. , p. 756, §313 (13), and Sandys, op. cit. , I. 410.
83. The content of this dialogue is accessible in Bolder- man's dissertation, see above, note 15, or in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothique implriale, 1810,
Art. 37.
84. Cf. F. Schumacher, De Johanne Katrario Luciani
imitatore, Bonn, 1908, who decides for the later dating.
85. Sandys, op. cit. , p. 36.
86. See R. Forster, op. cit. , p. 8. This particular dialogue
had a great vogue among imitators of Lucian.
87. See G. Gregory Smith, The Transition Period, New York, 1900, pp. 140 ft. and pp. 306 and 387; also Forster,
op. cit. , pp. 9, 10.
88. See below, pp. 161, 180, the different conceptions by
Moliere and Bulwer.
89. G. B. E. Saintsbury, Earlier Renaissance, New York,
1901, p. 24, note.
90. Cf. Saintsbury, ibidem, p. 406, and p. 72.
91. Cf. Cicero by J. C. Rolfe, in the Series, Our Debt to
Greece and Rome, pp. 137 ft.
92. His strictures upon a previous (unnamed) translator,
see Epistles, ed. by Nichols (cf. Bibliography), Vol. I, 408, [197]
NOTES
are interesting in connection with the Shakespeare tradition. He is certainly not referring to Boiardo's II Timone, see above, p. 142.
93. Cf. Epistles, op. cit. , II. p. 49.
94. Epistles, cccclxiii.
95- Cf. J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, New
York, 1896, p. 220.
96. Epistle to the Bishop of Chartres, No. 179, Nichols,
op. cit. , I. p. 415.
97. Cottoq. , No. xiii, ed. London, 1725, L'Estrange (Thos.
Brown), p. 199: "This story . . . outdoes Menander's Phasma. "
98. Cottoq. , vii, op. cit.
99. Colloq. , Patrick's ed. , London, 1750, p. 380.
100. Cf. Froude, op. cit. , pp. 81 ff.
101. Froude, op. cit. , p. 86. See Nichols, op. cit. , I. p. 404, who corrects Froude's error, op. cit. , p. 300, in attributing to Erasmus this letter by More. This somewhat distorts Froude's estimate.
102. See Saintsbury, Earlier Renaissance, p. 86.
103. Holbein illustrated More's Utopia as well as Eras mus's Encomium Moriae.
104. Cf. Saintsbury, Earl. Ren. , p. 92.
105. See Saintsbury, Earl. Ren. , p. 81 and pp. 99, 100 for resume. See also Forster, op. cit. , p. 14, where Pirckheimer is accepted as the author.
106. For a good, if nationalistic, account of their contri butions, see Forster, op. cit.
, where Erasmus, however, is nonchalantly listed (p. 7) as a German! For Erasmus's attitude to his own (Dutch) language and his own state ment that he did not even understand German, see Nichols, I. p. 153, and Froude, op. cit. , p. 306.
107. See Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 23.
108. Also, he. cit. , other contemporary writers, Spanish, German, Italian.
109. See Sandys, op. cit. , II. p. 267.
no. For both Bud6 and Rabelais and their use of Lucian, see Sandys, op. cit. , II. pp. 170-173, 182.
in. Saintsbury, Earlier Ren. , p. 226; also Hist, of Crit. , H. p. 516.
[198]
NOTES
112. Essays and Studies, op. cit. , pp. 312-313.
113. For Lucian in Rabelais, cf. Sandys, op. cit. , II. pp.
183-184. Hist, 114. See Saintsbury,
of French Literature (cf. Bib
liography), pp. 231-236. "
115. See W. S. Fox, Sources of the Grave-scene in
Hamlet," p. 76 (see below, note 120).
116. Cambr. Hist. Eng. Lit. , IV, p. 404. This is probably
the first English trans, of Lucian in use. "
117. C. H. Herford, cited by Fox, Grave-scene in
Hamlet," p. 77 (see note 120).
118. Volpone, Act. I, pp. 11-13, of the "Mermaid"
edition.
119. Probably written by Fletcher only, see C. M. Gay-
ley, Beaumont the Dramatist, New York, 1014, pp.
301 ff. "
120. See two monographs by W. Sherwood Fox, Sources of the Grave-scene in Hamlet " (Part I, Trans. Roy. Soc.
Canada, pp. 71-80, Vol. xvii, 3rd series, 1923, and Part II, "Lucian in the Grave-scene of Hamlet," Philological Quarterly, II. 132-141 (1923). To these two valuable mono graphs the present writer is indebted for various details already cited. Mr. Fox cites, correlates and supplements the many references to Lucian in the Cambr. Hist. Eng. Lit. ,
(q. v. ) His detailed argument should be read in full, espe cially as regards the translation into English of Lucian by John Rastell, brother-in-law of Sir Thos. More. This is significant for Shakespeare.
" 121. See the paper by Professor Parrott, London, 1923, The Timon of Athens," where this play is dissected and
definite portions are attributed to Shakespeare, to Chapman and to a reviser " X. " In the only significant Lucianic reminiscence (among twelve in all) Mr. Parrott sees Chap man's hand.
122. Cf. Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 27, for good summary. Also for the Spanish Jesuit Gracian and for various German suc cessors.
123. Hist, of Crit. , I. p. 150.
124. Cf. many other references made by Rentsch, op. cit. , not noted here with the others added to his lists.
[ 199]
NOTES
125. See the admirable monograph by Hardin " Craig, in Classical Philology, XVI. 141-63 (1921), on Dryden's Lucian. " Many of his references should be followed up if any approach to completeness were possible in this sketch. At about this time there was a " bumper " crop of trans lators of Lucian and of dialogues of varying merit, reflect ing or refracting Lucianic influence. Mr. Craig's detailed study of English versions begins with the admirable trans lation by Francis Hickes (pub. in 1634, and, for the Vera Historia, reissued in a beautiful volume, privately printed in 1894 with an introduction by Charles Whibley), and is invaluable as a basis for a chronological appraisal of Lu- cian's influence, after this date, in English literature. Es pecially interesting are his comments on the " clever and impertinent coxcomb," Ferdinand Spence, whose unacknowl edged borrowing, with copious perversions, from the already perverted, but popular, French paraphrase by D'Ablancourt
(called, by courtesy, a " translation ") makes his own " traducing " a " third remove," to speak mildly, from the Lucianic realities. In regard to a translation, however, pre
vious to the translation by Hickes, see note 120, supra. Part III of Mr. Craig's paper contains a list of the 27
translators in this collection, known as " Dryden's Lucian," with a most helpful commentary on the date available for each and on the varying merits of their respective shares in the work. The mere number alone is suggestive of the con temporary popularity of Lucian.
126. Rentsch, op. (At. , pp. 29-31 and his note 35, adds the names of other writers of dialogues who openly claimed both Fontenelle and Lucian as models. Amongst others, Bordelon, in his preface to Caractires naturels des hommes, La Haye, 1692, is especially explicit as to his indebtedness, and, in Moliere Comedien aux Champs ilisies, he also imi tated Fontenelle's Jugement de Paris.
127. See note, p. 249, C. R. Williams's admirable edition, Selections from Lucian, Boston, 1882.
128. For summary of Lucianic motifs, see Rentsch, op. tit. , p. 38.
129. Op. at. , p. 378. For other critical comparisons, see [ 200 ]
NOTES
B. L. Gildersleeve, op. cit. , p. 312, for Lucian, Rabelais and Voltaire; Saintsbury, History of Criticism, II. pp. 517 ff. , where Voltaire furnishes the point of departure for com paring the others; J. A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, 3rd series, New York, 1877, pp. 210-240; and J. Rentsch, "Lucian and Voltaire" (see Bibliography).
130. See p. xxiv of Charles Whibley's (op. cit. ) intro duction to Lucian: True History.
131. See above, note 129. To these commentators add Lytton Strachey, in Collected Essays: Books and Charac ters, New York, 1922. Cf. "Voltaire and England," "Vol taire's Tragedies," "Voltaire and Frederick the Great"; also a dialogue, hitherto unpublished, between " Moses,
Diogenes, and Mr. Loke," which is Lucianic enough in its pessimism.
132. Earlier Ren. , p. 85.
133. Vol. XLV, No. X.
134. See notes to Jerram's stimulating school edition of
the Vera Historia, Oxford, 1892.
135. But cf. Erich Schmidt, Lessing,3 Berlin, 1909, pp. 99,
100.
136. Nos. 360, 361, 362.
137. See H. W. L. Hime, Lucian the Syrian Satirist,
London and New York, 1900, p. 92 ; see above, note
57-
138.
74. Cf. J. Rentsch, Das Totengesprdch in der Litteratur, Plauen, 1805, p. 17, note.
75 Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, ed. at. , The Loeb Classical Lib. , p. 348.
76. See K. Krumbacher (cf. Bibliography), p. 405, § 211 and Rentsch, op. ext. , p. 21.
77. Sandys, op. cit. , I. p. 4gi.
78. Sandys, op. cit. , p. 399.
79. Krumbacher, op. cit. , pp. 526-536, § 219.
80. See detailed resume in Rentsch, op. cit. , pp. 21 ff.
Also see Krumbacher, p. 218, for Psellus as Lucianic pam phleteer.
81. Cf. Krumbacher, op. cit. , pp. 492-495, and Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 22.
82. See Krumbacher, op. cit. , p. 756, §313 (13), and Sandys, op. cit. , I. 410.
83. The content of this dialogue is accessible in Bolder- man's dissertation, see above, note 15, or in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothique implriale, 1810,
Art. 37.
84. Cf. F. Schumacher, De Johanne Katrario Luciani
imitatore, Bonn, 1908, who decides for the later dating.
85. Sandys, op. cit. , p. 36.
86. See R. Forster, op. cit. , p. 8. This particular dialogue
had a great vogue among imitators of Lucian.
87. See G. Gregory Smith, The Transition Period, New York, 1900, pp. 140 ft. and pp. 306 and 387; also Forster,
op. cit. , pp. 9, 10.
88. See below, pp. 161, 180, the different conceptions by
Moliere and Bulwer.
89. G. B. E. Saintsbury, Earlier Renaissance, New York,
1901, p. 24, note.
90. Cf. Saintsbury, ibidem, p. 406, and p. 72.
91. Cf. Cicero by J. C. Rolfe, in the Series, Our Debt to
Greece and Rome, pp. 137 ft.
92. His strictures upon a previous (unnamed) translator,
see Epistles, ed. by Nichols (cf. Bibliography), Vol. I, 408, [197]
NOTES
are interesting in connection with the Shakespeare tradition. He is certainly not referring to Boiardo's II Timone, see above, p. 142.
93. Cf. Epistles, op. cit. , II. p. 49.
94. Epistles, cccclxiii.
95- Cf. J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, New
York, 1896, p. 220.
96. Epistle to the Bishop of Chartres, No. 179, Nichols,
op. cit. , I. p. 415.
97. Cottoq. , No. xiii, ed. London, 1725, L'Estrange (Thos.
Brown), p. 199: "This story . . . outdoes Menander's Phasma. "
98. Cottoq. , vii, op. cit.
99. Colloq. , Patrick's ed. , London, 1750, p. 380.
100. Cf. Froude, op. cit. , pp. 81 ff.
101. Froude, op. cit. , p. 86. See Nichols, op. cit. , I. p. 404, who corrects Froude's error, op. cit. , p. 300, in attributing to Erasmus this letter by More. This somewhat distorts Froude's estimate.
102. See Saintsbury, Earlier Renaissance, p. 86.
103. Holbein illustrated More's Utopia as well as Eras mus's Encomium Moriae.
104. Cf. Saintsbury, Earl. Ren. , p. 92.
105. See Saintsbury, Earl. Ren. , p. 81 and pp. 99, 100 for resume. See also Forster, op. cit. , p. 14, where Pirckheimer is accepted as the author.
106. For a good, if nationalistic, account of their contri butions, see Forster, op. cit.
, where Erasmus, however, is nonchalantly listed (p. 7) as a German! For Erasmus's attitude to his own (Dutch) language and his own state ment that he did not even understand German, see Nichols, I. p. 153, and Froude, op. cit. , p. 306.
107. See Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 23.
108. Also, he. cit. , other contemporary writers, Spanish, German, Italian.
109. See Sandys, op. cit. , II. p. 267.
no. For both Bud6 and Rabelais and their use of Lucian, see Sandys, op. cit. , II. pp. 170-173, 182.
in. Saintsbury, Earlier Ren. , p. 226; also Hist, of Crit. , H. p. 516.
[198]
NOTES
112. Essays and Studies, op. cit. , pp. 312-313.
113. For Lucian in Rabelais, cf. Sandys, op. cit. , II. pp.
183-184. Hist, 114. See Saintsbury,
of French Literature (cf. Bib
liography), pp. 231-236. "
115. See W. S. Fox, Sources of the Grave-scene in
Hamlet," p. 76 (see below, note 120).
116. Cambr. Hist. Eng. Lit. , IV, p. 404. This is probably
the first English trans, of Lucian in use. "
117. C. H. Herford, cited by Fox, Grave-scene in
Hamlet," p. 77 (see note 120).
118. Volpone, Act. I, pp. 11-13, of the "Mermaid"
edition.
119. Probably written by Fletcher only, see C. M. Gay-
ley, Beaumont the Dramatist, New York, 1014, pp.
301 ff. "
120. See two monographs by W. Sherwood Fox, Sources of the Grave-scene in Hamlet " (Part I, Trans. Roy. Soc.
Canada, pp. 71-80, Vol. xvii, 3rd series, 1923, and Part II, "Lucian in the Grave-scene of Hamlet," Philological Quarterly, II. 132-141 (1923). To these two valuable mono graphs the present writer is indebted for various details already cited. Mr. Fox cites, correlates and supplements the many references to Lucian in the Cambr. Hist. Eng. Lit. ,
(q. v. ) His detailed argument should be read in full, espe cially as regards the translation into English of Lucian by John Rastell, brother-in-law of Sir Thos. More. This is significant for Shakespeare.
" 121. See the paper by Professor Parrott, London, 1923, The Timon of Athens," where this play is dissected and
definite portions are attributed to Shakespeare, to Chapman and to a reviser " X. " In the only significant Lucianic reminiscence (among twelve in all) Mr. Parrott sees Chap man's hand.
122. Cf. Rentsch, op. cit. , p. 27, for good summary. Also for the Spanish Jesuit Gracian and for various German suc cessors.
123. Hist, of Crit. , I. p. 150.
124. Cf. many other references made by Rentsch, op. cit. , not noted here with the others added to his lists.
[ 199]
NOTES
125. See the admirable monograph by Hardin " Craig, in Classical Philology, XVI. 141-63 (1921), on Dryden's Lucian. " Many of his references should be followed up if any approach to completeness were possible in this sketch. At about this time there was a " bumper " crop of trans lators of Lucian and of dialogues of varying merit, reflect ing or refracting Lucianic influence. Mr. Craig's detailed study of English versions begins with the admirable trans lation by Francis Hickes (pub. in 1634, and, for the Vera Historia, reissued in a beautiful volume, privately printed in 1894 with an introduction by Charles Whibley), and is invaluable as a basis for a chronological appraisal of Lu- cian's influence, after this date, in English literature. Es pecially interesting are his comments on the " clever and impertinent coxcomb," Ferdinand Spence, whose unacknowl edged borrowing, with copious perversions, from the already perverted, but popular, French paraphrase by D'Ablancourt
(called, by courtesy, a " translation ") makes his own " traducing " a " third remove," to speak mildly, from the Lucianic realities. In regard to a translation, however, pre
vious to the translation by Hickes, see note 120, supra. Part III of Mr. Craig's paper contains a list of the 27
translators in this collection, known as " Dryden's Lucian," with a most helpful commentary on the date available for each and on the varying merits of their respective shares in the work. The mere number alone is suggestive of the con temporary popularity of Lucian.
126. Rentsch, op. (At. , pp. 29-31 and his note 35, adds the names of other writers of dialogues who openly claimed both Fontenelle and Lucian as models. Amongst others, Bordelon, in his preface to Caractires naturels des hommes, La Haye, 1692, is especially explicit as to his indebtedness, and, in Moliere Comedien aux Champs ilisies, he also imi tated Fontenelle's Jugement de Paris.
127. See note, p. 249, C. R. Williams's admirable edition, Selections from Lucian, Boston, 1882.
128. For summary of Lucianic motifs, see Rentsch, op. tit. , p. 38.
129. Op. at. , p. 378. For other critical comparisons, see [ 200 ]
NOTES
B. L. Gildersleeve, op. cit. , p. 312, for Lucian, Rabelais and Voltaire; Saintsbury, History of Criticism, II. pp. 517 ff. , where Voltaire furnishes the point of departure for com paring the others; J. A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, 3rd series, New York, 1877, pp. 210-240; and J. Rentsch, "Lucian and Voltaire" (see Bibliography).
130. See p. xxiv of Charles Whibley's (op. cit. ) intro duction to Lucian: True History.
131. See above, note 129. To these commentators add Lytton Strachey, in Collected Essays: Books and Charac ters, New York, 1922. Cf. "Voltaire and England," "Vol taire's Tragedies," "Voltaire and Frederick the Great"; also a dialogue, hitherto unpublished, between " Moses,
Diogenes, and Mr. Loke," which is Lucianic enough in its pessimism.
132. Earlier Ren. , p. 85.
133. Vol. XLV, No. X.
134. See notes to Jerram's stimulating school edition of
the Vera Historia, Oxford, 1892.
135. But cf. Erich Schmidt, Lessing,3 Berlin, 1909, pp. 99,
100.
136. Nos. 360, 361, 362.
137. See H. W. L. Hime, Lucian the Syrian Satirist,
London and New York, 1900, p. 92 ; see above, note
57-
138.
