« ZurückWeiter »
or hole at the mast-head: the mariners by means of it drew up the yard to the mast-head, and then made the rope fast on deck at the side, or gunwale of the vessel, and consequently within reach of the Roman hooks. Now, says Cæsar, the ropes were laid hold of, qui antennas ad malos distinebant, h. e. qui antennas ad malos tenebant a parte distante, which kept or held the yards to the masts at the farther ends of the ropes, at a distance from the place where they were laid hold of. The word distinebant seems thus to explain a matter which might otherwise have been unintelligible, or might have even appeared incredible.
The same seems to be the meaning of this compound in two other passages. B. G. iv. 17. “Hæc utraque [tigna bina] insuper bipedalibus trabibus (quantum eorum tignorum junctura distabat) bivis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte DisTINEBANTUR: quibus disclusis, atque in contrariam partem revinctis, tanta erat operis firmitudo, &c.” Here, also, Davis would have destinabantur ; but Oudendorp retains distinebantur, observing, Immo distineri non esse mutandum patet e sequentibus disclusis et revinctis, per quæ se ipse explicat Cæsar." Here I say the meaning of distinebantur is the same with that contended for in the former
passage: “ These two opposite pairs of piles, again, were, by beams two feet square in thickness (answering to the interval in the pair of piles) which were let in between them (and fastened) with double braces, KEPT PIRM IN THEIR SEPARATE PLACES at each end of the beam; and the piles being thus SEPARATELY FIXED and bound to the opposite ends of the beam, such was the firmness of the work, &c.” Here it may be contended, that distinebantur and disclusis signify merely, that the piles were held asunder by the beam. But is this the author's object? was such the use of the beam ? was it not to connect and hold firm at its opposite ends each pair of piles ?
The other passage, to which I allude, is B. G. VII. 22. At the siege of Avaricum, he says, the Gauls showed great ingenuity in counteracting the efforts of the Romans : “ Nam et laqueis falces avertebant, quas quum DISTINUERANT, tormentis introrsus reducebant, &c.” that is, when the Romans advanced their mural falces to tear out the stones from the wall, the Gauls let down ropes with nooses at the end, and turned aside the falces, and occasionally, when they had caught a firmer hold of the falces by the noose AT THE PARTHER END of the rope, they by means of engines drew them into
In these places, Oudendorp reads DESTINAverat, which to me' seems absolutely inadmissible. If that
verb may be used in the sense of binding fast, yet, surely it cannot mean to catch hold of.
The three passages seem to confirm and explain each other.
B. G. iv. 10. “Mosa profluit ex monte Vosego, qui est in finibus Lingonuin, et, parte quadam ex Rbeno recepta, quæ adpellatur Vahalis, insulamque efficit Batavorum, in Oceanum influit; neque longius ab Oceano millibus passuum lxxx in Rhenum transit.”-So Oudendorp has edited this passage, and he tells us that innumerable learned men have endeavoured to explain it and lay down from it the ancient geography of his country; and he confesses that his own endeavours have not been very successful.— If we understand the last clause, as speaking of the Mosa, and render in Rhenum transit, “ flows into the Rhine,” it is quite impossible to understand it, or reconcile it with the topography. But the difficulty entirely vanishes by referring the last clause to the Vabalis, and explaining in Rhenum transitin Rhenum abit-fit Rhenus, "passes into or becomes the Rhine,"—that is, in tracing the Vahalis up from the Ocean, at the distance of 80 (Roman) miles, you come to the Rhine, of which the Vahalis is a branch. If one looks into the map either ancient or modern, with this explanation, the whole becomes quite clear and intelligible, and one wonders how so plain a matter should have been so long misunderstood. Several manuscripts, as appears from Oudendorp's note on the place, agree in this order of the words : “ insulam efficit Batavorum, neque lodgius ab Oceano millibus passuum Lxxx in Rhenum transit." I have therefore ventured to make a transposition of part of the sentence, as given by Oudendorp, thus: “Mosa profluit ex monte Vogeso, qui est in tinibus Lingonum, et parte quadam ex Rheno recepta (quæ appellatur Vahalis, insulamque efficit Batavorum, neque longius ab Oceano millibus passuum Lxxx in Rhenum transit) in Oceanum influit." Whether this transposition be approved or no, I think it clear that the clause in question respects the Vahalis, and must be understood as I have explained it.
On Horace my first remark, may appear of that conjectural character, which some of his commentators, Dacier especially, have carried too far: but I am disposed to indulge in it as setting in a more favorable light the character of the author. Adopting Sanadon’s conjecture, which Gesner calls a happy one, that the second ode of the first book was written on the occasion of Octavius receiving the title of AUGUSTUS, and that it alludes to the inundatiou of the city by the liber ou the night which fol
lowed that decree of the senate, I think I see in it the poet, like a skilful courtier, joining in the flattery of the Emperor, yet insinuating that Cæsar's death had been sufficiently revenged, and deprecating farther severities against his former friends. This interpretation I found on the expressions nimium jactet se ultorem (for so I would construe the words, not nimium querenti), and Jove non probante; “ Jupiter did not approve that the Tiber should, at the solicitation of Ilia, seek to carry farther the vengeance of Cæsar's death: this had already been sufficiently done by Augustus.” Nor would this lose much of its force if we should join nimium to querenti; Ilia's complaints and solicitations for vengeance were excessive. To which may be added the words with which the ode begins, Jam satis. This interpretation seems to set in a better light the words patiens vocari Cæsaris ultor, which seem to come with a bad grace from Horace, who had himself joined Brutus, and was only spared by the clemency of the victor. The poet could not well avoid giving Octavius the character, under which he ostensibly covered his ambition: but he would suggest to him that the duties of that character had been already sufficiently discharged.
Car. I. 16. 36. Ignis Pergameas domos. I have retained this reading of the later editors, instead of the formerly universal one, Ignis Iliacas domos : but I do not think the reason for the preference very strong. Catullus frequently puts a trochæus in the first foot of the Glyconian trimeter. Collis O Heliconii Cultor, Uraniæ genus; Qui rapis teneram ad virum, &c. Horace, it is acknowledged, does so nowhere else: but this is not conclusive. He admits an iambus in the first foot of the Alcaic, Vides ut alta stet nive candidum, of which a second example is hardly to be found.
Car. 1. 20. 10. "Tu Bibis uvám: mea nec Falernæ, &c. So I read the line, instead of bibes. “You drink at home-you are accustomed to drink precious wines; but I have not such to give.” Bibes, the usual reading, seems to me irreconcilable with the very spirit of the ode. Vile potabis modicis Sabinum, &c. The second syllable of bibis is lengthened, I conceive, by the cæsura, or ictus metricus on the first syllable of the spondee. I acknowledge I find no other instance in which Horace has put a syllable naturally short in a similar place: bút Catullus does so: Tintinant aures; gemina teguntur
Lumina nocte. For, I suppose, it will hardly be maintained that the construc
tion is geminâ nocte. If, however, this be objected to, I would read bibas ; “ you may drink and give your guests Calene wine; but that does not suit me.”
Car. 111. 3. 61. Trojæ renascens alite lugubri
Fortuna tristi clade iterabitur,
Conjuge me Jovis et sorore. The author's meaning may, perhaps, be made out by this read-, ing; but there is a confusion arising from construing both renascens and iterabitur with Fortuna.–Fortuna renascens Trojæ, “ the renewed good fortune of Troy”-iterabitur, “ shall be repeated :"-nay, it is her bad fortune that is threatened to be repeated. If one might adopt a conjectural emendation, I would read:
Trojæ renascenti alite lugubri, &c. “ To Troy, should she revive under an evil omen, her former fortune shall be repeated.”
I agree with Sanadon in rejecting the following passage out of the 4th ode of the fourth book :
Tempus Amazonia securi
Nec scire fas est omnia. It is not possible that Horace could have admitted any thing so prosaic and so foreign into this ode where he was putting forth all his strength. To Sanadon's reasoning I would add, that these verses seem to have been inserted by some wag, in order to throw ridicule on the uncommon length of the first sentence: and the word obarmet seems to have been coined in ridicule of the licence which Horace sometimes allows himself in the use of new or obsolete words; such as adurgens, Car. 1. 37. 17. diluvies for diluvium ij. 29. 40. and iv. 14. 28. æternet, ib. 15. inimicat, iv. 15. 20. If indecorant, which many Mss. give, and some editors adopt for dedecorant, v. 32. of this ode be Horace's word, this we may suppose to be more immediately aimed at. Obarmet is an unknown compound, formed for no end (unless for ridicule), as it adds nothing to the force of the expression,
Serm. 1. 3. 120. Nam ut ferula cædas meritum majora subire
Verbera non vereor ; This use of vereor ut cædas, for ne cædas (as it is generally explained), is contrary to the universal usage of the Latin language : nor does the solution of the difficulty given by Dr.
Clarke ad Cæs. B. G. v. 47, and generally acquiesced in, appear to me at all satisfactory. Nam ut ferula cædas meritum majora subire verbera, id equidem, non vereor. This appears to me to leave the matter where it found it-id non vereor, quid non verearis !--ut ferula cædas. He adds vel, id ne facias non vereor. If this did produce the meaning wished for (which yet I doubt), it would make the author
when he no: and by a similar process in every instance vereor ut, might be made equivalent to vereor ne : and any thing might be made of any thing. In other instances Horace has expressed himself as other Latin authors do. O puer, ut sis vitalis metuo ; et majorum ne quis amicus frigore te feriat.—Sedit, qui timuit NE NON succederet; equivalent to Ut succederet. Sed vereor, NE cui de te plus quan, tibi credas; where if we should put ut for ne, we should reverse the sense; but which by Dr. Clarke's process might be made to bear Horace's meaning.
If Horace really wrote the passage as it stands, I would explain it thus : Ut cædas ferula—h. e. ne non cædas vel ferula non vereor. “I am not afraid that you will not even punish with the rod him, who deserves severer chastisement;" that is, I am not afraid lest you stoics draw from your doctrine that all crimes are equal, this consequence, that no crime should be punished at all, which may as justly be drawn from it, as that all crimes ought to be punished with equal severity. If sacrilege be no greater crime than heedlessly breaking down a few coleworts (vv. 115. et seqq.), it ought not to be punished even with the ferula: you will not reason in this manner, for
you say, &c. This explanation gives the Latin phrase its true meaning, and is quite in the author's argument. But after all, it is not so easy and natural as Ne ferula cadas would be ; which, therefore, I suspect the author wrote.
The sixth Satire of the first Book, from the 19th to the 45th verse, has always been deservedly accounted very difficult. I will, with your leave, set down the beginning of the passage:
Namque esto, populus Lævino mallet honorem
Non minus ignotos generosis, &c. 19 et seqq. Namque esto, 8c. For although the people, notwithstanding their knowlege of the personal worthlessness of Lævinus, would probably elect him consul, rather than a man of no family, however great his worth ; and though Appius, the