Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

pus teneri anni seu veris, apud Martialem, Epig. xiv. 1. 19. de Earino.

Nomen habes teneri quod tempora nuncupat anni. Epod. i. v. 29. Nec ut superni villa candens Tusculi, M. prefers in p. 50. superbi to superni.

Epist. i. Lib. ii. v. 207.

M.

Lana Tarentino violas imitata veneno.

p. 101. would read Læna, shortly adding, that he had made the same emendations, p. 87. of the Epist. Crit. This epistle was published at Cambridge, 1723, and the Statius in London, 1728. It is always of importance to mark the interval between the different appearances of the same criticism, for we ought to presume, that a critic, after reconsideration, acquiesces in his first opinion.

Lib. i. Od 31. v. 3.

non opimas Sardiniæ segetes feracis.

The common reading is opimæ, and so we find it in Cuningham, Bentley, Torrentius, and Lambin. Mr. M. p. 225. in his Statius, would read opimas, and so it is printed in Gesner, the Delphin edition, and the Variorum.

Ars Poet. v. 40.

cui lecta potenter erit res. Markland, p. 232, would read pudenter, and this reading is, in the Variorum, produced from a note of Bishop Hurd, who introduces it from the learned editor of Statius. The Bishop says, a similar passage in the Epistle to Augustus adds some weight to this conjecture.

Nec meus audet

Rem tentare pudor, quam vires ferre recusent. But in justice to Mr. Markland, we must add, that he has himself quoted this very passage, and

yet the words of the Bishop might lead his readers to suppose, that they were indebted to him only for the quotation. We do not mean to insinuate that the Bishop intended to misguide us. We observe by the way, Dr. Combe, in translating the words of the Bishop, seems to have made an unnecessary and incorrect addition. The Bishop says plainly," the learned Editor* of Statius:" but the Variorum Editor says, "Editor doctissimus Papilii Statii." With submission to the Doctor, we remembered, and we have since found, that Markland, Veenhusen, and Cruquius, write Papinius, not Papilius; and we would remark, that our poet, invested with the triple dignity of names, was called Publius Papinius Statius. In Gruter's inscriptions we find Papinius and Papirius, but not Papilius. Again, in the Tabulæ Coss. and Triumph of Verrius Flaccus, we find Popilius, and Papirius, but not Papilius.

Lib. ii. Od. iv. V. 13.

[ocr errors]

Nescias an te generum beati. Markland, p. 247. would read, quî scis an te, &c. and quotes from the Ars Poct. 462. Qui scis an prudens.

* We quote from the Cambridge edition of 1757, but we believe that a more enlarged edition has since been published, in which, however, it is not very probable that the Bishop has inserted the word Papilius. We wish Dr. C. had told his readers the particular work of Statius, for though the Bishop mentions it not, yet in p. 460. vol. i. of the Variorum, we have a note, wherein Klotzius expressly speaks of Markland as confirming, in p. 192 of his notes ad Statii Silvam. lib. iv. i. the opinion which Klotzius holds about Dux bone, lib. iv. Od. 5. v. 37. where he defends Dux in opposition to Bentley, who would read Rex, and adds, that Dux is not confined to the signification of military glory; referring for the justness of this remark to Horace, lib. iii. Od. xiv. v. 7. and to the note of Markland above mentioned.

[blocks in formation]

Epist. i. B. ii. v. 110.

Fronde comas vincti cœnant.

Markland, p. 247. would read certant, quia Horatius hic agit de studio scribendi : sed quid ad rem utrum cœnent vel non conent?

Od. xv. B. i. v. 35.

Post certas hyemes.

M. in p. 247. would read denas for certas.

Sat. iii. B. ii. v. 234. In nive Lucana dormis ocreatus. M. in p. 248. would read duras for dormis. He prints tu for in before nive, and so does Cuningham in his text, but with this note, "Tu nive," ita citat. H. Johnson, ad Gratium, p. 20. et ita R. B. In nive MSS. edd.

We have now laid before our readers a series of emendations, many of which we should have been more happy to see in the Variorum edition, than to insert in our Review; and if any excuse be required for the length of this article, we shall find one in the spirit of Markland's words, Leve est quod dicturus sum, nisi quòd ad Horatium pertinet; et ideo non est leve. Markland's Epist. Crit. p. 164.

At the close of this critique, we return to the Var. Editor. In the catalogue, he says, Lævinii Torrentii edit. Horatii, 4to. 1608. But it would have been useful to add, cum Commentario Petri Nannii Alcmariani in Hor. de Art. Poet. Nannius is first introduced by Dr. C. to his readers in a note upon line 34. de Art. Poet. and he is quoted in the same work of Horace on no less than thirty passages. We must therefore state, what Dr. C. ought to have explained for the information of such persons as may purchase the Variorum, but are not in possession of Torrentius's edition. The notes of

Torrentius are not continued beyond the second epistle of the second book. But the commentary of Nannius is subjoined to Horace de Art. Poet. and begins p. 783. of Torrentius's edition. See Fabricii Bib. Lat. vol. i. p. 254. and Harles's Introduct. ad Notit. Lig. Rom. part ii. page 384.

The purchasers of a Variorum edition may in several respects be compared to jurymen, who are supposed only to know what the occasion immediately brings before them; and the writer of the preface to such an edition seems to resemble a judge, whose office it is to hold up every striking circumstance of the case, to exhibit a clear view of its general merits, and to assist those to whom he addresses himself, in forming correct conceptions, and passing an impartial sentence. But lest we should ourselves be likened to Lord Biron, and "proclaimed for men full of comparisons and wounding flouts," we will not press these resemblances any further, Reasonable, however, we do call it, that he, who selects notes from various critics, who, with various degrees of talent, and for various purposes of illustration, have endeavoured to explain the same ancient author, should be expected to favour his readers with some intimation of his own opinions upon their comparative excellencies, to give a short representation of the character, by which they are severally distinguished; to unfold, now and then, the order of their succession to each other; to touch upon circumstances, if there be any, of literary or personal hostility, and perspicuously, if not

copiously, to lay open the principles of selection, which may have prevailed through his own work. There is a medium between conciseness and prolixity, which men of sense are at no loss to preserve; and he, who from false delicacy, or conscious incapacity, says too little, sometimes multiplies those difficulties, which, in point of fact, are removed by him, who says too much, whether he be impelled by motives of petty ostentation or superfluous solicitude.

General celebrity excites general curiosity, and by exciting it, makes the explanation, of which we are speaking, more necessary. What is distinctly known by an editor, may be known very imperfectly by many readers, and before they can determine with propriety upon the execution of the work, they must enter fully into the views of the person by whom it is conducted. They must see the reasons which operated upon his mind in the different structure of different parts, and then, by examining them both separately and collectively, they will understand the whole with precision, and with justice will approve of the correspondence between profession and performance, between that which raises expectation and that which gratifies it, between general rules and their particular application.

It is the custom of scholars, and perhaps the duty of reviewers, to compare the materials of a Variorum edition, with the contents of those learned works, from which they are extracted. But such toil ought not to be imposed upon the general classes of readers; and indeed one great and characteristic use

« IndietroContinua »