INTRODUCTION
first made by its editor. Thus, besides the editio princeps, which Gataker did not possess, but first saw when Meric Casaubon called upon him, the Basel edition, which Gataker printed, with marginal corrections (sometimes based on fresh corruptions in the Basel text), and the Strassburg reissue, with which Saumaise worked, an editor has to take into consideration this Lyons text and translation, which rests on no fresh evidence and has no value, critical or evidential.
A fresh impetus to the study and interpretation of Marcus was given by Meric Casaubon's English translation, dedicated to Archbishop Laud, 1634.[1] The valuable introduction gives reasons, directed against Xylander (who considered the traditional text to be mutilated) and some unnamed critics (who held the theory of 'excerpts'), for believing that the Meditations has been preserved intact. By the latter, no doubt, Casaubon intended especially Barthius, who is referred to later on in the introduction with veiled censure: 'I know not any that hath had more to doe with Antoninus than Barthius in his Adversaria: I will not say to what purpose.' Casaubon also criticized Xylander's version, in many places, with vehemence.[2] At the end are detailed notes upon the Greek text of the first two Books, with cursory reflections upon the remainder.
The interpretation of Marcus is very much aided by the grouping together of chapters which Casaubon recognized to be closely related in argument, and by the paraphrases introduced between brackets, to assist a reader. It is to
- ↑ Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Roman Emperor, his Meditations concerning Himselfe: treating of a naturall Mans happinesse; Wherein it consisteth, and of the meanes to attain unto it. Translated out of the Originall Grecke; with Notes by Meric Casaubon, B. of D. and Prebendarie of Christ Church, Canterbury . . . London mdcxxxiv. Republished 1635, 1663, 1673, 1692. Reprinted in briefer form, Dent, 1898, edited by W. H. D. Rouse, London, 1900, 1906.
- ↑ Especially the translation of i. 17. 35 viii. 7 fin.; vii. 24; v. 36; vii. 75. The criticism of the last two instances is not so happy as that of the remainder.
