﻿38 THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 



bury (Polycrat. 4. 5), on account of the difference of the language, and he has no doubt 

 that John of Salisbury had a French or English manuscript before him, and not the 

 Trao-urian The assertion of the editor of the Paduan edition, and of others, that two 

 hundred years before the discovery of this fragment, this being the age which is as- 

 sio-ned to the manuscript in the preface to that edition, there existed no scholars who 

 were capable, as far as scholarship goes, of perpetrating such a forgery, and the argu- 

 ment based upon it in support of the genuineness of the fragment, Reinesius rejects, 

 and asserts that there were enough men capable, if they were inclined, to produce such 

 an imitation, such as Poggio, Aretmi, Guarini, Valla, and others. 



Another scholar of that period, Job. Ludov. Praschius, in a letter to Arnold, dated 

 the 5th of July, 1665, rejects most contemptuously the idea of the fragment being gen- 

 uine, without entering, however, into any arguments. The same vicAv, although in lan- 

 o-uage less decided, is expressed by J. H. Ursinus, in a letter to J. L. Praschius, dated 

 the 5th of July, 1665. An incidental remark of Ursinus, that Trimalchio was not 

 introduced by Petronius merely for the purpose of ridiculing Xero, but from a wish 

 of exhibiting the manners and character of the age of the Emperor Claudius, and more 

 especially of the freedmcn of that period, shows that he possessed independence of 

 judgment. 



The defence of the genuineness of the Tragurian fragment by Marinus Statilius was 

 so able and complete, that the controversy on this subject subsided, and I know of no 

 subsequent attempt to give a different turn to the ophiion of the learned on the subject. 

 The remaining history of the Tragurian maniiscript is brief. It is true that Sta- 

 tilius sent, at first, a copy only to Rome, — a circumstance of which Wagenseil made, 

 and justly enough, a great deal, — but later the codex itself.* It remained there for 

 some time, and was examined by many scholars, but finally returned to its OAvner, Sta- 

 tUius, in Avhose house Carolus Sponius, who in 1675 made a journey to Greece, saw 



* Statilius, in his Apologia, says : " Sed maculam tam deformem satis superque opinor a vita et factis 

 meis detergunt, quae a me, ut dixi, privatiin ad optimum Mocaenicum hac de re scripta sunt : multo vero 

 prolixius hoc ipsum praestitit et omnem penitus adversariorum calumniam nudavit et refutavit res ipsa post 

 codicem hunc Romam transmissum et doctorum hominum oculis subjectum, ejusque scripturae non am- 

 biguam antiquitatem ad CCC annos omnium judicio porrectam : spatio, ut videtis, integri seculi, quam quod 

 Patavinus typographus profiteri ausus est, ampliorem. Expugnari namque tandem aliquando passus sum 

 constantiam meam non tam auctoritate summi viri Antonii Priuli, Dalmatiae praefecti, cui librum in Urbem 

 mittendum tradidi, quam adversarii conviciis et maledictis, quorum vanitatem revinci ac patefieri non mea 

 solum sed rei literariae universae intererat, ne monumentum elegantissimi scriptoris, cui tot seculorum, ut 

 ita dicam, ingluvies in veteres libros foede bacchata pepercisset, levissimi hominis livore ac malevolentia 

 oppressum atque enecatum interiret." 



