This passage would in point of construction be very clear, were it not for one single monosyllable, -his. What is the antecedent to this relative? Most of the commentators construe his as if it had been ex his templis; supposing the warning voice to have issued out of a temple. So the ellipsis is supplied by Mr. Gifford ; "And solemn sounds, heard from the sacred walls, And so also by Mr. Hodgson; "A solenn warning from the temple giv'n Proclaim'd the present Majesty of Heav'n.” But nothing can be more certain than that this rendering is erroneous. The monitory voice issued from no temple. Livy tells us that it was heard by Marcus Cæditius (the only person who heard it at all) “in nova via, ubi nunc sacellum est, supra ædem Vestæ ;" and that, after the departure of the Gauls, a temple was erected in the nova via, in expiation of the neglect with which the warning had been treated; which temple was dedicated to Aius Locutius. Plutarch adds, (what indeed is sufficiently implied in Livy) that this temple was built on the very spot where the voice had been heard. Now if it be supposed that the voice proceeded from the temple of Vesta, why does Livy say only that it was heard on the Nova Via beyond that temple, and why was not the expiatory shrine consecrated to Vesta rather than to that barbarous piece of deified etymology, Aius Locu tius? On the other hand, if the voice proceeded from some other temple than that of Vesta, why does Livy name only the latter? And, on either supposition, how should or could a new temple be built on the very spot where an old one already stood, or, if we couceive the old one to have been taken down or destroyed by the Gauls, whence the silence of the historians respecting so remarkable a circumstance? I therefore conclude that this warning voice was heard in the open air; and this is confirmed by a speech which Livy afterwards puts into the mouth of Camillus ; “Quid hæc tandem urbis nostræ clades nova? Num ante exorta est, quam spreta vox cœlo emissa de adventu Gallorum?" (Liv. 5, c, 51,) The reference, then, of his to templis understood, is not to be admitted, even were it tenable in point of construction; for Juvenal was too accurate to deviate from history, and I may add that he evidently had his eye on Livy throughout the passage. But it is often easier, in criticism at least, to prove a negative than a positive; and though I think the construction in question (and let me say, every other that has been put on the words) wrong, I know not what to substitute. May it not be conjectured that the text is corrupt, and that for his," we should read "hoc" or "id," sc. Gallos venire? If the text is to stand, it may perhaps be allowable to take his for his dictis or his monitis, and then the sense would be the same, only more harshly expressed, as if we read hoc or id, that is Gallos venire. In that case, the whole sentence might be paraphrased thus; "When the Gauls were approaching, a prophetic voice, by the immediate agency of the Gods, warned us to that effect." Monita deorum (a well-known phrase for such warnings, and used by Livy on this very occasion,) may be supposed implied in monuit. The same ellipsis, applied indeed to a human warning, occurs in Ovid; where, after giving some good advice to a friend, he thus continues ; "His ego si monitor monitus prius ipse fuissem, In qua debebam forsitan urbe forem." Most of the commentators seem to understand "privatus" as meaning secret, concealed, Jupiter having been concealed in the caves of Ida from his father's fury. Others more properly take it to denote a subject, a private person. The word "privatus" never has the former sense in the classics, It is true that the lexicographers give that as one of its meanings, and refer to a passage in Ovid as an example. But let the reader hunt through the classics; the word is of frequent occurrence; and it may safely be affirmed that he shall consecutively find two hundred instances of its use, without lighting on one example where it does not mean either private as opposed to in common with others, or private as opposed to a public station. If so, he will surely suspect that the lexicographers have misinterpreted the Ovidian passage in question; and on turning to it, his suspicions will be verified. It is to be found in the Trist. lib. 3. eleg. 1. This elegy is an address supposed to be delivered by the book itself on entering Rome from which its author had been banished. The book describes itself as avoiding from fear the imperial palace, and as successively repelled in its attempt to gain admittance into each of the three public libraries. It however expresses a fervent hope that Cæsar may one day relent from his wrath, and then proceeds thus, "Interea, quoniam statio mihi publica clausa est, Privato liceat delituisse loco: Vos quoque, si fas est, confusa pudore repulsæ What can be plainer? Finding the imperial residence and the public libraries inaccessible, the book requests that it may not be debarred from an admittance into some private library, that is, into the library of some subject, and may be read by persons of plebeian, that is, of humble rank. The lexicographers have here been misled by finding privato loco joined with delituisse. I doubt whether even the word "delituisse" does not here denote rather insignificance and obscurity than concealment. But, if not, it would only follow that the house of a subject was a very good lurking-place, without supposing that privatus does itself convey that idea. (6.) "Nam genus hoc vivo jam decrescebat Homero; Sat. xv, vv. 69. et seqq. "Malos" here has generally (I believe universally) been understood to mean wicked, or at least weak-minded and cowardly; and the rendering has great plausibility from the context, Odit," says the Delphin editor, "malos, ridet pusillos." But I can see no force or even propriety in the word so understood, where the subject is simply the decline of the species in bodily strength. Besides, if this is the meaning, mankind must have begun to be mali as well as pusilli in Homer's time; which could hardly be meant, as Homer does not say it. My belief therefore is, that malos here means, not weak-minded, but weak-bodied. It is true technical phraseology, like that of a reeruiting serjeant, who by "a good man" would mean "an ablebodied man." The point may be illustrated by a reference to Aristotle, where, in speaking of the actions and characters of men as the objects of poetic imitation, he observes that " Homer represents men as better than they are, Cleophon exactly as they are, and Hegemon and Nicocharis as worse.” “ "Όμηρος μὲν βελτίους, Κλεοφῶν δὲ ὁμοί ους, Ηγήμων δὲ ὁ Θάσιος ὁ τὰς παρῳδίας ποιήσας πρῶτος, καὶ Νικόχαρες ὁ τὴν Δηλιάδα, χείρους.” Poetic. ii. On which passage I cannot forbear transcribing a part of the excellent annotation of Twining. "It is necessary to remember here, the wide sense in which the Ancients used the terms virtue, vice, good, bad, &c. The difference between moral and poetical perfection of character is well explained by Dr. Beattie, Essay on Poetry, &c. part i. ch. 4. The heroes of Homer, as he well observes, are finer animals' than we are; not better mén.” If, then, Homer's characters may in this sense be termed better than we are, we may, in comparison with them, be termed bad. We are mali,—a sorry kind of animal,-a poor and degenerate race of human beings. This phraseology was well known to Homer himself. He repeatedly uses the word åμeívov or its synonymes, for mere animal superiority. Thus we are told that Hector was “far better" than Menelaus, —πολὺ φέρτερος ἦεν. And thus too Agamemnon dissuades Menelaus from single combat with the redoubted Trojan,— “ Μηδ' ἔθελ' ἐξ ἔριδος σεῦ ἀμείνονι φωτὶ μάχεσθαι, Καὶ δ' Αχιλεὺς τούτῳ γε μάχῃ ἐνὶ κυδιανείρῃ Ἔῤῥιγ ̓ ἀντιβολῆσαι, ὅπερ σέο πολλὸν ἀμείνων.” I choose this passage, because here it is impossible to suppose that the superiority, which is spoken of, is not purely animal In any other sense, Agamemnon would never have admitted that Menelaus was "worse" than Hector, still less than Achilles. The same mode of expression is used by Horace, where he tells us that Tydides was a "better man" than his father; "Tydides melior patre." (7.) Quæ tanta fames, infestaque vallo Ibid. vv. 120. et seqq. passages in The latter of these sentences is one of the most difficult Juvenal. Two renderings have been given of it; the substance of which may be thus exhibited. First; "Were the Nile reluctant to ríse and to fertilize the country by his accustomed inundation, what other course could these people take effectually to enrage that river, and still farther to increase his unwillingness?" Second; "Were the Nile reluctant to rise, and the country suffering under a grievous famine, to what more horrid rite of expiation could the people resort than this sort of human sacrifice, in order to shame the river and to act on his cruel waters as a spell?" In the former interpretation I can see neither force nor pertinency; and if it had both, it is by no fair means deducible from the words. It has no relation to the context. It makes a passage, which is awkward enough at any rate, clumsy beyond all utterance; for why say so much,-nay, why say any thing,-of the previous reluctance of the river, and nothing of the sole point in question, his reluctance afterwards? Lastly, it gives a wrong sense to the phrase invidiam facere alicui, which, like its synonymes, invidiam parare alicui, invidiam concitare alicui, is perfectly known to mean, not to excite, the odium of, but to bring odium upon. The other sense may be collected from the words with far less violence,—indeed with as little as in the case of so stubborn a passage can possibly be hoped. It also harmonizes far better with the context, in which the poet asks whether this detestable cruelty had been occasioned by famine. It gives great force and meaning to the phrase "invidiam facere ;" and the supposition which it makes respecting the object and intention of the Tentyrites is perfectly consistent with the known character and genius of the more horrid superstitions of antiquity. Some of the commentators well support it by quoting from Ovid a story of Busiris, who, when Egypt had suffered a long drought, propitiated Jupiter by a human sacrifice. In this view, the phraseology of the passage may be illustrated by an expression in Seneca, which has not, as far as I know, been quoted by the commentators. When the ghost of Achilles demands the sacrifice of Polyxena, Agamemnon, wishing to dissuade Pyrrhus from a compliance, says, "Detrahe invidiam tuo odiumque patri, quem coli pœna jubes." Yet, though I think this interpretation very near the truth, it does not strike me as fully right. The force of the question put in the passage must obviously consist in the idea that the situation of necessity supposed would justify, or at least palliate, the atrocity committed; but Juvenal could never have admitted the justification of human sacrifices in any case. Within a few lines of this very passage, he calls them a "nefandum sacrum." The greatest defect, however, of this interpretation is of another kind. |