Page images
PDF
EPUB

societus hominibus impiis qui audaci pervicacitate animarum contendunt magno hoc itinere in urbem irrumpere, Jovis voluntale pessum dabitur simul."We learn from M. Brunk's remarks, that his manoscripts presented the same reading, which is allowed by the second Scholia. At verse 632, dixalo; dira; is found instead of xalas. It is difficult to find any example of the adjective datos employed with a feminine substantive, even among the Attic writers. In verse 178, the poet calls those prayers of the chorus, πανδίκοις λιτας ; and although πανδίκως, as found in another manuscript (No. 2781), may be right, yet mardi'xel; does not appear less correct.

In our editions, verse 732 is not in

metre:

Παιδολοταρ δ' ερίς ταδ' οτρύνει.
Filiorum perditrix contentio ista urget,
The manuscript has a depúv, and M.
Brunk has judiciously preferred this read-
ing. In our editions we read, on the
subject of Edipus's incest:

Ὅτε μητρὸς αγναν
σπεῖρας ἄρεξαν ἐν ἐτράφη
pizar almatoercav

ἔτλα.

It is difficult to understand, in this place, the object of the epithet agrar purum, or castum sulcum matris seminans, sui sanguinis radicem, ausus est tangere: nor can one easily discover the utility of ú krpáðn, after having said sulcum matris. The manuscript before us, reads like those of M. Brunk, pò Topós áɣiàv sipas poupar, and the subsequent iv pap is the reason which rendered non purum, in respect to Edipus, the sulcum

muiris in which he had been formed.

This reading is, therefore, decidedly the

best.

In verses 212 and 213 of the Prome theus, speaking of the war of the Titans against the Gods, Prometheus says, he liad learned from his mother, that victory was to be obtained, not by force, but by cuaning or stratagem:

are in favour of the ancient reading xi, and only differ in the particle or Té, after dx, and this form is, in fact, very good. Thucydides prefers the use of p to that of xpiin. As to the ellipsis of the comparative μäλhov, before the particle, there is not any Creek writer, who does not furnish examples of it. The phrase thus taken, signifies therefore, "Opor tere, in fatis esse non vi aut robore, magis quam dolo victores cincere; and every one understands, that this grammatical figure amounts to the same as “doto magis quam vi aut robore.” On the subject of the participle present, ineptxorras, instead of which many editions have mesevras, it is well known, that the future is not by any means necessary in such a circumstance; as in Latin, “müsit senatus legatos vetantes," is the same as cetaturos, or qui vetarent. The manuscript under our immediate consideration, reads,

Χρὴ ἡ δύλῳ τε τὰς ὑπερέχοντας χρατεῖν. At verse 215, the printed editions have as follows:

66

Χραπιςα δή μοι των παρεςώτων τότε
εφαίνετ' είναι, προσλαβόντι μητέρα
Ελενθ' ἑκον τι 'Ζηνὶ συμπαραςατεῖν.

cisum est, ut assamens matrem, volens vo-
Optimum mihi in præsenti ex omnibus
len i Jori assisterem." In this passage,
lating to por: but then, what are we to
the par is good in itself, as re-
make of the ove exorts Zrvi? It does

not

appear credible, that Eschylus wrote εκοντι, εκοντί; one having a reference to Jupiter, the other to Prometheus. If he wrote extra, can we admit, one at the side of the other, two adjectives relating to the same person; one to the dative,

pookabove, the other to the accusative, ExoTa? No such example is to be found among the Greek authors. Our manuscript, therefore, is right in having pooAabarre, the two adjectives then joming, not to the pot, but to the infinitive, a. gasar, a mode of construction com mmonly found.

At verse 618, Paw's edition reads,

Λίγ ̓ ἥντιν' αἰτή· παν γαρ έκπυθρό μου. "Dic quid postales? nam quidvis a me doceberis."

Ως ἐ κατ' ἰσχὺν, ἐδὲ πρὸς τὸ καρτερὸν Χρὴ ἢ δολῳ δὲ τὰς ὑπερέχοντας κρατείν. Such was the ancient reading: but it has degenerated, whether after MSS. or ater conjectures, into this, Xpil; that But to give it this sense, the phrase has is to say, xpela, opus sit, necesse sit. occasion of the particle av, without which M. Dawes, being justly dissatisfied with the optative never assumes the power of this form, has substituted, conjecturally, a future; this may be supplied in the in his Critical Miscellanies, xp, an op- MS. by conjecture; for we only find tative, very commonly employed after in it, which leaves a verse defeethe particles, ha, T, &c. to express the past time, necesse esset. But all the MSS. which M. Vauvilliers had seen,

tive by one syllabic. M. Brunk has printed wav yep av mu‡ão, after a manuscript.

3

In

In our editions, after verse 756, and seq. we read,

quæ

Η γαρ ποτ' ἐςὶν εκπεσεῖν αρχῆς Δία ; νδοιμ' άν, οἶμαι, την δ' ίδουσα συμφοράν. Πῶς δ ̓ ἐκ ἄν, ἥτις ἐκ Διος πάσχω κακῶς: "Numquid est ut Jupiter aliquando excidat è principatu! gauderem pulo, istum conspicata cladem: quidni vero! a sove malis afficior." Thus are generally rendered thosewordswhich Io pronounces; but do is a verb active, signifying delecturem, and not delecturer. M. Dawes, in his Miscellanies, assigns the second of these verses to Prometheus, writing do ar, that is, deco av: thus, too, has M. Brunk printed it; and this enables us to find the meaning of luas, gauderes, puto; whilst the third verse is the answer or Io; quidni? The particle & becomes no longer necessary, and our manuscript, which suppresses it, favours the conjecture of those two learned critics. It sup presses also, and properly, as appears, the particle in verse 880.

Iva

μαντεία θῶνος ἐςί Θεσπρωτῶ Δίος
τέρας τ ̓ ἄπιζον.

"Ubi est sedes prophetica Jovis Threspoti et

miraculum incredibile."

It is evident that the particles is not necessary to the sense and measure of the first verse; and I can scarcely believe, that the poet, without any necessity, would seek this cacophony, part Sâno; rezi Deоpore, wherein the same consonant is repeated six times in four words. On the same account that we

the

reject the vipi korras, and adopt
reading of our MS.
υπερέχοντας, (in
verse 213,) we are induced to preter also,
in verse 857,

Η ξεσι θηρεύοντες ο θηρασίμοις
γάμοις.

"Ibunt venantes non venandas nup tias."-Paw's edition, without any necessity, Iras Srgavcores in the future.

It is to be remarked, also, that, in verse 1011,

Αυθαδεία τῷ φρονῦντι μὴ καλος ; our editors read,

Αυθαδία γαρ τω φρενῦντι, δες.

The youp here is of no service to the sense of the phrase, but with aidada it is necessary to the measure of the verse. In reading avdatɛïa, it would be useless for this object. It is certain, that whenever the poets employ the dieresis, or dissolution of the diphthong & or, in two vowels aï, oï, the continues long: from the same analogy should proceed the same result, in respect to the diphthong

[ocr errors]

. This observation, would be of impor

'tance to the knowledge of prosody, if confirmed by a sufficient number of examples. After verse 840, there follows, as if a line by Eschylus, long aπo seu μνημόνευμα της σης πλάνης, which is, in fact, only an explanation of verse 839.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

[ocr errors]

HE tremendous mischiefs brought upon the study of English grammar, by the persevering and pedantic, or ig norant exertions, to mould it on the structure of the learned languages, will become strikingly obvious to any one who can consider the matter without prejudice; but these mischiefs must infallibly continue in some degree, till a second Priestley (with equal penetration and courage, but greater good fortune) shall arise, to confine both declension and conjugation within the bounds of mere infection. That it is a point of dispute with our modern Priscians (or rather of no dispute, for they seem to decide in the negative), whether a nóun, or a pronoun without the accusative variation, may be made both the subject of one verb and the object of another; in other words, both a nominative and an accusative, as we should call it in Latin; in such an example as this: "the things which I liked, and were equally agreeable to my friend ;" which being here the object of liked and the subject of were. It is true, this construction sounds rather awkwardly: but I think, only to those who know something of the syntax of the learned languages, or have received their notions on this parti cular point from others who do; or solely on account of its infrequency (which infrequency, by the by, is also imputable to the same causes.) There is a wellstruck me as an exact case in point on known passage of Horace, which has often this question: I will therefore only mention it,and trouble you no further. It is this: "Quod magis ad nos

Pertinet, et nescire malum est:"
where quod is the nominative to pertinet
and the accusative to nescire.

So in a line of Pope:

Abuse on all he loved, or loved him, spread: where there evidently is only one relative word intended to be understood, and this, on the above-mentioned consideration, should be the relative that; "abuse on all that he loved, or [that] loved him:" that being the object (or accusative) to the first loved, and the subject (or nominative) of the second.

Your's, &c.

Σ.

For

For the Monthly Magazine. LYCEUM OF ANCIENT LITERATURE-No. XXVI.

W

HORACE.

THERE so many have concurred to point out the merits, and to perpetuate the fame, of Horace; upon a subject, which has already exhausted all that criticisin could offer, or ingenuity suggest, the classical reader will be prepared to expect here only those general observations, which may confirm the opinion be has already formed; but which will add little to the materials, upon which that opinion is grounded. Most willingly, indeed, would we have omitted this article altogether; not so much from any difficulty likely to occur in a poet, who has been so repeatedly revised by commentators, ancient and modern, as from the impossibility of offering remarks sufficiently striking, or new, to excite attention. But the necessity of conform jug to the regular plan which we from the first adopted, compels us to proceed. The ades of Horace are, of course, the only part of his works which we propose to consider at present.

It may, perhaps, form no idle disquisition to attempt to ascertain the different periods, at which were written the several poems of Horace. This we shall do, taking Bentley for our guide.* The internal evidence of the poems theinselves may, indeed, lead us to form a to lerable conclusion as to their respective dates. Thus, the first book of the odes may be ascertained from the prologue; the second and third from the epilogues; the epodes from these lines of the 14th epod:

Inceptos, olim promissum carmen, Iambos

Ad umbilicum adducere.

The date of the first book of Satires may be collected from the last line of

the 10th:

Į, puer, atq. meo citus hæc subscribe libello; the last from the prologue. The first book, also, of the epistles may be traced from the prologue and epilogue. That the fourth book of the odes, and the second of the epistles, were published after a considerable lapse of time from the rest, is evident from the authority of Sueto nius; a testimony which, as Bentley observes, is so decisive, that it would be an useless task in any one to attempt to refute it. Supposing, then, this internal evidence to be sufficiently clear, the ar

Vide Bentley, de Temporibus Librorum Horatii.

MONTHLY MAG. No. 194.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

rangement will be as follows :-The first book of Satires, the earliest work of Horace, was written between the twentysixth and twenty-eighth year of his age; the second, between his thirty-second and thirty-fourth; the Epodes, in the two following years; the first book of the Odes, was composed between his chirysixth and thirty-eighth; the second, in his fortieth and forty-first; the third, in the course of the two succceding years: the first book of Episties, m his fortysixth and forty-seventh years; then the fourth of the Odes, and the Carmen Seculare, in the course of his forty-ninth, The Art of fiftieth, and fifty-first years. Poetry, and the fourth of the Epistles, are not so well ascertained; probably, they were written only a year or two be fore he died. This arrangement will appear to be judicious, and not loosely hazarded, if the reader will carefully attend to the evidence of the poems them. selves. In the first place, it is obser vable, that, in the Satires, the Epodes, and the first of the Odes, the name of Cesar is always used, never that of Augustus, which was not assumed till about the thirty-ninth year of Horace; after which it is frequently adopted. Then again, in the Sa ires and Epodes, the poet describes himself as a young inan, and asserts, that he owed all his fame to the publication of his Satires. He no where mentions his lyric compositions as having contibuted to his repu tation. His progressive advance in life may be collected from a close examination of the sentiments of each successive pocin. The free, and often vicious, tendency of his early poems, denotes his youthful years; but we see him afterwards engaged on more decorous subjects, and assuming a graver and chaster style. It is by this internal evidence alone, that we can properly ascertain the different periods at which Horace wrote. Those who have not condescended to follow this unerring guide, have lost themselves in the wildest conjectures, and have seldom failed to obscure, rather than illustrate, the subject.

Let us now consider Horace as a writer of odes, a species of poetry, which, of and elevation of genias, and, a sort of all others, requires the greatest strength enthusiasta, that must diffuse itself Judgment, too, through the whole..

must have its share, in tempering the flights of too wild an imagination; and the greatest art must be used, without the appearance of any, that the сотроposition

B

sition, though strictly regulur, may retain an air of rapture and disorder. Gods, heroes, and princes, were, among the ancients, the objects of the lyric Muse. They had also another kind of Ode, of a more hunible nature, which delighted in softer themes; where beauty, and the pains and joys of love, were described, or the praise of Bacchus sung. The want of the sublime was supplied by delicacy and sprightliness. If Pindar excelled in the former, Anacreon was unrivalled in the latter. The happy genius of Horace could sing the triumphs of Augustus, and the coyness of Chloe, with equal success; uniting the qualities of both the Grecian bards, he has occasion ally the rapture of the one, and the softness of the other. He has all the enthusiasm and elevation of the Theban poet; he is as rich in sinules and imagery: but his transitions are not so abrupt; and his diction is more uniformly soft and flexible. The subjects of Pindar's odes are generally the same, and his style partakes of the uniformity. But it is the peculiar characteristic of Horace, that his style continually varies with his subject. Wherever his poetical imagination may lead him-whether he fancy him self in Olympus, announcing the decrees of the gods; or moralizing upon the ruins of Troy-whether scaling the Alps, or at the feet of Glycera; it is always adapted to the objects before him. He ean, with equal case, pourtray, in the sublimest strains, the characters of Cato and of Regulus; and yet, with playful vivacity, describe the caresses of Lycimnia, and the inconstancy of Pyrrha. Like Anacreon, the devoted son of pleasure, he has all the graces of the Teian bard, with infinitely more wit and philosophy; and while he possesses the brilliant imagination of Pindar, he surpasses bin in the solidity of his judgment. In a word, if attention be paid to the soundmess of his sense, the precision of his style, the harmony of his verse, and the variety of his subjects; if it be recolfected, that the same man has composed satires, replete with keenness, sense, and gaiety; epistles, which contain the best directions for our conduct in life, and an Art of Poetry, which will always be the standard of true taste; it will be admitted, that Horace was one of the greatest and best-informed poets that ever existed.

His thoughts are the genuine offspring of nature. They are dictated by truth and reason. Unwilling to deck his style

with frivolous ornaments, which can amuse only superficial minds, he compensates for the want of these by the grandeur of his ideas and figures, in the Odes; and by the chasteness of his elʊcution, and the propriety of his images, in his Satires and Epistles. Grace every where flows from his pen, and pleases the more because natural and unstudied. His poetry is not a barren soil; the useful and the agreeable spring up together we are at once amused and instructed, The mind finds itself enriched by fables, history, and geography, which are sprinkled through the whole work with judg ment, and without affectation. The heart is improved by a variety of wise reflections on the manners of his age, and by lively representations of vice and virtue. In a word, the taste is formed by a composi tion just and correct, without constraint; full of grace and beauty, without varnish; easy, and yet not negligent; always seasoned with so much wit and learning, as to leave no room for disgust.

It has been sometimes said, that elegance, not sublimity, is the characteristic of Horace. That the former qualification is unquestionably his due, no one will attempt to deny. But, surely, he offers as many instances of the sublime in his odes, as any of the ancient lyrie writers. Let the admirer of Horace turn to the following Odes: the 15th, 85th, 37th, of the first book; the 1st, 13th, perhaps, the best of all, and 19th, of the second book; and, especially, the 1st, 3d, and 4th, the character of Regulus in the 5th, and the 25th, of the third book ; Odes the 4th, 9th, and 14th, or the 4th book. It would be easy to fill these columns, by numerous quotations that would sufficiently prove the truth of our assertion. It is true, that he himself disclaims all pretensions to sublimity; and often says in his odes, that his Muse was not suited to subjects of grandeur, but rather chose to sing

Convivia, et prælia Virginum

Sectis in Juvenes unguibus acrium,
Non præter solitum levis.

But this is a specimen of that modesty,
which makes him say in another place,
Pindarum quisquis studet æmulari,
Ceratis ope Dædalea

Nititur pennis, vitreo daturus
Nomina ponto,

We shall allow ourselves one quotation more, to prove, once for all, that the ge nius of Ilorace was highly susceptible of that grandeur of sentiment which is

called

called sublimity in Pindar. Observe with what magnificence, and pomp of expression, he describes a lyric poet, and a favourite of the Muses, in the 3d Ode of book 4:

Quem tu, Melpomene, semel

Nascentem placido lumine videris, Illum non labor Isthmius

Clarabit pugilem; non equus impiger Curru ducet Achaïco

Victorem neque res bellica Deliis Ornatum foliis ducem,

Quod regum tumidas contuderit minas, Ostendet Capitolio:

Sed, que Tibur aquæ fertile perfluunt, Et spissæ nemorum comæ,

the forward Muse:

Quo Musa tèndis? desîne pervicax
Referre sermones Deorum.

plify this character in some heroes, who, by the exercise of virtue, had been deified. Here was an occasion to mention Romulus, who was worshipped by the Romans as a God under the name of Quirinus. Upon his reception into hea, ven, Juno, as the well-known enemy of the Trojans, declares to the assembled Gods the conditions upon which she consents to his apotheosis, and to the future grandeur of the Roman state. Thus, what, at first sight, may appear to be a wild and rapturous transition, is found, upon examination, to have been the result of deep and judicious reflection. As a Fingent Æolio carmine nobilem. poet, he prophetically delivers the divine The truth is, that the splendour of decrees; and when the purpose is anHorace, not having the glare and extra-swered, as if the God, who had inspired agance of Pindar, does not so immedi- his imagination, had left him, he checks ately strike the eye, but is generally more agreeable to the understanding of the reader. He is more correct in his expressions, less extravagant in his metaphors, less bold in his transitions, Though he sometimes swells, and rises high, he never exceeds those limits which a clear judgment prescribed to a warm imagination. His transitions, even where they are the boldest, will be found adapted to the design of the Ode; and to arise more from the nature of that kind of poetry, than from any unreasonable indulgence granted to his Muse. That which occurs in the third Ode of book . has been considered most liable to objection; but even this will vanish, when the reader accurately studies the design of the Ode, and upon what occasion it was composed. Before the death of Julius Cæsar, there was a report, that he intended to remove the seat of empire to Troy, from which the Romans derived their origin; and it was feared, that Augustus might carry into execution what his uncle and adopted father had proposed to effect. Horace is thought to have composed this Ode, in order to prevent it. He therefore introduces Juno in the council of the Gods, as consenting to favour the Romans, provided they never think of re-building Troy, or of transferring to that city the seat of government. The design of the poeni thus anticipated, it may be supposed that he would only gradually convey the hint to Augustus, and not abruptly discover his intention in writing: and the manner in which it is executed will be found equally admirable. The Ode begias with the praises of a just and courageous man: it proceeds to exem

Sublimity, then, is an essential feature in the poetical character of Horace. That he is hot always sublime is a proof of that surprising versatility, that curiosa felicitas, which pervades every thing he undertakes.--" In Odis sublimi charac tere usus est," says Baxter, " et nonñanquam florido et amano; in Epodis humili; et in Sermonibus, comico et civili; nisi quod in epistolis, accedente jam senectute, omisso, ut plurimum, ludo ét joco, ad philosophicum vultom, uti decuit, sese composuerit."*-It rarely hap pens, that au author succeeds in different kinds of composition; but Horace is equally happy in the most opposite species of writurg. In lyrics, he has not only united the beauties of Pindar, Alcæus, Anacreon, and Sappho, but has found the means of tracing a new path, and of substituting himself us a model. It will be seen, hereafter, that he has the same superiority in satire.

As to his morality, though in early youth he had imbibed the principles of Epicurus, yet he acknowledges one Supreme Power, superior to all created beings, who will not suffer crimes to be committed with impunity; to whom even kings are accountable for their conduct, and who ought to be the source and end of all their actions. He teaches us, that happiness consists in the right use of our reason, and in carbing the tumultuous sallies of our passions; that we cannot too soon devote ourselves to the study of wis

* Baxter, judicium de Horat. in Zeunius Edit. of Gesner, p. 32.

dom,

« PreviousContinue »