The two last comments which I have quoted are plainly answers to hostile criticisms; in the last, indeed, the very wording of the criticism is given: Quid enim est aura auri, &c. A careful reader of Macrobius, who has observed the very slovenly style of his patchwork, will be not disinclined to infer that perhaps all the passages quoted from § 2 to § 11 of this chapter had been fixed upon for attack by collectors (whether Herennius or others) of the vitia Vergilii, and were subsequently defended by friendly critics. And here it will be well to compare the Servius of Macrobius' Dialogue with the scholia which go under the name of Servius, in order, if possible, to ascertain the relation between them. I shall exhibit the two in parallel columns : Ecl. 7.7 (Dan.). Horatius (Od. 1. 17. 7) olentis uxoris mariti, et Theocritus (8. 49) ὦ τράγε, τῶν λευκᾶν αἰγῶν ἄνερ. Georg. 2. 387. qui ea (ludicra) exercebant, propter verecundiam remedium hoc adhibuerunt, ne agnoscerentur, ut personas factas de arborum corticibus sumerent. Aen. 6. 204. Auri aura, splendor auri. Horatius (Od. 2. 8. 23) tua ne retardet Aura maritos, i.e. splendor. Hinc et aurum dicitur a splendore qui est in eo metallo. THE SERVIUS OF MACROBIUS. Simili frondescit virga metallo. Quam bene usus est frondescit metallo! Nigri cum lacte veneni . . . nigro imponere nomen lactis. Haud aliter iustae quibus est Mezentius irae. Odio esse aliquem usitatum; irae esse inventum Maronis est. THE SERVIUS OF THE COMMENTARY. Aen. 6. 144, frondescit, in naturam redit; et honeste locutus est dicens habet frondes sui metalli. Aen. 4. 514, nigri aut noxii, quia nigri fiunt homines post venenum, aut certi illud est, quia sunt herbae nigri lactis, id est suci. Dicunt autem per periphrasin agreste papaver significari. Aen. 10. 716. Silent. Without quoting all the instances of novel refinement in language given in Macrobius, we are, I think, justified in asserting that there were a number of expressions in Virgil which were felt to require defence or explanation. That Macrobius had in his hands some work or works in which they were attacked, or, at least, remarked upon, may be inferred from two facts. First, it will be observed that in at least four of the notes above quoted, he seems to be giving the actual words of an adversary: I mean those on Aen. 7. 417, 6. 204, 4. 514 (here the words are now mutilated), and 10. 716. Secondly, the criticisms fall roughly under heads, though Macrobius does not say so. Recens caede, caeso sanguine, are instances of an uncommon use of adjectives; vota deum, consortem nati, mille coloribus arcum, coniciunt igni, of an uncommon use of cases: tela exit, of an uncommon use of a verb. The instances which follow are cases of metaphors: canentia lumina, arboris antro, frontem arat, aerato circumfert tegmine silvam, vir gregis, aquae mons, telorum seges, ferreus imber. Then comes a mention of some expressions not easily reduceable under any particular head, as Dona laboratae Cereris: and, finally, a note on Virgil's use of one word for another, as ora for personas. Supposing the whole passage to be an extract from some collection of such expressions, these two facts will be easily explained. A comparison of the notes given in parallel columns will, I think, show that the Servius of the Saturnalia stands in no relation of dependence to the real Servius. The real Servius is sometimes silent where Macrobius has a note; sometimes he is fuller, sometimes less full than Macrobius; sometimes he seems to be defending Virgil against an objection; sometimes his remark adds something new, or is altogether different. At the same time, the same passages are, on the whole, commented on in both; and this fact, when put together with that of the discrepancies just noticed, points to the conclusion that both are ultimately derived from the same source. To this source, whatever it was, we may, perhaps, owe the following notes in the commentary bearing the name of Servius:-Aen. 77. 7, “tendit iter velis: aliud est iter velis tendere, aliud per vela iter (per iter vela ?). Et multi dicunt improprie dictum, multi nimium proprie." Aen. 12. 524, "quaeritur quid sit virgulta sonantia lauro;" compare the remark on aura quoted above, "quid est enim aura auri?" Aen. 12. 591, "ater odor: nove." II. But it was remarked not only that Virgil ventured on new combinations of words, but that he invented new words. Here, again, it is perhaps allowable to start from the previously-quoted passage in the Ars Poetica: "Si forte necesse est Indiciis monstrare recentibus abdita rerum, Here Virgil is mentioned by name, and it is distinctly implied that he was attacked for the invention of new words. Horace says that words lately coined will pass current if derived, with sparing alteration, from a Greek source. I am not sure that I clearly understand what this means. But that Virgil was attacked for his use of Greek words is clear from Macrobius 1. 24. 7, "si. . mille alia multum pudenda seu in verbis modo Graecis modo barbaris, seu in ipsa dispositione operis deprehenderentur." Compare 5. 17. 15, "postremo Graecae linguae quam se libenter addixerit de crebris quae usurpat vocabulis aestimate:" and the critic mentions dius, daedala, trieterica, choreas, hyalus, and some others, concluding thus, after noticing the poet's predilection for Greek inflections, "denique omnia carmina sua Graece maluit inscribere, Bucolica Georgica Aeneis, cuius nominis figuratio a regula Latinitatis aliena est." In the sixth book of the Saturnalia (4. 17) Virgil is defended for this proceeding by the argument that other writers had used Greek words before him: "inseruit operi suo et Graeca verba, sed non primus hoc ausus." Lychni, aethra, daedalus, reboant are then justified by the example of older poets; and the critic remarks "sed hac licentia largius usi sunt veteres, parcius Maro: quippe illi dixerunt et pausam et machaeram et asotiam et malacen et alia similia." This is Horace's argument: why should not Virgil and Varius be allowed what was not forbidden to Caecilius, Plautus, Ennius and Cato? VOL. I. But Virgil (Macrobius 1. 24. 7) was charged also with using barbarian, that is, non-) -Latin words. There is a very short answer to this in the sixth book of the Saturnalia (4. 23) "necnon et Punicis Oscisque verbis usi sunt veteres : quorum imitatione Vergilius peregrina verba non respuit." The instances given are urus, "Gallica vox qua feri boves significantur," and camurus. On urus Servius on Georg. 2. 374 says "silvestres uri, i.e. boves agrestes, qui in Pyrenaeo monte nascuntur, inter Gallias et Hispanias posito." On camurus Macrobius has virtually the same note as Servius and Philargyrius on Georg. 3. 55, and is probably therefore drawing upon the same source, which I hope to show was either the De Verborum Significatu of Verrius Flaccus, or some work immediately dependent upon it. In the following chapter Virgil is defended on the ground of ancient precedent for the use of several words, partly simple, partly compound, quae ab ipso ficta creduntur." The simple words are Mulciber, petulcus, liquidus as an epithet of ignis, tristis in the sense of bitter, auritus the compounds are turicremus, Arcitenens, silvicola, velivolus, vitisator, noctivagus, nubigena, umbraculum, discludo. And a similar plea is urged in favour of certain apparently new senses given by Virgil to ordinary words, as to additus in Teucris addita Iuno: to vomit in totis vomit aedibus undam: to agmen in leni fluit agmine Thybris : to crepitans in crepitantibus urere flammis: to horret in ferreus hastis Horret ager: to transmittunt in transmittunt cursu campos: to defluo in tota cohors relictis Ad terram defluxit equis: to deductus in deductum dicere carmen: to proiectus in proiectaque saxa Pachyni: to tempestivus in tempestivam silvis evertere pinum. Servius has short notes only on additus, horret, and umbracula (A. 6. 90, 11. 601, E. 9. 42 [Dan.]), which agree in substance with those of Macrobius, but are mere abridgments of them. On liquidus Servins (Dan.) on E. 6. 33 quotes the same passage from Lucretius as Macrobius. We may here notice some other criticisms of the same kind preserved by other authors. Gellius 1. 21. 5 quotes a note of Hyginus on the word amaror: "non enim primus finxit hoc verbum Vergilius insolenter" (implying that Virgil had been accused of inventing the word) "sed in carminibus Lucretii inventum est, nec est aspernatus auctoritatem poetae ingenio et facundia praecellentis." Quintilian 1. 5. 65 mentions an objection to the word imperterritus, noticing the fact that the two prepositions contradict each other; and Servius on A. 10. 770 seems to be making excuses for Virgil. So Servius 8. 433 (Dan.) instabant, nova locutio, currum et rotas instabant: "quis ante hunc"? 12. 7 "latronem, venaVarro tamen dicit hoc nomen posse habere 10. 835 (Dan.) acclinis, torem: quis ante hunc? etiam Latinam etymologiam," &c. Hyginus (ap. Gell. 7. 6) blamed the phrase praepetibus pennis, which was defended by parallels from Ennius and Matius. Gellius 10. 29. 4 says that in G. 1. 203 atque was thought obscure, and interprets it as = statim; so Nonius, p. 530. The phrase tunicam squalentem auro was again defended by ancient example (Gellius 2. 6. 19). Servius on A. 12. 517 (Dan.) says of exosus in that line "quaeritur sane quis primus exosum pro peroso dixerit." = From these criticisms, which attribute to Virgil the invention of new words, or a new or rare application of old ones, we should be careful to separate such remarks as that of Cornutus on vexare (Gellius 2. 6 Macrobius 6. 7. 4)" incuriose et abiecte in his versibus verbum posuit;" on inlaudati Busiridis: "hoc enim verbum inlaudati non est idoneum ad exprimendam sceleratissimi hominis detestationem ;" and that quoted from the same writer on the words dixerat ille aliquid magnum by Servius on Aen. 10. 547, "Cornutus ut sordidum improbat." The notes of Gellius and Macrobius on vexare and inlaudatus, it should be observed, throw fresh light on the relation of the Servius of the Saturnalia to the real Servius, who has the remark on vexare (Ecl. 6. 75) in a shorter form, and without any mention of objections; while in his note on inlaudatus (Georg. 3. 4) he takes no account of the discussion carried on in Gellius and Macrobius, but simply explains the word as qui laudari non debeat. With these criticisms compare Servius on Aen. 8. 731, "hunc versum notant critici quasi superfluo et inutiliter additum, nec convenientem gravitati eius, namque est magis neotericus; " Aen. 11. 53, "hoc quidam ávékdotov (ȧVETIKóv?) et vulgare accipiunt; sed decenter ad exprimendum patris adfectum nunc ad patrem redit." = III. I now come to consider some of the criticisms made upon Virgil's management of his story in the Aeneid. Macrobius 1. 24. 2 speaks of "multa pudenda . . . in dispositione operis." In the Ars Poetica (143 foll.) Horace lays down the principle that the Homeric order of narrative (as distinguished, for instance, we may suppose him to mean, from that of Apollonius Rhodius) is that which an epic poet ought to follow : "Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem • The Lemovicensis here adds the same illustrations of vexare as are given in Gellius 2. 6. |