« AnteriorContinuar »
written, it is evident that no critic supposes it to have come from the pen of Plautus; and of course it can have little or no weight, as a parallel passage, in justifying the line, which we read in Horace.
I think the same of the other passage; said, but erroneously, by Lambin, to be in the Menæchmi; and, therefore, I hope you will not censure me for doubting, whether the expression "Naturæ Deus," or "Naturæ Deus humanæ," occurs in any classical writer.
I have already stated to you my reasons for believing, that mortalis cannot be the attribute of a Genius. I am not satisfied with vultu mutabilis. Different Genii have different qualities, whence we read in Maximus Tyrius, ὅσαι φύσεις ἀνδρῶν, τοσαῦται καὶ δαιμόνων, Dissertat. 14. p. 268, edit. Lips. But the same Genius, presiding over the same man, would not be "vultu mutabilis."
Spence acknowledges the difficulty of these lines in Horace; see p. 154 of the Polymetis. He would solve the matter thus:
"Genii were supposed to share in all the enjoyments ahd sufferings of the persons they attended. A man's turn and temper is the chief cause and former of his good or bad fortune, said the antients, and therefore this Genius may be said to preside over every man's life. These ideas, if well grounded, will go a great way toward explaining three lines in Horace, that I used to think as difficult as any in that author. He closes them with saying, that this Deity had two very different airs in his face; that he looked sometimes white, and sometimes black upon you; which may signify no more, than that your Genius looks pleased and cheerful upon you, when things go well with you; and sad and gloomy, when they go ill: as Hannibal's Genius came smiling to him, when he is said to have appeared to that General amidst his successes in Spain, to animate him to go into Italy; and Brutus's Genius looked frowning on him a little before the fatal battle of Philippi."
Now, my friend, this criticism, however ingenious, cannot be applied to the passage under consideration. Horace describes the different pursuits and tempers of two different brothers, not of any one person only, and therefore he says nothing of different effects produced upon those tempers and persons by the same Genius. The respective Genius of the two brothers produced that difference, or at least knew the cause of it. But each brother had his own distinct turn of mind and habits of life, and each was under the direction of his own Genius. You will see presently, however, that if my opinion of the passage be admitted, it will entirely remove the difficulty, which perplexed Mr. Spence.
Again: albus et ater, as applied to inanimate objects, mean favourable and unfavourable. They have the same meaning, even when those objects are personified, as
Post equitem sedet atra cura ;
but when applied to real persons, they retain their primary and literal signification. Thus, in the distich of Catullus upon Cæsar:
Nil nimium studeo, Cæsar, tibi velle placere ;
That mortalis should, in this passage only, be found for mortalium, is an additional cause for suspicion.
Such are my objections to these two lines, as they are found in all our editions of Horace. But the sense of the passage will be complete, and the versification quite satisfactory to the ear, if we exclude these, and suppose that Horace wrote only
Scit Genius, natale comes qui temperat astrum.
This line is usually, and very properly, explained by two well-known verses in Menander :
"Απαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται,
There is, however, another sense, in which daípoves may be called comites, according to the employments, which are assigned to them by Maximus Tyrius, oi μèv τέχνης συνεργάται, οἱ δὲ ὁδοῦ συνέμποροι, Dissertat. 14. But this goodly office has no connection with the reasoning of Horace, and it may be doubted whether Saíuoves, who distributed their occasional and partial services to different persons, can with propriety be called in Latin Genii.
When writing to an old friend like yourself, I often venture to talk, as old Hesiod says, περὶ δρῦν ἢ περὶ πéτρην. Let me then lay before you a distinction, which the Romans did, but the Greeks did not, make in the titles of Genii, and which, though it has no relation to the passage in Horace, may be amusing to you. Take it then in the homely words of Gerard Vossius.
"Romani, non tam loca habuere pro Diis, quam locis quibusque suos præfecere Genios, qui et urbium erant, et regionum. Atque hi vocabantur Dii Magni, ut inscriptione ea, quæ Puteolis reperta.
DEO MAGNO PUTEOLANORUM ET PATRIÆ SUÆ.
Nempe SiakρITIK@s. Nam Genius quidem, in cujus tutela quisque erat ab nativitate sua, άπλŵs dicebatur, Genius sed ille totius patriæ nuncupatus est, Deus Magnus. Et possis non modo ad terræ partes, sed ad Genios etiam referre, tum Masculum Numen, Nemestinum, Nemorum Deum, tum femineum, Collinam, Collium, Vallinam, Vallium Deam. Ac par est similium ratio." Vid. Voss. de Orig. et Progr. Idolol. lib. ii. p. 640.
Give me leave to state my opinion upon two other passages in Horace, which appear to me not genuine.
Videre Rhæti bella sub Alpibus
Tempus Amazonia securi
Od. Lib. iv. 4.
First, let me give you Baxter's note on line 18:
"Tanaquillus Faber miratur hæc ab Horatio scripta et nollet factum: at ego nollem hoc a Fabro dictum. Plane necessarius est iste locus ad indicandam hostis ferociam."
Now you shall hear what Gesner says on quærere distuli:
"Videtur hoc dicere: de originibus gentis hic quærere nolo; sed etiamsi non sint Amazonum progenies, certe late victrices catervæ fuerant. Quid? si mordet Domitii Marsi poema, Amazonida: in quo nimis operosum fuisse auctorem colligas ex Martiali iv. 29. Certe nihil fuit cur Fabro ita displiceret totum illud, Quibus mos-omnia; multo minus, cur quatuor versus eliminaret Sanadonus."
You see that Faber was offended with these lines, and that Sanadon was for boldly rejecting them. Lambin acknowledges," usque ad hunc locum, includenda sunt interpositionis nota; vel potius, ita sunt legenda, ut a proposito sermone aberrantia, quod genus appellant Græci hyperbatum.”
I know not what the reasons of Sanadon were, but I will tell you my own. This Ode in Horace is very animated. The images are grand, and succeed each other with great rapidity. My mind therefore has always been
shocked at the sudden interruption of its career by the words, "Quibus mos unde," &c. There was no occasion surely for Horace thus to describe the fierceness of the Vindelici; and the passage, which is supposed to contain the description, is, to my taste, exceedingly languid. Horace very unnecessarily adverts to a most unimportant circumstance, and after all he leaves it undecided. He breaks in upon the regular order of the ideas, which really belong to his subject, and he concludes with a dull, moral sentiment, which, in such a place, and in such a form, was far more likely to proceed from some Monkish interpolator, than from a Lyric poet. Instead of refuting Lambin's explanation, or rather apology, about the word "sed," I am content with observing, that if the former words were interpolated, the interpolator found sed necessary for his metre. But, if the metre had been complete, sed was not absolutely necessary to the sense. The length of the supposed hyperbaton increases my suspicions.
However perceptible to a Roman ear might be the difference between the sounds of e long and e short, do you believe that Horace in Lyric poetry would have written unde deductus? Arrange the words according to the literal order, in which they must be construed, is there not an appearance of something embarrassed and unusual, when you consider that unde is inseparable from deductus, and that it stands in the form, which grammarians call indefinite, between quærere and obarmet? Is there the same perspicuity, which you find upon other occasions, where unde clings to the participle, and the sentence is interrogative, as thus? "Unde datum hoc sentis?" Sat. II. 2.31. See Bentley's admirable note.
*We believe there are few readers of the least taste, who have not felt the same shock. Rev.