Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Argumenta poetarum fictionibus innumerabilibus patent. Jubet ergo Venusinus ex communibus creare quemque sibi propria; ex noto, ait, fictum carmen sequar. Poetæ igitur non occupant communia ; verum inde incipientes in novas quasi regiones progrediuntur, et in vacuo sibi regna condunt. Ita secundum mentem Horatii debent communia proprie dici.

Exemplis res fiet clarior-Ex Homeri Iliade et Odyssea excitavit Virgilius sibi Æneida ; et nihilominus sat spatii Fenelonio relictum, quo ex Odyssea æternum sibi monumentum exstrueret dans les Avantures de Tèlèmaque. Ex Tavola Rotonda Boiardus deduxit l’Orlando Inamorato ; at id tamen impedimento non fuit quo minus Ariostus effingeret l’Orlando Furioso, Tassus Filius il Rinaldo, alia alii, quæ quidem ad epos pertinent.

“Ad Satirica si transimus, deprehendemus ex Homeri Odyssea tractum Eschyli τον Πρωτέα, Sophoclis τον Ηρακλέα και την Ναυσικάαν, Euripedis τον Κύκλωπα και τον Σίσυφον.

“Jam Tragica inspiciamus.-Ex utroque Homeri majori poemate ductus est Æschyli Agamemnon, quem tamen Seneca et suum fecit. Ex eodem fonte Sophocles τον Αίαντα Μαστιγοφόρον derivavit. Inde quoque Euripides Troadas ; quas item Seneca proprie dixit. Atque ab eo penore sumsit Æschylus Palameden, tum Euripides ; quæ demum Fabula in Jani Vincentii Gravina sacra transiit. Ex Iliade quæsiverunt sibi Andromachen Sophocles, Euripides, Ennius; ex Odyssea vero Edipodem, Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca ; Hippolytum, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca; Tàs Tpaxıvías Sophocles, at Seneca Herculem Etæum ; Euripides atque Seneca Herculem Furentem.P. 285.

In the 7th Cap. he explains

“ Cur difficilius sit ex communibus facere propria, quam nova invenire."

This enquiry is conducted with great ability, and we are sorry that the limits of our review will not permit us to enumerate the examples, by which the proposition is illustrated. We shall therefore content ourselves with selecting the two following passages.

“ Principio verbum communia in lingua Latina, et præsertim apud Horatium, licet significationes secundarias habeat, nunquam tamen ita a primaria discedit, ut ignota sive indicta seu novu denotet: quemadmodum satis superque demonstratum est.” P. 288.

“Jam vero, quemadmodum communia proprie dicantur, satis explicatum arbitror capite superiore ; si nimirum, progredientes a notis, nova creemus: ut proprie communia dicere idem valeat, atque inventio in imitatione. Hæc est illa, in nostram commoditatem traducta, mathematicorum æquatio. Itaque nunc status totius controversiæ huc redit: Utrum difficilius sit, invenire imitando, quam simplex invenire? Negant Interpretes omnes; affirmat Horatius; hunc nos sequemur.” P. 290.

No apology we presume is necessary for the foregoing extracts, because they are taken from a scarce book, and tend to decide an important controversy.

We have read the whole work of Gaudius with great attention; we have received from it the most complete conviction; and, with well-founded confidence we recommend it to the perusal of every scholar, wlio may be fortunate enough to meet with it.

[merged small][ocr errors]

VI.

Dr. PARR's Letter to the Editor of the BRITISH CRITIC,

containing Criticisms on some Passages in HORACE, extracted from the Nos. for Aug. and Sept. 1802. pp. 219. 338.

66 We doubt not that the classical readers of the British Critic will be entertained by the following Letter, which was occasioned by the opinion, which is expressed in the work before us,” (Dr. Maltby's Illustrations of the Christian Religion,) “and which has been communicated to us by a learned friend.”

THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH CRITIC. The Editor had observed in p. 47.:- “ Of (Dr. Maltby's) Thesis and Concio ad Clerum we will only observe that they are such as we should have expected from the pen of an eminent classical scholar. We have received, from a very distinguished scholar, some critical illustrations of one or two classical passages cited by Mr. Maltby, which we shall take an early opportunity of inserting.” DEAR SIR,

I readily agree with you that mortalis in Horace Epist. 2, 2, 188. neither is, nor can be, an epithet to the word Deus. Maximus Turius, in the 15th Diss. p. 272. ed. Lips. 1774., expressly says, Kai tidego θεόν μέν κατά το απαθές και αθάνατον, δαίμονα δε κατά το αθάνατον και εμπαθές, άνθρωπον δε κατά το έμπαθές και θνητόν, κ. τ. λ. If therefore the passage in Horace be genuine, I should be under the necessity of allowing, that mortalis is used for mortalium. But I will give you my reasons for believing both that line, and the following, to be spurious.

In the first place, I have considerable doubts as to the phrase, “ Naturæ Deus humanæ.” However, you shall have Pulman's note:"Observasse videor, ab antiquis illis scriptoribus, naturæ Deum appellari, non eum, qui universæ naturæ ac summæ rerum administrationem curamque gerit, quique coelo, mari, terræ præest; sed qui naturam hominis cujusque aut hominum regit, fovet, tuetur, curat, sanat: estque quidam hominis Genius. Exstat in Bacchid : prologus, non ille quidem a Plauto scriptus, qui tamen antiquitatem olet, in quo Genialis Deus, Silenus, naturæ Deus dicitur. Sic enim scribitur:

Naturæ Deus sum, Bromii altor maxumi. Et apud M. Actium in Menachmis:

Nunc ipsi naturæ Deo mihi respondere adolescens.” Thus Pulman writes.

But no play with this title, if I mistake not, was ever ascribed to Actius. Lambin, in his notes upon Horace, tells us that the last passage is in the Menæchmi of Plautus; I cannot, however, find it there. The former line occurs in the Prologue to the Bacchides.

Naturæ Deus sum, Bromii altor maxumi.”

Turnebus has this note: “ Est enim naturæ Deus, non qui universæ naturæ præest, sed qui naturam hominis curat, et quidam hominis Genius est.”

The speech assigned to Silenus is not to be found in Lambin's edition. Pulman, who perhaps was a plagiary in his interpretation, fairly owns that it was not written by Plautus; and perhaps, upon examining it, you will allow with me, that no stress can be laid upon

its authority. Let us further hear what Gerard Vossius, in his Etymolog. Ling. Lat. ad vocem Veterinum, tells us of this writer :-“Utroque (i. e. Asivida, et Veturio) utitur ineptus, sed antiquus auctor Prologi, qui Plauti Bacchidibus præmittitur in antiquioribus editionibus." F. Gronovius says :-“ Prologus et scenæ principis initium, est ex editione Coloniensi Gisberti Longolii, Ultrajectini. Fabulatur Lascaris, Grammaticus ille Græcus, in epistola ad Bembum, se Messanæ in Sicilia ista invenisse. Sunt etiam, qui a Francisco Petrarcha conficta opinentur. Etiam in Basiliensi Edit. leguntur.” But that great scholar is under a mistake as to the time, when the Prologus, &c. first appeared; as Ernesti shows very plainly, where he speaks of the Florentine edition of Plautus. “ Illud editio Angelii habet præcipuum, quod prima Bacchidibus prologum et Actus primi initium addidit, de quo magnificentius in præfatione loquitur, quam res erat. Nam se restituisse Prologum et initium Actus primi ait, diligentia sua inventum, cum ipse totum hoc additamentum in capite fabulæ subdititium, ut est, judicet. Ex quo, ut hoc quoque obiter admoneamus, falsum fuisse Gronovium patet, cum, in adnotatiuncula ad caput Bacchidum posita, hoc auctarium Coloniensi Gisl. Longolii editioni tradit deberi, cum et in Gryphianis, quæ Longolianam præcessere, reperiatur, ut jam Taubmannum admonuisse seperi.” Ernest. Præfat. ad Plaut. Now, whensoever the passage was introduced, and by whomsoever it was

« AnteriorContinuar »