صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

societus hominibus impiis qui audaci pervicacitate animarum contendunt magno hoc itinere in urbem irrumpere, Jocis voluntale pessum dabitur simul."-We learn from M. Brunk's remarks, that his manascripts presented the same reading, which is allowed by the second Scholia. At verse 632, dizzio; Aura; is found instead of Axalas. It is difficult to find any example of the adjective datos em ployed with a feminine substantive, even among the Attic writers. In verse 178, the poet calls those prayers of the chorus, ardizois Atas; and although wardings, as found in another manuscript (No. 2781), may be right, yet mavdi'nel; does Bot appear less correct.

In our editions, verse 732 is not in


[blocks in formation]

are in favour of the ancient reading x ñ, and only differ in the particle sur Té, after dx, and this form is, in fact, very good. Thucydides prefers the use of P. to that of pain. As to the ellipsis of the comparative pähker, 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 vincere; and every one understands, that this grammatical figure amounts to the same as "dola magis quam vi aut robore." On the subject of the participle present, inepixorras, instead of which many editions have mesovras, it is well known, that the future is not by any means necessary in such a circumstance; as in Latin, "misit senatus legatos vetantes," is the same as vetaluros, or qui vetarent. The manuscript under our immediate consideration, reads,

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


visum est, ut assamens matrem, volens voOptimum mihi in præsenti ex omnibus lenti Jovi assisterem." In this passage, the is good in itself, as relating to por: but then, what are we to make of the move exorts Zyl? It does not appear credible, that Eschylus wrote

εκοντι, εκοντό, one having a reference to

Jupiter, the other to Prometheus. If he side of the other, two adjectives relating wrote infra, can we admit, one at the to the same person; one to the dative, pochabor, the other to the accusative, EXOVTA? No such example is to be found among the Greek authors. Our manuscript, therefore, is right in having zooAabarra, the two adjectives then joming, not to the pot, but to the infinitive, a. gasar, a mode of construction com monly found.

At verse 618, Paw's edition reads,

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

Ω; ἐ κατ ̓ ἰσχὺν, ἐδὲ πρὸς τὸ καρτερὸν Χρὴ ἡ δολῳ δὲ τὰς ὑπερέχοντας κρατεῖν. Such was the ancient reading: but it has degenerated, whether after MSS. or atter conjectures, into this, Xply; that is to say, xpela A, opus sit, necesse sit. M. Dawes, being justly dissatisfied with this form, has substituted, conjecturally, in his Critical Miscellanies, xpin, an optative, very commonly employed after the particles, a, ori, &c. to express the past time, necesse esset. But all the MSS, which M. Vauvilliers had seen,

Χραπίζα δήμοι των παρεςώτων τότε Equiver' elvat, aposλ¤ßorti pentepe επανθ' ἑκοντι Ζη συμπαραςατεῖν.

Λίγ ̓ ἥντιν ̓ αὐτῇ· παν γαρ έκπυθμό μου. "Dic quid postules? nam quidvis a me doceberis."

But to give it this sense, the phrase has occasion of the particle av, without which the optative never assumes the power of a future; this may be supplied in the MS. by conjecture; for we only find

in it, which leaves a verse defective by one svilabie. M. Brunk bas printed wav yap av mo, after a manuscript.



'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, 1övig am beu μνημόνευμα της σης πλάνης, which is, in fact, only an explanation of verse 839.

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

Η γκρ ποτ ̓ ἐςὶν εκπεσεῖν αρχῆς Δία ; υδοιμ' αν, οἶμαι, τυν δ' ιδουσα συμφοράν. Πῶς εκ ἄν, ἥτις ἐκ Διος πασχω κακῶς: "Numquid est ut Jupiter aliquando excidat è principatu! gauderem puto, istum conspicata cladem : quidni vero! que a sove malis afficior." Thus are generally rendered thosewordswhich Io pronounces; but ndo is a verb active, signifying delecturem, and not delecturer. M. Dawes, in his Miscellanies, assigns the second of these verses to Prometheus, writing da av, that is, det av: thus, too, has M. Brunk printed it; and this enables us to find the meaning of luat, 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 suppresses also, and properly, as appears, the particle in verse 850.


[blocks in formation]

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

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

*Αυθαδεία τῷ φρονῦντι μὴ καλος ; our editors read,

Αυθαδία γαρ του φρονῦντι, δε

The yop here is of no service to the sense of the phrase, but with aldadia it is necessary to the measure of the verse. In reading audacia, it would be useless for this object. It is certain, that when ever 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 This observation, would be of impor


To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.



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



HERE so many have concurred WHERE so many have concurred 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 differ ent 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 tolerable 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 Suetonius; 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

[ocr errors]

Vide Bentley, de Temporibus Librorum Horatii.


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 thirtysixth and thirty-eighth; the second, in his fortieth and forty-first; the third, in the course of the two succeeding years: the first book of Episties, in his fortysixth and forty-seventh years; then the fourth of the Odes, and the Car nen Seculare, in the course of his forty-ninth, fiftieth, and fifty-first years. The Art of Poctry, 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 Cæsar 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 Sarires and Epodes, the poet describes himself as a young inan, and asserts, that he owed all his fame to the publication of his Satires. Ie no where mentions his lyric compositions as having contibuted to his reputation. His progressive advance in life may be collected from a close exami nation of the sentiments of each successive poem. The free, and often vicpus, 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.

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



with frivolous ornaments, which
amuse only superficial minds, he coni-
pensates for the want of these by the
grandeur of his ideas and figures, in the
Odes; and by the chasteness of his elo-
cution, 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 use-
ful 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 sprink-
led 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
In a
representations of vice and virtue.
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.

sition, though strictly regulur, may re-
tam 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 humble nature, which
delighted in softer themes; where beauty,
and the pains and joys of love, were de-
scribed, 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 un-
rivalled 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 soft-
ness of the other. He has all the enthu-
siasm 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 par-
takes of the uniformity. But it is the
peculiar characteristic of Horace, that
his style continually varies with his sub-
ject. Wherever his poetical imagination
may lead him-whether he fancy him-
elf 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 Lycim-
nia, and the inconstancy of Pyrrha.
Like Anacreon, the devoted son of plea-
sure, he has all the graces of the Teian
bard, with infinitely more wit and philo-
sophy; and while he possesses the brii-
liant imagination of Pindar, he surpasses
bin in the solidity of his judgment. In
a word, if attention be paid to the sound-
ness of his sense, the precision of his
style, the harmony of his verse, and the
variety of his subjects; if it be recol-
fected, that the same man has come
posed 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.

It has been sometimes said, that elegance, not sublimity, is the characterisThat the former qualifitic of Horace. cation 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 lyric writers. Let the admirer of Horace turn to the following Odes: the 15th, 35th, 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, of the 4th It would be easy to fill these cobook. lumns, by numerous quotations that would sufficiently prove the truth of our It is true, that he himself assertion. 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

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

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 Daedalea
Nititur pennis, vitreo daturus
Nomina ponto,

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

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 poet, he prophetically delivers the divine decrees; and when the purpose is anextra-swered, as if the God, who had inspired his imagination, had left him, he checks

the forward Muse:

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, Fingent olio carmine nobilem.

The truth is, that the splendour of Horace, not having the glare and agance of Pindar, does not so immediately 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

Quo Musa tendis? desine pervicax Referre sermones Deorum.

Sublimity, then, is an essential feature in the poetical character of Horace. That he is not always sublime is a proof of that surprising versatility, that curiosa felicitas, which pervades every thing he undertakes.--“ İn Odis sublimi charac. tere usus est," says Baxter, " et nonnanquam fforido et amoño; in Epodis humili; et in Sermonibus, conico et civili; nisi quod in epistolis, accédente jam senectute, omisso, ut plurimum, ludo et joco, ad philosophicum vultum, uti decuit, sese composuerit."*-It rarely hap pens, that au author succeeds in different kinds of composition; but Horace equally happy in the most opposite species of writing. 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 féason, 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.


« السابقةمتابعة »