« PředchozíPokračovat »
plicity," Legenti Manilium iterum iterumque, Augufti Temporibus videtur convenire.' ." Voff. de Poet. We lay fome ftrefs upon the curious and well-known discovery of Bentley about the fubftantives which terminate in ius and ium. The older and purer writers among the Romans always used the genitive with a contraction. Propertius rarely and Ovid often, "Geminum li ufurpant." This change was made, fays Bentley, Tenefcente jam Augufto. The change, when introduced, must have been extremely convenient to the writers of heroic verfe, and yet we find only one inftance in Manilius,
Quod partibus ipfis Dodeca temorii quid fit, &c. Manil. Lib. ii. 739 In words purely Roman there is no inftance whatsoever. The frequent mention of Auguftus's name in different parts of the poem: the folemn introduction and melancholy relation of the calamities which overtook Varus in Germany, Vid. lib. i. v. 896. The very marked terms in which he speaks of Rhodes, to which city Tiberius reretired in a gloomy mood, and which is called by Manilius
-Hofpitium recturi principis orbem. Lib. iv. 762. All confpire to increase the probability of the hypothefis we have embraced. The paffage laft quoted inclines us to think (as we before faid) that he lived late in the Auguftan age; and we oppofe it to the affertion of Bentley's nephew, who (becaufe Manilius abftains from the ufe of the genitive in ii) concludes illum vixiffe ante hunc indu&tum morem. It is not poffible perhaps to afcertain the precife period; but the hiftorical circumftance upon which we infift is at leaft of equal weight with the verbal criticifm of Thomas Bentley; and there is no violent abfurdity in fuppofing, that Manilius intentionally avoided a metrical ufage which had been introduced fo recently, and of which he found no example in the most admired writers of his own day.
That he was an Afiatic, is matter of mere conjecture: for, much as we have heard of the wild luxuriance which in
the time of Tully and Auguftus diftinguished Afiatic profe, we have no certain marks for extending the name to any poetry which then was in fafhion. The attempt to prove this conjecture would be equally unfuccefsful with the endeavours of a critic, who might wish to eftablish by particular inftances the general charge of patavinity which Pollio alledged againft the ftyle of Livy, and which Morhoff has refuted by a train of deep and decifive reafoning.
The merit of Manilius, as a poet, ftands at an immenfe distance from that of Virgil: yet, in the opening and in the clofe of the firft book, he feems to have had his eye upon the conduct of Virgil in the firft Georgick. In the ftructure of many verfes, and in the turn of many expreffions there are traces of imitation of different paffages in all the Georgicks. Manilius, in his fecond book, expatiates with very ftriking minutenefs upon the works of Hefiod and Aratus. He meant, pro
bably, to infinuate that Virgil was much indebted to thefe authors, and afterwards he afferts his own claim to originality in these remarkable words:
-Nulli vatum debebimus orfa Nec furtum, fed opus veniet.
Lib. ii. 57.
His apprehenfions probably were alarmed, and his envy in fome degree excited by the recent and high celebrity of Virgil's poem.
The imperfections which fwarm in the poem of Manilius, may be affigned with much greater probability to other caufes, than to the age in which he lived. His fubject was dreary and almoft untrodden. It was not often fufceptible of poetical embellishment (as he himfelf acknowledges) nor was it always capable of a luminous and pleafing arrangement.
Hoc operis non vatis erat→Lib. iii. 41. But the poet himself furely was unfortunate or imprudent in choofing a fubject, the difficulties of which he was unable to conquer by invention or by judgement, by the vigour of his genius or by the elegance of his tafte.
From Manilius we turn afide to Mr. B.-Editors ufually view their authors with a partial eye. They exaggerate
every beauty, juftify every peculiarity, and extenuate every fault. But Mr. B. is fuperior to all these prejudices. In every fourth or fifth page he indulges himself in a strain of abuse or ridicule against the obfcurity of Manilius. He fometimes feeks a fhelter for the harfhnefs of his own interpretations in the greater harfhnefs of the original. He holds out fcarcely any paffages as deferving praife for the juftnefs of the thought, or the elegance of the expreffion. We are at a lofs, therefore, to affign any reafons which fhould induce Mr. B. to be the editor of a work which he is fometimes unable to understand, and never difpofed to commend.
The principles of aftronomy now reft upon a more folid foundation, and the doctrines of aftrology are exploded with juft and univerfal contempt. The matter of Manilius cannot therefore fupply inftruction to the reader, and his manner gives offence even to his faftidious editor.
There are critics who are fufpected of proportioning their fondness for an ancient writer to the corruption of his text, or the darkness of his meaning. They poach in unlicenced Greek,' for the fake of difplaying their fkill in explanation, or their felicity in conjecture; they transfer to their author fome little fhare of the admiration and love which they feel for themselves. Ridiculous as may these prejudices be in themselves, they have fometimes operated upon the ftrongeft minds; they have given rife to many useful difcoveries: and have exercised to purFofes of harmless oftentation the brighteft and happiest talents that ever were employed in criticifm. Mr. Burton, however, does not feem to be poffeffed of fuch abilities, or actuated by fuch motives. His remarks are not very numerous or very important: they do not difplay either profound thinking or extenfive reading. They are laid out unneceffarily upon expreffions which the most common reader cannot miftake, and upon thofe which ftagger the moft learned, they are feldom beftowed with diftinguished fuccefs. We conclude, therefore, that Mr. B. reLOND, MAG. May 1785.
ferves the treafures of his critical knowledge for opportunities more favourable. He is content to be a wit againft Manilius; but upon a Virgil or a Lucretius he will condefcend to show himfelf a critic of the firft magnitude.
To this exalted appellation he doubtlefs muft have fome title, as in the front of the work he challenges Bentley in terms of pointed defiance, and as in the courfe of it he perfecutes the fturdy hypercritic with the most undiftinguished and unrelenting severity; fometimes fkirmishing with him in petulant ridicule, fometimes venturing to grapple with him in close argumentation, and fometimes endeavouring to crush him under a mafs of course and fcurrilous invective. We admire the heroifm of this behaviour, while we doubt its juftice. Bentley, whofe ear was practifed in the niceft difcriminations of metre, and whofe fagacity has been employed, during a long and ftudious life, in tracing the radical principles and idiomatic phrafeology of Greek and Roman tongues, has attempted in fome inftances fuccefsfully, and in others, it may be, rafhly, to feparate the genuine text of Manilius from fpurious interpolation. Mr. B. provoked, it fhould feem, at the prefumption of his predeceffor, and jealous, no doubt, of his fame, admits indifcriminately of almoft every line which he could find in every edition. Dr. Bentley in endeavouring to eftablifh canons of criticifm, is often ingenious, feldom miftaken, and never dull. Mr. B. neither condefcends to adopt the canons which other critics had propofed, nor ventures to produce any of his own. Dr. Bentley brings forward parallel paffages in fupport of his obfervations. Mr. B. gives weight to his remarks from the perfpicuity with which he fuppofes himself to have explained them, or from the confidence with which he appears to impofe them. Dr. Bentley errs by rule, Mr. B. is right without it. credere debetis, quirites.?"
We are furprised that Mr. B. has never borrowed any affistance from the edition of Manilius which Stæber publifhed at Strafburgh in 1767. If his 3 C
defign was to illuftrate Manilius, he might perhaps have found that defign anticipated by the labours of Stæber, whofe notes, to fay the truth, are ufeful, though his erudition was not very extenfive, nor his difcernment very acute. If his ambition was to expofe the errors, and to degrade the reputation of Bentley, he would have found his prejudices against this imperious Ari ftarch confirmed by the ftrictures of critics, whofe abilities are fuperior to his own, and whofe writings feem hitherto to have efcaped his notice. For his entertainment rather than for his juftification, we will produce fome paffages which Stæber has exultingly inferted in his preface, but to which, in every inftance but one, we confidently refuse our affent. Vides, Lector, annos ferè quadraginta à Bentleis in edendo Manilio dejudatum, ut hinc fpem conceperint eruditi,opus tandem proditurum tale effe, quale adhuc orbis criticus non viderit. fam, cum manibus noftris expectatus diu liber tenetur, haud pauci funt, qui, vix centefimam fpei fue impletam effe partem, conqueruntur." To this cenfure which Menkenius throws out against Bentley, Stæber certainly accedes; and in many of his obfervations he has endeavoured to fhew the
juftnefs of it. Stæber fpeaks with great refpect of the Exemplar Manilii regio Montanium which was published in 1472, and which has been, unpardonably in his opinion, neglected by fucceeding editors. The readings of this edition he compared with the Codex Parifienis, and found nearly fimilar. The varia lectiones of the Paris manufeript were communicated to Bentley by Montfauçon. But Bentley, it feems, filentio fanè quam pervicaci eas fprevit; noluit vir ille acutiffimus, nifi obfequentibus fibi, libris uti. This cenfure is much too harsh and indecorous; Bentley ought to have produced the readings, whether they tended to fupport, or to invalidate his own criticifm. But in appreciating their value we fhould have been inclined to prefer the judgement of Bentley, to that of Stæber. Mr. Burton will read with triumph the reafons which, Steber affigns for Bentley's contemptuous treatment
of the Paris manufcript, and the use which he profeffes to have made of it in his own edition. Negligendum putavit hunc codicem, cujus lucidiffima fcripturæ veritate ipfius in corrigendo temeritatem infractum iri pulchrè intellexit. Nos equidem eo impenfius gratulamur et libro MS. & nobis. Illi quidem, quod ejus lectiones non tam male funt habita ab Ariftarcho Britanno, quemadmodum cœteris è libris excerptæ, cujus rei fpecimina paffim leges in adnotatione noftra: nobis autem, quod prima hujus codicis collatione penficulatius facta priftinum Manilio reddere fplendorem, novum addere commentationi noftræ, potuimus." In their inclination to vilify Bentley, the London and the Stratfburgh editors appeared to be "Arcades ambo:" but in their talents for oppofing him, Mr. Burton muft yield the palm to Stæber. The latter has fo far given a proof of his condefcenfion or his candour towards Bentley, as to reprint the fame text in the fame form. But in respect to the celebrated emendation in the fifth book, Stæber partly condemns what Mr. Burton moft vehemently and moft juftly applauds.
Sic etiam in magno quædam refpondere mundo.
Mani. v. 735.
Mr. Burton is fo pleafed with Bentley's conjecture of refpublica, as to give it admiffion into his own immaculate text. "Omni laude (fays he) profequendus eft Bentleius qui hunc verfum ita leget." Stæber thinks and speaks in a very different ftrain. "Mire deformavit Bentleius." He laughs at Bentley's zeal to exclude refpondere as a word of the third conjugation, and yet he acknowledges that Scaliger was unfuccefsful in attempting to defend it by his quotations from Martial and Valer. Flaccus. Let us hear, what he would himself, fubstitute. Nobis magis placet refplendere quod vel è vetufto cod. vel è conjectura dedit Reinefius. Et illud correptam admittit penultimam. Cujus quidem rei caufam dum mecum ftudiofius inquiro fubvenit fortè fortuna commodiffima. Noftroq; digniffima, obfervatio Seneca, qui, Nat. Quæft. Lib. 2. Cap. 56. Etiamnum, ait, illo verbo (fulgere) utebantur antiqui, correpto, quo nos productâ unâ fyllaba, utimur. Dicimus enim ut fplendere
fie fulgere.-At illis ad fignificandum
all analogical reasoning from the fimple to the compound verb," precarious: we do not recollect the word refplendere in any Latin poet: we are confident that neither fulgere, nor fplendere, nor ftridere, nor effervere, nor any words of the fame kind are to be found in the whole poem of Manilius :-Bentley's conjecture on the contrary recommends itself not only from the metre which is indifputable, but from the fenfe which is clear, appofite, and even beautiful.
Of Mr. Burton's edition we have to add, that it may be useful to schoolboys who wish to rove over a dark and vifionary writer; or to naturalifts who may here and there pick up fome ftraggling facts relative to the attronomy of the ancients. But to that clafs of readers who are converfant in the refinements of taste, and in the researches of criticifm, it will not fupply any large fhare of inftruction or amufe
thofe interefts with ours, fo as to render them common to both countries. His idea of the depending commercial regulations is implied in the following fhort incidental remark:
If a minifter fhould unadvifedly or rafhly attempt to facrifice that part of the navigation laws on which the commercial refpectability and naval ftrength of this ifland depend, the people muft and would undoubtedly interfere, and the deftructive measure must be revoked. But what will that minifter deferve of the two kingdoms, who offers and promifes to the one what cannot be conceded by the other, and induces between the two, the alternative, either of a moft severe difappointment or of certain ruin ?”
ART. CXXII. Obfervations on the Manufactures, Trade, and present State of Ireland. By John Lord Sheffield. 8vo. 5s. Debrett. 1785. THIS is a fecond part of a very laborious and judicious ftatement of the commercial circumftances of Ireland; which, added to the Obfervations on the Commerce of the American States, eminently diftinguish the noble author among the fuperior ranks of fociety, by the peculiar direction of confiderable abilities, and great induftry, to objects of public utility. Not to enter into particulars refpecting the various articles of trade here fpecified, and amplified by the addition of a great number of tables; the remarks made, and hints for improvement given by his lordship on the fubjects of the linen, woollen, filk, and cotton manufactures, the agriculture, and fisheries of Ireland, may not be cordially viewed by thofe in this country, who regard the exertions of the Irish for their own profperity, with that degree of jealoufy that is but too apt to fpring from local attachments. Lord Sheffield, with a liberality fuperior to fuch narrow confiderations, while he endeavours to ftimulate the Irish to profecute their own true interests in all he writes, blends
However pertinent and falutary his lordship's remarks on commercial fubjects may be deemed in his own country, the independent freedom with which he declares his political fentiments has little chance of proving agreeable to the warm patriots there. He commences his concluding obfervations with the following cool and
3 C 2
temperate thoughts, deduced from his preceding labours:
"The moft fuccessful of our political writers are thofe who affert round. ly, that the public interefts are irretrievably funk into diftrefs and mifery. There is the greateft difpofition in the people to be convinced that fuch doc trines are juft; and they greedily adopt maxims which feem rather formed to prepare for another world, than to reconcile us to that in which we are placed. On the other hand, it is an ungrateful, and, in general, an unfaccefsful tafk, to endeavour to undeceive the people of Britain, or of Ireland, to fatisfy them that their affairs are in a good way, and that, collectively confidered, they have ample caufe for contentment, and ample means of happinefs. An author, however, who has no pretenfions to popularity, who never aimed at it, and never will, might, on the ftrength of the facts stated in the foregoing pages, and proved by authentic documents, venture to affert, that the manufactures, the trade, the finances, and every thing appertaining to Ireland, except the minds of her people, are in a good way. He might, perhaps, go ftill farther, and affirm, that no other country ever poffeffed fo many advantages, and was fo happily circumftanced. He muft not, indeed, dare to pronounce the people happy, until they may think proper to be fo; but thus much he will contend for, that Ireland poffeffes the great and ufeful advantages of the greatest countries; and that he is gradually advancing to the attainment of every advantage acquired and maintained by Britain. Her foil is excellent, her climate favourable to agriculture and manufactures; her people capable of whatever they please to undertake; her fituation the beft for trade; her ports numerous and good. The principal unreasonable reftrictions on her manufactures and trade have all, in great measure, been removed. She has obtained, in a fhort time, much more than the ufed to claim, much more than her moft fanguine friends expected. The kingdom in general is in the most profperous ftate, and has, perhaps, been progreffively more fo,
than any country in Europe during the greater part of a century. But fuch is our miferable nature, that difcontent, delafion, and extravagancies feemed to gain ground; they have fpread over the land, under circumftances which ought to have produced the most oppolite effects; and no longer ago than laft fummer, if we may give any credit to public prints, Ireland appeared to have neither conftitution nor government, nor common fenfe. Aggregate or other meetings had announced that a total change was neceffary, that the parliaments were bad that they were dependent, and this fhortly after parliament had afferted the independence of the legislature, and had gained more popular advantages for the country than all the parliaments of Ireland ever had done."
However thefe truths may be received by patriotic affociations in Ireland, they will still remain truths. His obfervations on the attempts to reform the parliamentary reprefentation, on the conduct of the volunteers, on receiving Catholics among them, and wifhing to extend political privileges to them, all deferve mature confideration; but let it be noted, that mature fentiments can never be collected at popular meetings.
Let it be understood (fays Lord Sheffield) however, that whatever the mafs of the people may do, the moft confiderable, in point of rank and fortune, and the beft informed, do not purfue either the extravagancies of vo-" lunteering, or the vifions of reform.
Indeed many others, who at firft acted differently, had begun to fee the ftate of the country in a proper light. After violent fancies, a little recollection fometimes occurs. Men began to be alarmed, and to recover their fenfes. Aggregate meetings received mortifying checks. The fpirit and good fenfe of the country were rouzed by the extraordinary proceedings of thofe meetings. The arming of the Roman Catholics, although fome corps continued to form, and are now forming, experienced certain checks. The government of the country fhewed a degree of fpirit. Treafon was curbed, and,