﻿28 THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 



probably remain unknown, unless the discovery of the whole or a portion of the lost 

 parts should, at the same time, reveal the cause which withdrew it from the sight and 

 knowledge of the public. It is probable, hoAvever, that a part, if not the whole, of the 

 loss happened between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. John of Salisbury, who 

 liA-ed in the twelfth century, quotes passages from Petronius w^hich are not found in the 

 first printed editions from 1-476, which contain all we now have, with the exception of 

 the contents of the Tragurian fragment, of which I shall have, hereafter, occasion to 

 speak more fully. Between these two points of time, then, namely, the twelfth and 

 fifteenth centuries, if not previously, the work must have experienced considerable 

 losses. 



This great loss has been very partially only repaired by the discovery of the Tragu- 

 rian fragment. In the year 1663,* Marinus Statilius,")* of Tragurium (the German 

 name of the town is Trau) in Dalmatia, discovered in the library of Nicolaus Cippi, 

 belonging to a family favorably known, for several generations, in various departments 



* Peter Burmann, in the preface to his edition of Petronius, says that the discovery of the fragment was 

 made about 1662, and the Paduan edition published in 1662. Whatever be the true time of the discovery, 

 Burmann is mistaken as to the year in which the Paduan edition was published. This occurred in 1664. 



t Baehr, in his History of Roman Literature, adopts the statement of Claudius Nicusius, that it was Peti- 

 tus, who assumed the name of Marinus Statilejus. W. S. Toufel, in his article on Petronius in Pauly's 

 Encyclopsedia, gives the same version, that Peter Petitus discovered, and defended the genuineness of, the 

 fragment. Pierre Petit was born at Paris in 1629 (or, according to others, in 1617), and died in 1687 ; he 

 was known as a physician and Latin poet. Burmann mentions another report, which he seems to be inclined 

 to credit, that the defence of Statilius, both the Responsio and Apologia, was the work of Stephanus Gradius, 

 the librarian of the Vatican Library. This report is supported by the statement of Justus Ryckius, a per- 

 sonal friend of Gradius (in a note to Tacit. Ann. 16. 19), and of Samuel Tennulius (in a note to Front. 

 4. 7). Whatever may be thought of these two reports, mentioned by Burmann and Baehr, we should not 

 overlook the circumstance, that the fact of the existence of two reports, one of which alone can be true, tends 

 to throw doubt upon both ; and that Statilius — as he himself, in his Apologia, corrects the mistake of the pub- 

 lisher of the Paduan edition, who calls him Statileus — speaks throughout of himself, of his age, of his native 

 place, Tragurium, with apparent good faith. Take, for example, the manner in which he speaks of works of 

 art still extant in Rome : " Huic ego querelae in seculo Neronis nullum omnino locum reperio, cum ad usque 

 Commodi principatum statuas egregio artificio perfectas adhuc exstare in Urbe audiam," etc. ; and, " Testi- 

 monia certe non dubia florentis turn etiam pictorum industriae habemus ex parietibus nuper, ut accepi, repertis 

 in ruderibus thermarum Titi, eorum autem parietum crustas diligenter exceptas ajunt et in pinacotheca viri 

 primarii coUocatas," etc. This seems to be the honest language of a man who has not seen those specimens 

 of ancient art. Whether Petit could honestly use such language, I cannot say, because I do not know 

 whether he ever visited Rome ; that Stephanus Gradius, the second supposed author of the Responsio and 

 Apologia, could not, is apparent from the fact that he was librarian of the Vatican Library, and must have 

 been as familiar with these monuments of ancient art as any man living. 



