Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

55

60

Interea mixtis lustrabo Maenala Nymphis,
Aut acris venabor

apros.

Non me ulla vetabunt
Frigora Parthenios canibus circumdare saltus.
Iam mihi per rupes videor lucosque sonantis
Ire; libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu
Spicula.-Tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris,
Aut deus ille malis hominum mitescere discat !
Iam neque Hamadryades rursus nec carmina nobis
Ipsa placent; ipsae rursus concedite silvae.
Non illum nostri possunt mutare labores,
Nec si frigoribus mediis Hebrumque bibamus
Sithoniasque nives hiemis subeamus aquosae,

65

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

6

6

6

with the tree, but that the passion will well to think him capable of pity. So “ilincrease.

lum,' v. 64. 55.] He will throw himself into the 62–69.] 'No, woodland and song are hunting part of a shepherd's life (2.29 note). delusions after all ; love is not to be baffled • Mixtis Nymphis,' a common variety for by the most violent change of scene-we • mixtus.' “Mixtoque insania luctu," A. have only to give way to him.' 10. 871. The nymphs of the wood and 62.] • Iam' expresses that the change of mountain would take part in the chase, as feeling is already begun. Hamadryades, when they attend on Diana, Hom. Od. 6. referring to the nymphs of v. 55. Rursus' 105. • Lustrare' need not refer specially is restored by Wagn. here and in the next to dancing, as Voss thinks, though that line, with the remark that in the best MSS. may have been the motion in the chase rursum ’ is generally found only before a (comp. A. 1. 499).

With the passage

vowel. generally comp. G. 3. 40 foll.

63.] •Ipsa' emphasizes the second nega56.] *Aut' merely distinguishes the tive clause, as in A. 4. 601, “non socios, actual chase from its preliminaries. So A. non ipsum absumere ferro Ascanium ?” 1. 322, “ errantem succinctam . aut Songs had formerly been his especial passpuniantis apri cursum clamore prementem.” sion. So 'ipsae silvae,' because it is the 57.] · Parthenios,' Dict. Geogr., agrees

whole of woodland life that he quarrels with the Arcadian scenery.

Canibus cir- with. • Concedite :' “ Concedite atque abcumdare saltus,' G. 1. 140. See on 6. 56. scedite, omnes de via decedite," Plaut.

58.] ‘Lucosque sonantis,' with the cry Amph. 3. 4. 1 : a less courteous phrase than of the hunt (G. 3. 43). The same words • vivite silvae,' 8. 58. occur G. 4. 364, where the noise is that of 64.] · He is not one on whom any hardwater.

ships of ours (see the preceding and suc59.] • Partho' and 'Cydonia' (“Gno- ceeding verses) can work a change.' Both sia spicula,” A. 5. 306), the Cretan reeds hardship and effort seem included in .labeing especially good for arrows, are pro

bores' here. • Mutare,' of effecting a bably literary epithets (note on 1. 55). change in a person, A. 5. 679., 12. 240. • Cornu' for a bow of horn, A. 7. 497. The sentiment resembles that of Horace's See the description of Pandarus’ bow, Hom. well-known line, “ Caelum non animum," Il. 4. 105 foll. • Torquere,' improperly &c. used of shooting an arrow, as in A. 5. 497. 65.] Imitated from Theocr. 7. 111, where

60.) In the full burst of his enthusiasm the subject is a menace to Pan. The Hehe feels that he is deluding himself, as brus, spoken of by Hor. 1 Ep. 3. 3, as “niHeyne remarks. Sint' was adopted by vali compede vinctus," was, as Forb. reHeyne after Heins. from the Med., but marks, one of the first ice-bound rivers Wagn. justly regards this as a case of the which the Romans had encountered in their confusion of numbers, not uncommon even expeditions. Virgil may be thinking of in the best MSS. (see on 6. 30), “haec' hunting in winter, as in v. 56, but there is having been wrongly supposed to refer to nothing to fix it definitely. spicula.'

66.] Sithonia,' Dict. Geogr. Mem61.] Ille,' whom we know so well—too phin carentem Sithonia nive,” Hor. 3 Od.

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

6

6

[ocr errors]

106

P. VERGILI MARONIS BUCOLICA. ECL. X.

.

Nec si, cum moriens alta liber aret in ulmo,
Aethiopum versemus ovis sub sidere Cancri.
Omnia vincit Amor; et nos cedamus Amori.

70

Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam,
Dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco,
Pierides; vos haec facietis maxima Gallo,
Gallo, cuius amor tantum mihi crescit in horas,
Quantum vere novo viridis se subiicit alnus.
Surgamus : solet esse gravis cantantibus umbra;
Iuniperi gravis umbra; nocent et frugibus umbrae.
Ite domum saturae, venit Hesperus, ite capellae.

75

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

6

26. 10. The second syllable is long in 71.] • Hibisco,' 2. 30. Basket-work is Hdt. 7. 122, but shortened by Lycophron the shepherd's employment for idler hours. v. 1357 and the Latin writers. Aquosae,' See on 2. 71. The object of the • fiscella' as Wagn, observes, is an epithet of an is shown by the imitation in Tibull. 3. 15, Italian rather than of a Thracian winter. “ Tum fiscella levi detexta est vimine iunci, “ Dum pelago desaevit hiems et aquosus Raraque per nexus est via facta sero." See Orion," A. 4. 52. Torquet aquosam

also Col. 7. 8. hiemem,” A. 9. 671. •Frigoribus mediis' 72.] •Slight as this is, you will make it belongs to this line as well as the former, of highest worth for Gallus,' will give as • Hebrumque' seems to show. See, it a peculiar charm in his eyes : quae however, on G. 2. 119.

Maxima semper Dicetur nobis, et erit quae 67.] • When the elm is parched to the maxima semper,” A. 8. 271. quick,' liber' being the inner bark. “Li- 73.] My love for Gallus grows as fast, ber moriens,' however, is a somewhat ex- hour by hour, as the alder in spring.' Urtravagant expression, and it may be worth sinus comp. Pind. Nem. 8. 40, avčetal while suggesting as a possibility that .aret δ' αρετά, χλωραίς εέρσαις ως ότε δένδρεον Liber' may be the true reading. Comp. 7. qocal. 57, “ Aret ager : vitio moriens sitit aeris 74.] Vere novo,' as the growing time, herba : Liber pampineas invidit collibus um- G. 2. 323 foll. • Se subiicit,' ib. 19. bras." The elm and vine together would 75.] Gravis umbra.' Comp. Lucr. 6. not be more inappropriate in Aethiopia than 783, “ Arboribus primum certis gravi: the elm alone, if Virgil means anything more umbra tributa est Usque adeo, capitis faci. by the clause than to mark the time. ant ut saepe dolores, Si quis eas subter

68.] “Should ply a shepherd's calling in iacuit prostratus in herbis." . CantantiAethiopia,' as Pan in Theocr. l. c. is told bus,' to those who sit and sing under them παρ' Αιθιόπεσσι νομεύοις, with reference - not with reference to any effect on the rather to his own habits than to their fit- voice, as Dryden translates it. ness for the country. •Versemus,' perhaps 76.] 'Iuniperi,' 7. 53. He is sitting a translation of the Greek holziv: though then under a juniper. Martyn declares the word was doubtless chosen to express that the smell of the juniper is considered the long weary wanderings of a shepherd in wholesome; but Heyne refers to Apoll. the desert, for which Voss refers to G. 3. Rh. 4. 156, where Medea uses a branch of 339 foll. . Cancri :' “ Aestus erat medius. juniper as the vehicle for sprinkling her que dies, solisque. vapore Concava litorei drugs on the dragon's eyes, as a proof that fervebant brachia Cancri,” Ov. M. 10. 126. the ancients thought there was something

69.] •Since love conquers everything, prejudicial about it. “ Nocent et frugibus change of climate, occupation and all, why umbrae,' G. 1. 121. The fact seems men. should I hold out?'

tioned here as a shepherd's way of confirm 70-77.] · So much for my pastoral song ing his statement—. It is bad singing in the for Gallus; may it be worthy of my ever- shade : why, shade does harm to the crops.' growing love for him! A shepherd must 77.] For the turn of the line comp. 1. not remain in the shade too long, and the 75., 7. 44; for the sense, 6. 85, 86. *Veflock must be driven home.'

nit,' of a star rising, as in 5. 82 of a wind 70.] · Divae :' see ou v. 9.

getting up.

6

6

[ocr errors]

107

NOTE ON THE SCENERY ABOUT MANTUA.

Readers of Eustace's Classical Tour through Italy may remember that while asserting that “ Virgil's Pastorals ought in general to be considered not as pictures of real scenery .... but as mere lusus poetici composed in imitation of Theocritus,” he excepts the descriptive passages in the First, Seventh, and Ninth Eclogues, and discovers the place

qua se subducere colles Incipiunt, mollique iugum demittere clivo

a

in the neighbourhood of Valeggio, “near which town they (the hills) begin to subside, and gradually lose themselves in the immense plain of Mantua.” There, and no where else on the banks of the Mincius, he finds the rocks, crags, and mountains of the first Eclogue. (Tour, vol. pp. 217 foll., third edition.) I have applied to Mr. Keightley on the subject, and have pleasure in extracting part of the answer with which he has favoured me. “All I can tell you is that on my arriving in Mantua in company with two French gentlemen, whose sight was better than mine, we all ascended the Torre di Gabbia to view the surrounding country, which I swept with a good opera-glass, and we came, without a moment's hesitation, to the conclusion expressed in p. 15 of my Virgil. I had intended walking out to Pietola, but from the view I had of it I saw that it would be quite a work of supererogation. Next day a gentleman who resided in Cremona accompanied us to Milan, when, finding that he was a sportsman and was in the habit of traversing the country in all directions, I asked him about rocks, &c., and he assured me there was no stone at all in the plain—nothing but gesso, sulphate of lime.”

I ought also to mention that, according to Eustace, “the spreading beech' still delights in the soil and adorns the banks of the Mincius in all its windings.

So far as Virgil is concerned, it is obvious that the question is an unimportant one, as it is admitted on both sides that the scenery of the Eclogues is generally Theocritean, but that the actual features of the Mantuan district are represented in one or two exceptional instances.

ON

THE LATER BUCOLIC POETS OF ROME.

[ocr errors]

IF bucolic poetry found no cultivators at Rome before the time of Virgil, it does not seem to have enjoyed much more popularity afterwards. Wernsdorf (Poetae Latini Minores, vol. 2, praef. pp. vi, vii), who wonders that it should not have flourished more among a people originally sprung from shepherds and preserving the recollection of their origin by annual festivals, and inclines to lay the blame on the luxurious temper of the great city, as being naturally antagonistic to a taste for rustic simplicity, is sufficiently explicit in his testimony to the fact, stating that no trace can be discovered of the existence of any bucolic writer earlier than Calpurnius, while the pastoral poets of a later period, with the exception of Nemesianus, who, in his view, as we shall see, is not really one of them, are inelegant and hardly worth reprinting. Calpurnius and Nemesianus themselves cannot be said to stand high in the list of post-Augustan authors; but as they happen to fall within the classical period, as commonly understood, and conform more closely than their successors to the Theocritean or Virgilian type in the treatment of their subject, perhaps a brief account of them may not be unacceptable.

At the outset we are met by a critical question, affecting the authorship of the works which bear their name. These amount jointly to eleven pastorals, most of them averaging less than one hundred lines. All of them were assigned by the five first editions, following the majority of the MSS., to a single writer, T. (or, as the first edition gives it, after one MS., C.) Calpurnius Siculus. The sixth edition, impressum Parmae per Angelū Ugoletū,' without a date, but referred by Ulitius to the year 1500, made a division of the authorship, attributing the seven first pastorals to Calpurnius, the remaining four to [M. Aurelius Olympius] Nemesianus, on the authority of a 'most ancient and correct' MS. from Germany belonging to Thadaeus Ugoletus. It also prefixed a title to the bucolics of Calpurnius, inscribing them to this same Nemesianus. This arrangement seems to have been followed almost unhesitatingly by subsequent editors till the time of Janus Ulitius, who, in his · Venatio Novantiqua' (Elzevir, 1645, an edition of the didactic writers on hunting, together with the pastorals of Calpurnius and Nemesianus),

[ocr errors]

ON THE LATER BUCOLIC POETS OF ROME.

109

stated reasons for restoring the whole to Calpurnius. The tide now turned: Burmann, in the preface to his 'Poetae Latini Minores' (Leyden, 1731), accepted Ulitius' view, though, like him, he did not venture in his text to disturb the received division: and Wernsdorf, fifty years afterwards, in his preface cited above, and in an introductory essay on Calpurnius and his Eclogues, enforced the same doctrine by an array of arguments which till very lately were generally supposed to have set the question at rest. The main considerations on which he relies are the absence of any mention of Nemesianus as a pastoral writer by Vopiscus, who alludes to his other works, as well as by the earlier scholars after the revival of learning, the fact that no MS. containing his undisputed works contains these pastorals, the insufficiency of a single MS. authority, the self-contradictory character of the testimony supplied by the Parma edition, which apparently shows that in that single MS. the arrangement had been tampered with by a later hand, the similarity of the style of the two sets of poems, ' ut lac lacti simillimus,' and the probability that Calpurnius would write neither more nor less than eleven pastorals, that being the number of the Idyls of Theocritus which may fairly be called rustic proper-an argument somewhat recondite in itself, and depending on a proposition which has itself to be supported by a good deal of wiredrawn reasoning, of too special a character to be detailed here. So matters appear to have stood till the publication of Maurice Haupt's 'De Carminibus Bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani Liber' (Leipsic, 1854). In this monograph, which in its comprehensive knowledge and ingenuity of conjecture is a fair specimen of the best German scholarship of our day, the divided authorship of these Eclogues is strongly asserted. Rejecting considerations grounded on the literary character of the several poems as too dependent on individual taste to furnish material for argument, the writer points out one remarkable peculiarity which discriminates the undisputed Calpurnian Eclogues from the others, the absence of elisions in any foot but the first, most of the few apparent exceptions being shown either to arise from false readings, or to be such as really prove the rule-a degree of strictness transcending that of Tibullus, Lygdamus, and Ovid, who are particular only not to elide long vowels after the first foot, whereas Calpurnius does not elide long vowels at all. From this positive proof of a distinction of authors, a proof all the stronger as being furnished, as it were, unconsciously by the poems themselves, he proceeds to controvert Wernsdorf's arguments for identity. The argument drawn from the supposed number of the rustic idyls of Theocritus he meets not only by denying the proposition on which it rests, but by showing how easily a counter argument might be constructed to prove that Calpurnius wrote only seven Eclogues, because, according to Servius, only seven of Virgil's are rustic proper. Werns

a

« ForrigeFortsæt »