not only to a high place in their favour, but also, as we have seen, in their affections. The life of the poet is, for the most part, essentially an inward life. Very little is known of the private life, personal appearance, and physical peculiarities of any of the great Roman poets beyond what can be gathered from their own works. It was so with our Horace to a great extent; but we have some other slight memorials of him. It appears, as well from certain letters of Augustus, which have come down to us, as from the poet's own Satires, that he was short and fat. The emperor tells him upon one occasion that he seems to be afraid lest his books should be bigger than himself, and adds, "Sed, si tibi statura deest, corpusculum non deest." On another occasion he calls him "homuncionem lepidissimum." He lived chiefly, owing to the delicacy of his health, at his Sabine farm, and frequently wintered at Tarentum. Augustus admired his poetry excessively, and believed entirely in its immortality. There is little doubt that, so long as letters shall last, the poet and the patron will alike prove to be true prophets on this subject. The monumentum is there are perennius; and even Augustus was not wrong in wishing, for the sake of enduring remembrance, to travel down the stream of time in company with his laureat. The Carmen Sæculare and many other pieces were written at his express request, and we owe to his instigation the fourth book of the Odes, though, doubtless, as has been observed by the commentators, several of the odes therein had been already composed at an earlier period and lay in the poet's desk. The emperor, moreover, in one of his letters tells Horace he is angry with him for not making more frequent mention of the name of Augustus in his writings, and asks him if he fears it will disgrace him in the eyes of posterity if he should appear as his familiar friend. Horace lived to the fifty-seventh year of his age, and therefore probably as long as he would wisely have desired to live. In his last illness he was too weak to sign a will, but he nominated Augustus as his heir before the requisite number of witnesses. No poet of the Augustan age was held in higher estimation by the great and learned than Horace, and from that hour to the present he has continued an especial favourite with individuals of the same order in all nations. He proclaimed no more than the truth when he said, "Exegi monumentum ære perennius, Regalique situ Pyramidum altius; Quod non imber edax, non Aquilo impo Ovid sings, in a similar strain of triumph, "Jamque opus exegi, quod non Jovis ira, nec ignes, We are aware that in the schools of modern Europe he has not escaped the doom he so earnestly deprecated. But that does not affect what we have already said, as he certainly has found there very few admirers. VOL. XXXI. NO. CLXXXI. E fame have had a large circle of readers, much less of admirers, in his own day. MSS. were few in number and not generally circulated. Next, his works must have been nearly unintelligible to all those who spoke only the lingua vulgaris or rustica, and quite incapable of affording to them either instruction or amusement. Again, even to the higher classes, who spoke the lingua urbana, or pure Latin, unless they were also familiar with the Greek tongue, the odes must have appeared shorn of half their grace and beauty, and been in many of those Grecised forms of expression, which he first introduced into Latin poetry, incapable of being comprehended by them. These considerations will serve to shew how restricted must have been in his own day the audience endowed with the means of appreciating his merits as a poet generally. It will also point out the fulfilment, though in a way he little contemplated, of his prophecy that his would increase with the flow of time, since now he is the delight of the learned in all the higher classes of the European nations, and the conventional and artificial language in which he wrote (we call it so in contradistinction to a national language) is as well understood as it was by any of his contemporaries, excepting those who were themselves great writers and scholars and concurred with him in the lofty task, reserved for the historians, orators, and poets of the Augustan age, of giving the last just extension to the Latin vocabulary, and to the Latin language the last power of expression of which it was capable, and the last polish of which it was susceptible. But this view seems to us to be fraught with so much of curiosity and importance, that we are unwilling to let it go forth to the ordinary readers of magazines unsupported by high authority. We accordingly quote from Hope's treatise On the Origin and Prospects of Man, the most succinct and beautiful, and withal, upon the whole, the most correct and just history and consideration of the Latin language with which it has been our fortune to meet : "Ancient Celtica extended from the mouth of the Po, one way, to the outlets of the Rhine the other. It included at one time, not only what was called Gallia Proper, but what has since, in consequence of fresh irruptions of Teutonic tribes, received the name of Lombardy. Of the Italian peninsula the earliest inhabitan's not of Grecian origin seem all to have been of the Celtic race. The different dialects spoken at this day, even at Florence and at Rome, far from only seeming, as we generally regard them, later corruptions of the Latin, appear all to have been so many earlier varieties only of the original Celtic dialect, spoken before it was refined into Latin, since to the last these dialects have continued to bear, not as they would have done had they only been corruptions of the Latin, the same common name with the latter, but the distinctive appellation of the several distinct peculiar regions in which they arose. "Of Latium the peculiar dialect originally bore the greatest affinity to the Oscan, itself a ramification of the Celtic. In fact, the names of the Roman deities not borrowed from those of the Greeks were purely Celtic, and Dionysius Halicarnassensis expressly says that the ancient language of Rome was neither wholly Greek nor wholly barbarian. The oldest specimens of it remaining-a hymn of the Fratres Arvales-referred to the fabulous era of Romulus, and a fragment of the laws of Numa in Festus, are nearly allied to the Celtic. "By the higher classes of Rome, themselves composed of heterogeneous elements from all the surrounding states made in its wide basin to flow together and to mix, its first rustic language was subsequently refined into the more lofty dialect, never familiarly used by the Plebs, which seems to have been, under the name of Latin, confined to its Patricians, and of which the still remaining inscriptions shew how little the orthography was fixed. Its first improvement appears to have been derived from the Pelasgic Greeks of Etruria, from whom the Romans borrowed their earliest industry, arts, sciences, civil and religious institutions. The latter polish seems to have been given it by the Eolian and Doric dialects of Magna Græcia. Thanks to these, it became disencumbered of the auxiliary verb, and enriched with numerous Greek words and constructions. Ennius, the poet, was the first who greatly improved the Latin language. Plautus added new distinctions between the diction of the Patricians and the Plebeians; but even Cicero still mentions how few in his time were the ladies of that capital who spoke its language correctly. Nay, Quinctilianus himself speaks of the difficulty of learning pure Latin in the midst of Rome. The idiom of the lower class was called the lingua vulgaris, or rustica; that of the higher class alone was distinguished by the name of urbana. Indeed, to the last the Roman people delighted in farces in which prevailed the Oscan dialect, the first that was spoken on the site of Rome. "The delivery of the Latin seems to have been as studied as its forms were artificial. The cantilena, still preserved in their conversation by the modern Romans, was in the set speeches of the ancients carried to the highest pitch. According to Cicero, Caius Gracchus used to be attended in the rostrum by a fluteplayer, who, before he began his orations, gave him the proper intonations; and we know from Cicero and others what importance was in Roman oratory attached to the propriety, the elegance, and the impressiveness of action. "The Latin language of Rome con. fined to the higher classes can never have been considered as the true criterion of the civilisation of the Plebs of Italy, or even of that of the population of the eternal city itself, taken in general. It was the stilted result, when Rome became the capital of the known world, of an artificial turgescence. It ceased with the greatness of Rome. "When the seat of the empire became from the banks of the Tiber transferred to the shores of the Hellespont; when the Romans no longer felt proud to borrow forms of art from the Greeks, but the Greeks thought to acquire consequence by calling themselves Romans; when their own language, degenerated from its primitive purity, took the name of Romaic; the Latin itself again lost its artificial inflation, relapsed into those laxer and less turgid forms, never wholly aban doned by the bulk of its population, and became more akin to the other Italian dialects. The pompous Latin only remained the vehicle of erudition and of science among the learned men of Europe, who were still ashamed of speaking their vernacular tongue." Having now placed this matter in a clear light, it is evident we should be correct in assuming, that Horace has now in every nation of Europe a larger circle of admirers than in his own day he had at Rome. He has Dr. Arnold's views of the origin of the Latin language might at first sight appear to be something different; but on closer examination, and after looking to his "additions and corrections," as well as to the text of his History of Rome, we find them to be essentially the same; and that the excellent historian's theory unconsciously (for he had probably never seen Hope's work) adjusts itself to that of the wonderful scholar we have quoted, who already, without the aid of Niebuhr's researches, had arrived at an indisputably right conclusion. Arnold says, "Politically, Rome and Latium were clearly distinguished, but their language appears to have been the same. The language is different from the Etruscan and from the Oscan. The Romans, therefore, are so far marked out as distinct from the great nations of Central Italy, whether Etruscans, Umbrians, Sabines, or Samnites." But he afterwards remarks that the Latins were a mixed people, partly Pelasgians, and partly Oscans, the Oscans being the conquering and ruling race; hence the Oscan element in the Latin language as spoken by the Romans and those of the "Latin name;" and the fact observed by Niebuhr, that whilst the terms relating to agriculture and domestic life, such as domus, ager, aratrum, bos, vinum, oleum, lac, ovis, sus, are akin to the Greek or Pelasgic portion of the language, those relating to warfare are mostly Oscan, such as duellum, hasta, ensis, sagitta, and quite different from the corresponding Greek terms. The Latins, as the doctor correctly supposes in the text, belonged to that great race which, in very early times, overspread both Greece and Italy under the various names of Pelasgians, Tyrrhenians, and Siculians; and from his "additions" we may perceive that he has come to the just conclusion, that the Oscans, Etruscans, and Hellenes, belonged to the same family, and that a relationship subsists between the several languages spoken by those apparently very distinet nations, and who intermutually disclaimed connexion with each other. One and all, in short, as Hope has argued, belonged to the hordes of Celti, Keltoi, or Galloi, who, migrating from the shores of Western Asia, where they gave their name to Galatia, at an early period poured over Greece Proper, and thence, as it is supposed, passed along the banks of the Danube, went on to Gaul and Britain, and flowed round to Italy and Spain. To borrow an illustration from our own country, the relation between Pelasgians, Oscans, and Hellenes, seems to be pretty similar to that between Saxons, Danes, and Normans. The Etruscan, Arnold recognises as a distant cousin of the Greek tongue, denying it to be, as Lanzi alleges, a sister. It is not supposed to form any cognisable element in the Latin language, though every body knows how deeply indebted Rome was to the Etrurians for its arts, social condition, institutions, ceremonies, and religion. The closeness of kindred between Greek and Latin is manifest. Catru and Rouille, in their History of Rome, state, upon the been the favourite, too, of many a prince and minister of state since Augustus and his friend Mæcenas flourished. For one, take Louis XVIII.; he had his works all by heart. We know not what the feelings of the King of the French may be towards him, but certainly Louis Philippe, being very like Horace's imperial patron in several other respects, may probably resemble him in this also, and love the Ausonian bard. Then, as to ministers of state, hosts of them have delighted in turning his odes into their vernacular language. Indeed, no poet has ever had a larger and more equable flow of admiration than Horace. His Satires and Epistles have always been especially esteemed by the wise and learned. Nothing can be more just or more exquisitely expressed than Persius's remarks with reference to them. The epithet vafer is peculiarly felici The criticism quoted from Lipsius is also very happy," Horatius in Satiris placidus, lenis, quietus, monet sæpius quam castigat; sed ito præclare tamen hoc ipsum, ut in cà parte et arte nihil possit supra eum." The epistle to the Pisos, touching the art of poetry, is smooth, elegant, sensible, and just. There is nothing original in it, being as it is taken almost bodily from Aristotle, but the appropriation is well and felicitously made. If we were to regard it as a treatise relating to poetry in general, it would not, it is true, be entitled to high praise. The subject at large is too slightly and loosely treated; but, in fact, the first eighty or ninety verses alone are devoted to the consideration of poetry in general, the main object of the author being to promote the reform of dramatic poetry, and prescribe rules for the dramatist's guidance. But, to qualify our praise with a spice of just censure, we may observe that in the course of his critical remarks he falls into one egregious error, strange in so excellent a Greek scholar, and one, too, who had studied Homer well, and was, upon the whole, a great admirer of the poet, albeit he does accuse him of nodding, -a fact, by the way, that we ourselves never could discover. Addressing the writer, he says,— "Honoratum si fortè reponis Achillem; Impiger, iacundus, inexorabilis, acer Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget aimis!" Now setting aside the impiger and acer, which are mere vulgar, commonplace epithets for the hero of the Iliad, all the rest is absurdly untrue. Achilles is neither passionate, nor inexorable, but directly the reverse. He never does deny that laws were made for him as well as others; he does not strive to carry every thing with the strong hand. What are the facts? He is treated with the most stinging injustice and indignity by Agamemnon in the presence of the assembled chiefs. The impulse of his mind is to slay the tyrant who had insulted him, but prudence and better feeling forbid, and he suppresses his passion. He authority of Dionysius Halicarnassensis (lib. iv.), that the Romans originally used the Greek alphabet, and that in the time of Augustus the treaty between Tarquinius Superbus and the Gabians, written with Greek characters in the Latin language, was to be seen inscribed on a column in the temple of Jupiter. If this be true, the column must have been put into the temple as a monument of antiquity. But to return to our quotation from Hope. Having read many works upon the subject he treats, we are of opinion that the one man of genius, supported by vast and various learning, has ex. pounded in these few paragraphs the result of the whole mass of facts collected by more minute searchers and more delving inquirers. We cannot, however, concur with Hope in his sneer at the use of Latin by the learned. We regret that the practice has been discontinued. We might have had all that was valuable in the works, critical and other, of the German writers and commentators, while it would be impossible for them to have written in Latin the heaps of unintelligible trash they have poured forth in their own vernacular language. sees the man is drunk,* and he tells him so, and goes his way. In Dryden's version he calls him, "Drunkard and dastard, insolent and mean," and is content with using hard words, instead of dealing shrewd blows. But Agamemnon, from pride and stubbornness, carries out, sober, the threats he had given utterance to under the excitement of wine. Does Achilles then deny that laws were made for him? No, though stricken with grief, he yields up the blooming captive of his valour peaceably to the heralds. He submits to the tyrannical mandate of the commander-inchief. He makes no appeal to arms— he contents himself with withdrawing from the field of battle. The whole tenor of his conduct to Phoenix, Patroclus, and all his friends, and, above all, to the woful Priam, prove him to be of a gentle, loving nature. He turns aside, in the very transport of his furious triumph over dead Hector, to mourn his beloved companion, who "Lies at the ships a corpse unwept, unburied." Inexorable? Why the very facts of the story prove the contrary; and our accomplished little friend Horace is utterly and absolutely mistaken in every point and particular of the hero's character.t When, however, we come to view Horace as the Roman lyric poet, he stands alone a bright, particular star. Quinctilianus justly and beautifully There can be no doubt Agamemnon, king of men, was drunk. His character as a devoted wine-bibber, no less than the folly of outraging the bravest and best of the Greeks, confirms the accusation of the goddess-born Pelides. What does he himself say to Idomeneus?___ Thee, fighting, feasting, howsoe'er employed, I most respect, Idomeneus, of all The well-horsed Danai; for when the chiefs Of Argos, banqueting, their beakers charge Of valour, thou alone of all the Greeks Drink'st not by measure. No, thy goblet stands No rule, or bound, save what thy choice prescribes."-CowPER. Again, when the king has to bumble himself before the hero, Agamemnon says, ̓Αλλ' έπει ἀασάμην, καὶ μευ φρένας ἐξελετο Ζευς. After which Barnesius added from Eustathius, Η οίνω μεθύων ἢ μεβλαψαν θεοί αυτοί. Now this last line, in which he confesses, in point of fact, that he must have been either drunk or mad when he outraged Achilles, we must admit has been obelised, but for what good reason I cannot possibly imagine. Here the great scholar Bentley ingeniously reads for "honoratum Achillem" "Homereum Achillem." Ingeniosè, indeed, with a vengeance, for such a reading, so unpoetical and absurd, never could have occurred to any body who had not, like Bentley, a mania for transmogrifying every word in an author which was at a:l capable of undergoing the process. Nothing can be more paltry or more perverse than the notion that Horace would designate the hero of the Iliad as Homer's Achilles, as if, forsooth, he could be any other poet's Achilles. While, on the other band, the epithet honoratum is bere beautifully appropriate and cognate with the plan and story of the Iliad. The first scene displays to us iracundum Achilles," and the curtain falls on "honoratum Achillem." The first book of the Iliad discloses to us the disgrace and baleful wrath of the sun of Thetis. The goddess has prayed at the feet of Z us most glorious, greatest, the cloud-driver, dweller in the ether, and he has shaken the firmament by the irrevocable sign of assent to the petition. Then, at the very opening of the second book, we find Zeus deliberating how he may best honour Achilles :— Αλλοι μεν ῥα θεοί τε και ανέρες ἱπποκορυσται |