Obrazy na stronie

many records of himself, and of his own efforts to establish a right to the high title of a lyric poet.

-neque tibias

Euterpe cohibet, nec Polyhymnia
Lesboum refugit tendere barbiton.
Quod si me Lyricis Vatibus inseres,

Sublimi feriam sidera vertice. L. 1. 0, 1. v. 33.

Neu forte credas interitura, quæ,
Longe sonantem natus ad Aufidum,
Non ante vulgatas per artes

Verba loquor socianda chordis.

-Ego Diis amicum,

Seculo festas referente luces,

Reddidi carmen, docilis modorum

Vatis Horati. L. 4. 0.6. v. 41.

Phoebe qui Xantho lavis amne crines,
Daunia defende decus Camœnæ
Lævis Agyieu.

Spiritum Phoebus mihi, Phœbus artem
Carminis, nomenque dedit Poeta. Ib. v. 26.

Poscimur, si quid vacui sub umbra
Lusimus tecum, quod et hunc in annum
Vivat, et plures; age, dic Latinum,
Barbite, carmen,

Lesbio primum modulate civi. L. 1. O. 32. v. 1.
-Hunc fidibus novis,

Hunc Lesbio sacrare plectro,
Teque tuasque decet sorores.

L. 1. O. 26. v. 10.

Dicar, quà violens obstrepit Aufidus,
Et quà pauper aquæ Daunus agrestium
Regnavit populorum, ex humili potens
Princeps Eolium carmen ad Italos
Deduxisse modos, Sume superbiam
Quæsitam meritis. L. 3. O, 30. v. 10.

Sed, quæ Tibur aquæ fertile præfluunt,

Et spissæ nemorum comæ,

Fingent Eolio carmine nobilem. L. 4. O. 3. v. 10,

Totum muneris hoc tui est,

Quod monstror digito prætereuntium,

Romanæ fidicen Lyræ. Ib. v. 22.

In his epistles he harps upon the same string :

Ac ne me foliis ideo brevioribus ornes

Quod timui mutare modos, et carminis artem.
Temperat Archilochi musam pede mascula Sappho,
Temperat Alcæus. L. 1. Ep, 19. v. 26.

Discedo Alcæus puncto illius. L. 2. Ep. 2. v. 99.

The sense of his own superiority in metrical attainments is not less discoverable in the sneers and covert attacks which he makes upon the rude and inartificial numbers of Lucilius, Plautus, and others.

Nempe incomposito dixi pede currere versus

L. 1. Sat. 10. v. 1.

At vestri proavi Plautinos et numeros et
Laudavere sales. De Arte Poet. v. 270.

Quam non adstricto percurrat pulpita socco. L. 2. Epist. 1. v. 174.

It must be owned that he has himself set a most successful example of that polish, and unwearied aim at perfection, which he so strongly recommends to others:

Nec virtute foret, clarisve potentius armis
Quam linguâ Latium, si non offenderet unum-
Quemque Poetarum limæ labor, et mora.

Vos O

Pompilius sanguis, carmen reprehendite, quod non
Multa dies et multa litura coercuit, atque

Perfectum decies non castigavit ad unguem. Ib. v. 289.

But although in the structure of his versification the art of Horace is consummate, it is no where apparent and obtrusive, and in the midst of all his chains be displays a grace and freedom that are truly captivating and surprising. It is this laboured ease, this studied negligence (curiosa felicitas) which Petronius has seized as displaying the genuine character of the Muse of Horace. Whoever expects to arrive at the same success must submit to the same severity of discipline,

Ludentis speciem dabit, et torquebitur.

At the same time, these restraints, instead of suppressing the powers of genius, rather serve as a stimulant, and open a field for the exhibition of taste and refinement, and for the truth of this, I may appeal to experience; and it will be found that among the modern imitators of Horace, those, who make the nearest approach to his purity of versification, appear to have caught most also of his manner and spirit.

In proportion as metrical science advances, the merit of the ancient poets becomes more conspicuous, and an additional charm is elicited from the perusal of their compositions which was not perceived before. Notwithstanding the light that has lately been thrown on this subject by Dawes, Bentley, Burgess, Huntingford, Porson, Burney, and Tate, many of the ancient poets have still reason to complain,

Non apparere labores
Nostros, et tenui deducta poemata filo,

J. B. M.


Examination of certain modern opinions respecting the TROAD, and the descriptions of HOMER; and an inquiry into the authorities on which they have been founded.

BY CHARLES H. PARRY, M. D., F. R. S., &c.

No. II. (Continued from No. XXX. p. 349.) The Rivers of the Troad.1 The Scamander flowed into the sea where this formed a wide bay, (evρùs кóλπos, Þ. 125.) All the epi

'It would be fortunate for the progress of civilization and happiness, if the ill effects of prejudice were never more productive of injury than in their bearing upon the present discussion, and could as safely furnish topics for ridicule and amusement, as they will be found to do in relation to the paltry streams of Simois and Scamander. To what effusions of the imagination, to what rejection of all authority, and perversion of palpable and intelligible sense, has this baneful passion given rise upon the present occasion! "Chevalier and Liston, (observes Mr. Dalzel, Plaine de Troie illustrated T. R. E. S. iv. 49.) crossed the Scamander on a willow!!" This is a happy instance of complacency under an imaginary conclusion deduced from false premises. He adds: "the account of the Scamander by Chevalier and other respectable travellers answers perfectly to all the descriptions and hints to be found in the Iliad; allowance being always to be made for the poetic way of representing such things." As after many careful examinations of all the parts of the Iliad relating to the Scamander, I have never been able to discover a hint of correspondence with the descriptions to which allusion is here made, I am happy to add my testimony in favor of the full allowance that must always be made to the influence of a poetical imagination. Professor Heyne, however, far outstrips all competition. Пoтáμ inì divńevti. (viii. 490.) "What river (says the Professor) could this be? The Scamander is termed Sves, eddying; but the Simois was still more so. Yet if the Scamander had its course obliquely through the plain, it must be the river here intended." Whence all this doubt and astonishment? Is not the Scamander always so described? Do we ever meet with a similar account of the Simois? Does not Homer himself tell us this river was the Scamander?

Chevalier's references in favor of the "rapid Simois," are to Il. xii. 21, 22. xxi. 307. which passages are, however, totally silent as to this quality.

thets connected with it are expressive of the size and violence of the stream, and distinguish it as péyas Tотaμòs Baðvdivns (Y. 73.) in opposition to the Simois the negative qualities of whose current entitle it to the honours of no adjunct. The Edinburgh Reviewer, following up Prof. Heyne's views, gives us probably the real sense of a passage which has in all times been adopted to prove the insignificance of the Scamander. It does not appear, indeed, that Homer formed a bridge across the whole channel with his single elm. The uìv avròv (P. 245.) can have but two antecedents, Konuròs or Achilles, under the use of either of which it can have no reference to the opposite bank. The contrary supposition has long remained the seemingly unanswerable argument in proof of the narrowness of the stream, and the inconsistency of Homer.'

That the Scamander was south of the Simois, appears from the circumstance that, in her way from Olympus, Juno first reached this latter river, and fed her horses on its banks.


The ford of the Scamander was between Troy and the Grecian camp (N. 692. P. 1. &c.) Homer gives us no information as to the existence of, or necessity for, any other fords, either on this river or the Simois. Much, however, has been presumed on this subject by modern authors. According to Major Rennell's Map (11.) the night adventures of Ulysses and Diomed must have been impossible. We know from Homer that they did not cross at the ford of the Scamander, as this

An author who considers the μntépa Ońfwv (viii. 47.) in connexion with Ida, to allude to "fallow deer," may say any thing. (p. 60.) It is curious that this rapid, eddying Simois, this impetuous river should be dry in the summer, except under occasional rains. (104.) The same fate attended the unfortunate Scamander, notwithstanding all the distinguishing epithets of Homer. Chevalier (p. 24.) talks of the dry channel of the Scamander. The willow bridge was surely a superfluity which might have been spared!

[ocr errors]

Heyne observes (Not. in II. . 245, 6.) “ yɛpúpwoev di ulv aurèv ipsum fluvium proprie is qui jungit utramque ripam tanquam ponte, nunc saltem partem alvei quâ ille in ripam eniteretur, ulmo in alveum prolapso, tum tandem enisus ex alveo Achilles, &c. &c." Rennell explains the passage by saying the river bed was at that time only filling, an explanation scarcely adequate to the known depth and violence of the stream, at the period under consideration. On yɛpúpwσe, see Heyne, Pindar, note Isth. viii. 111.

2 The Simois, says Rennell, note 57, must have been in the way between the Grecian Camp and Troy, though never said to oppose an obstacle, (see also the note which follows.)

was in the rear of the Throsmus, upon or near which the Trojan army was encamped, and yet, in order to reach the Thracians, they must actually have passed two rivers, and driven the chariot of Rhesus across both, on their return.

One part of the Scamander ran on a side of the plain opposite to, and at a distance from, that on which the tomb of Ilus was placed. During the pursuit of the Trojans by Ajax across the plain, (A. 496. &c.) Hector was at a distance on the left, and on the banks of the Scamander. An additional proof, that this was on the right of the Greeks, may be drawn from the fact, that on the side opposite to that on which Hector was engaged, Paris from the column on the tomb of Ilus had wounded Diomed, and thus given occasion to the subsequent achievements of Ajax.

Notwithstanding all that has been said by Dr. Vincent, Whitaker, Dalzel, Heyne, &c. and notwithstanding the abuse with which they have visited Strabo, and the silly apologies made for Homer himself, Scamander had its source in Mount Ida.' No explanation of an ap

I The same unnecessary confusion has been admitted with regard to the source of the Scamander, as with regard to its attributes. Prof. Heyne will admit neither Homer nor Strabo as good authorities. "Wood," says he, (Pref. to German Ed. of Chevalier,)" did not perceive that Demetrius of Scepsis, whom Strabo follows, builds in the instance of the sources of the Scamander on mere hypothesis. Demetrius, I imagine, founded it on an erroneous interpretation of Il. xii. 18, &c. which he understood geographically, without considering that he had before him a poet, not a geographer." The lines in question enumerate the rivers

Ὅσσοι ἀπ ̓ Ἰδαίων ὀρέων ἅλαδε προρέουσι.

This is specific enough. Heyne, (Exc. in Lib. vi. 304.) makes a tolerably successful attempt to save Homer's credit. "Scamander ex Ida procurrisse dicitur, (xii. 21.) inter alios amnes ex Ida ortos: RECTE, etsi infra urbem ortus, siquidem Idæ radices ad plagam littoralem pertingebant, nisi totus ille locus a seriore Rhapsodo subtextus est." Again, "Dictus utique nomine alter Simois, alter Scamander; ille de montium jugis torrentis more, aquarum colJuvie auctus, interdum alveum suum evagatur. Scamander limpidus et placidus per herbosa loca defertur, &c. &c. Omnino in hoc saltem amne patet quantum poeta sibi indulserit in veris quoque ornandis, adeo magna et mirabilia sunt quæ de eo memorat!!!" I must be allowed one more passage as to the size of the river. "Quod Scamander, exiguus amnis, vorticosus appellatur, mirationem excitat: vevra tamen dictum vidimus aliquoties jam, в. 817!" (Var. Lectt. and Obss, in Il. xx. 73.) See also not. in Il. ☺. 490.

Both on the size and sources of the Scamander, Rennell has set at rest a

« PoprzedniaDalej »