« AnteriorContinuar »
and their juridical significations. He divides his work into what he calls την παρασκευήν, τον πόλεμον, τα épunveópata. He examines the explanations of all preceding critics, and of Gesner he speaks with most unbecoming and unmerited acrimony. We shall produce the result of his enquiries.
• Whom thou gavest the title to, of my dear!' The other sense would be a premature and a very awkward anticipation of what afterwards follows, in the fervour of composition. The poet by no means mounted to that height at the beginning. He begins with matter of fact, his being obscurely born, and yet being a friend of Mæcenas. He then quietly and plainly augurs the immortality of his name, which turned out to be also matter of fact. My dear Sir, he is not mounted on a cloud yet. Gently, gently, good Mr. Fowke! Why should Mæcenas be calling him back? Johnson and Wakefield were surprised into a consent; certainly the former; the latter was capable of a serious consent.”
On mentioning Mr. Fowke's opinion to my intelligent and intellectual friend, the Rev. Dr. Alex. Crombie, he in Oct. 1828. remarked : - “ In respect to the passage in Horace, I quite agree with Mr. Symmons in rejecting the interpretation, given by Sir P. Francis and Fowke, as truly ridiculous. Mr. Symmons's construction is ingenious. I will examine the passage, and give you my opinion afterwards.” Nov. 17. “In regard to the disputed passage in Horace, were it not that all the Mss. agree in giving the verb vocare, I should be tempted to think the reading faulty. But, if vocas be the true lection, then the epithet dilecte must be considered as the express appellation of endearment, and under no regimen, as when Horace says, Epist. 1, 7,37. rerque paterque Audisti coram."
I must own that Dousa's interpretation, approved by Dr. Parr, is the one which merits adoption.
Having mentioned the name of my friend, John Symmons, I will communicate to the reader his opinion on another very perplexing passage in Horace, Od. 1, 1.:-“ Paris, July 3, 1828. “Verbum communia significare, jam occupata et nota, docuerunt cum lingua Latina universim, tum maxime jurisprudentia Romana. Inde didicimus et vocis proprium notionem, quæ vox significat suum cujusque.” P. 261.
He thus applies his canon to the lines of Horace.
“ Difficile est ita tractare communia seu publica seu nota, ut tua propria seu privata seu nova fiant. Hunc tamen ego conatum tibi
Take my word for it-put a full stop - a completely full one, stop with a dash after it, that there may be no possibility of a mistake after nobilis. Here endeth the sketch of the national character of the Greeks; next follow the Romans,
Terrarum dominos evehit ad deos, thus a comma instead of a full stop. Then you have it.”
My reply to this communication ran thus:—“The word Olympicus may represent the Greeks, as Quiritium does represent the Romans. But with this understanding the Romans would not be sufficiently distinguished from the characters alluded to in illum, gaudentem, etc., which are so general as to be applicable to any nation on the face of the earth. If the poet nationalises, he would not individualise. If he mingles nations and individuals, perspicuity would require him to draw the broadest line of distinction between particulars and generals. The natural order would be, not to pass from particular to general, but from general to particular. That is, he would speak generally in the first instance, and conclude with emphatic mention of particular nations. Moreover, the natural order would be, in another point of view, to pass from individuals to nations. I consider this to be a serious objection. See Cic. Cat. 3, 1. * Nam toti urbi, templis, delubris, tectis, ac mænibus subjectos prope jam ignes circumdatosque restrinximus, where Ernesti has the following note: --Sic e Mureti et suis libris Grævius pro totius urbis. Sic etiam ed. W. Aliæ primæ totis urbis. Estque Ciceroniani moris, genus primum ponere, deinde partes.'
My friend met my observations with this reply:-“ Aug. 28. It strikes me, your objections to my mode of construing the 8 first lines of Mecenas, etc., are more subtle than solid. Sunt qui suadeo. Accipe igitur docilis, quæ trado, præcepta. Materia communis erit propria, sive materia publica erit privata, sive materia nota erit nova, si—et quæ sequuntur.” P. 260.
We will produce a few more paragraphs.
“Comprobantur nunc hæ notiones,” (i. e. what we have quoted from p. 261, of his Dissertation,)“per Hermeneuticen: et primo, quia orationis contextus, quemadmodum in parte hujus Dissertationis II. multis docui, alium sensum non admittit. Deinde, quia
are the Greeks, whose great characteristic feature, (their military glory having passed away,) at that time was the celebrity of the Olympic games. When Manilius is sketching out the differences of nations, he alludes to the gymnastics of the Greeks: in short, nothing is more notorious. This reference to a passion for the Olympic games ends at palmaque nobilis. Unluckily for blockheads and puzzlers, a verb evehit, which might construe with palma, and an accusative dominos, which might follow that verb, come so close that they, (the said blockheads and puzzlers,) have been carried on, thinking themselves still sublime on the fervid Olympic wheels, whereas they were in the mud, where all such blockheads are and will ever be. Now the Romans at that time were known for great ambition in their candidateships, and for great accumulation of riches. Terrarum dominos is poetically Romanos ; it is the accusative after evehit ; indeed evehit has three accusatives running after it, the above, hunc and illum. You are too good and too ripe a scholar to be staggered, as I have known shallow ones to be, at their being no apparent nominative before evehit. The nominative is ea res understood, or indeed the whole sentence. A very full, full stop, a stigma of the blackest and broadest die, must be put after areis ; no sneaking colon or semi-colon : otherwise Horace will be made to talk nonsense, if the two lines Quicquid etc. and Gaudentem, are run into one another — they are perfectly separate — the subject-matter is changed - the great national distinctions are done with—the poet is treating of individuals. Gaudentem is the poor husbandman, or small proprietor, who cultivates his hereditary acres with his own hands, etc. The said unfortunate blockheads have been here caught a second time by poeta eundem earundem rerum communis et proprie sensum extulit per paria verba publicæ materiei et privati juris.
“Attenderis insuper seriem illam locutionum: Famam sequere, Reponis, Homereum Achillem, Communia dicere, Iliacum carmen, Publica materies, verbum verbo reddere, Interpres, Imitator; quas locutiones in iisdem carminibus de una eademque re adhibet Venusinus: jurabis tam late patere quam supra indicavi, monitum Quincti; ac nullum hominem vere doctum posse aliter vocem communia interpretari.
that wicked fellow, Horace, who seems to have had a spite against them. Because he draws his illustrations in both instances from the country-labours and country-produce, (though under very different modifications, they, the blockheads, have jumbled together the poor and the rich ; the proprietor of a small farm, which he cultivates himself, with the Crassuses and Scauruses, who hid all Libya in their barns.”
My excellent friend, the Rev. E. Cogan:-“ Jan. 5, 1829. The passage in Horace has never engaged my particular attention: indeed I know but few passages, that have. I am a rapid and careless reader. I have been used to think that sunt quos is substituted for quosdam jurat, which seems to explain the construction of the passage.
Horace might have written est quos in imitation of the čotiv oüs of the Greeks. Thus Propertius :
Est quibus Elea concurrit gloria palma. I have also been accustomed to admire Bentley's evehere for evehit."
Mitscherlich has this note: -“ Male quidam, palma terrarum dominos, h. e. Romanos, (terræ dominos a Virgilio dictos,) evehit ad deos.” In the note on v. 3-6. he had said :-“ Sequuntur parvæ illæ tabulæ, quarum quomodo virtutes sentiri debeant, vide Exc. 1. Sunt quos juvat, (pros. juvet,) elolv oüs TÉPTETAI, eubpaível, cet. oblectat alios currendi studium et gloria, Spóuos: cf. 4,3, 3-6. Virg. G. 3, 180. Non cogitandum de circensibus Romanorum ludis, in quibus, illa certe ætate, equos regere, servorum fere esset et obscurorum hominum, (cf. Nep. Præf. 5.) sed intelligendi haud dubie ludi curules Græcorum, nobilissima “ Itidem ex altera parte locutiones illæ : Sibi convenientia finge, Si quid inexpertum scenæ committis, Et personam novam formare audes, Servetur ad imum qualis ab incepto processerit, Sibi constet, Proprie dicere, Si proferres ignota indictaque primus, Privati juris erit ; hæ, inquam, locutiones et extensionem præcepti Horatiani pariter evincunt, et nullum alium in verbo proprie sensum patiuntur.” P. 262.
In Cap. IV, P. III. he collects all the instances, in which Horace has used communis, communiter, and proprius. “ His cognitis," says lie in p. 274, “perspicuum est, commune Horatio, æque ac publicum, directe sumpta rem significare in dominio plurium sitam, in usu autem singulorum; proprium vero ac privatum iis opponi. Atque hæc est non Venusino tantum, sed auctoribus Latinitatis omnibus, ipsa harum vocum proprietas.”
In Cap. V, he examines “ virorum aliquot doctorum sententias, quæ in idem cadunt.” And speaking of Daniel Heinsius he calls him, “ Virum et doctrina et ingenio magnum, quique post Perandam, (whose words in the original Italian are in the foregoing page,) proxime omnium ad veritatem accessit.”-In Cap. VI, he shows, in opposition to objectors, “ Quo pacto communia dici proprie possunt."
Olympicorum, toto orbe celeberrimorum, pars, quibus reges summique viri operam dabant, quorumque victores, 'OXvurlovikai, felicissimi habiti, summo honore adfecti, ornati statuis et muneribus, carminibus celebrati, quidam etiam divinos honores consecuti sunt, (Plin. 7, 47.) v. Pausan. Eliac. prior. et post., Plutarch. Pelop. extr., Cic. pro Flacco c. 13., et cf. Potteri Arch. Gr. (et Ramb.) 1, 955.” And F. Guil. Doering in his edition of Horace writes :“ Terrarum dominos refer ad deos, quorum est in terras dominatio : inepte quidam de Romanis, qui alias terrarum domini vocantur, explicant ; sermo est de ludis Olympicis.” E. H. B.]