tribute of fame which a Poet of such talent might confer, carries with it every reasonable evidence of truth, as to the origin of the Poems alluded to. Scripta quidem ejus usque adeo probavit, mansuraque perpetuo opinatus est, ut non modo Sæculare carmen componendum injunxerit, sed et Vindelicam victoriam Tiberii Drusique privignorum suorum; eumque coëgerit propter hoc, tribus Carminum Libris ex longo intervallo quartum addere. Other considerations too may here deserve our regard. The very mixture of articles, in matter certainly baser, if not in execution, compared with so much magnificence in the principal Odes of the Ivth book, is enough to indicate something extraordinary. In the few words of Gesner indeed prefixed to that book of Odes, the whole secret is thus briefly told. Mihi sic videbatur: cum semel placuisset novum librum edere, in eum conjectum esse quidquid ad manus erat. But it may be asked: on what ground is the Carmen Sæculare in this arrangement entitled to precede the fourth book of Odes? Since Bentley (u. s. ¶ 5) himself mentions them in a different order, and what is more, ad Car. Sæc. v. 16, distinctly calls the sixth Ode of that book, Dive, quem proles...., “quasi præfatio (and very truly) et commendatio" to the Secular Ode itself. I answer thus. From the very nature and object of that great occasional poem, it must have been separately published in the year (B. c. 17) assigned to the celebration of the Ludi Sæculares; whereas of the fourth book of Odes, from the peculiarity of its constituent parts, there could be no collective publication till some two or three years after that date. Need I here bestow a moment's notice on the pomp and conceit with which, out of various lyric pieces of the Poet, Sanadon, and after him Anchersen, have arbitrarily constructed a drama quoddam sæculare of their own. Justly, yet mildly enough, is their audacious absurdity, in thus raking together materials in character as in date heterogeneous, rebuked by Gesner in his introduction to the C. S. "Mirum sane, si carmina unius argumenti, eodem tempore scripta, ita spargi per libros plures potuere!" Arising from the fourth book, a stronger line of remark, it appears to me, yet remains to be traced. No Prologos or Epilogos attends this collection of Odes, such as we have read in the former books, or like the formal conclusion (Vertumnum Janumque..) attached to the first book of Epistles. Gesner, one of the most judicious of critics on Horace, in the few lines of comment prefixed to the Ode: 3 C. xxx. Exegi monumentum ære perennius, &c. very calmly but very acutely observes, on a declaration so proud and so final; Videtur Horatius hâc Ode finire omnino voluisse libros carminum. Hinc vetus Scriptor vitæ ait coactum ab Augusto tribus carminum libris ex longo intervallo quartum addere. But how comes it to pass, it may be asked, that in the fourth book of Odes the name of Mæcenas is no where by direct address recorded? Diminution of kindness in the generous patron, or abatement of gratitude in the honest-hearted client, cannot for a moment be imagined. My solution of the difficulty, for such it may seem, shall be stated very briefly. After the manner in which Horace had celebrated the noble qualities of Mæcenas in his Satires, Epodes and Odes to the 3d book inclusive, could any addition of compliment. be expected from the most grateful of men and the most felicitous of writers? And yet, if the first book of Epistles be justly placed after the third book of Odes, as in our chronology it follows next a great accession of honourable testimony was yet to come, in the 1st, 7th and 19th Epistles of that most curious. and valuable book. As establishing the character of Horace on the basis of sincerity and independence even under the deepest sense of obligation, that one Epistle (vII.) Quinque dies tibi pollicitus, &c., which apologizes for his protracted absence in the country during the hot season, remains a lasting and beautiful monument. Nor in the evidence which it bears to the sterling good sense and high-minded generosity of Mæcenas, is it to be regarded as reflecting less honour, but if possible more, on that (with all his foibles) most excellent man. We are morally sure, that the viith Epistle was published by Horace himself in the life time of both. What then, in any age, should be the estimation of the Poet who could address, and of the Patron who could receive-publicly too, let it be added--the frank and affectionate boldness of language like this? vv. 33. 39. Macra cavum repetes arctum, quem macra subisti. Inspice, si possum donata reponere lætus. But to return to the question: how comes it, that in the fourth book of Odes, the name of Mæcenas occurs once only (XI. 19) and then by oblique introduction ? Whoever has perused with any care the various addresses to Mæcenas in every style of writing down to that splendid Ode: 3 C. XXIX. Tyrrhena regum progenies, &c. will hardly fail, in the grand and impressive exordium : 1 E. 1. Primâ dicte mihi, summâ dicende Camœnâ, &c. to recognise at once the settled purpose of Horace: it was the intended farewell (and meant for the long futurity of fame elsewhere predicted) of the Poet to his Patron. We know, that Qui fit, Mæcenas, &c. (1 S. 1.) stood the first of Horace's edited works; we are here told, that Mæcenas was worthy of all celebration in the last. This last then of the collected Epistles, last not in collocation, but in time, carries with it many strong indications, especially in v. 10, Nunc itaque et versus et cætera ludicra pono: of its having been devoted by Horace as the ultimate offering of his muse. And in that respect, so far as regarded the Patron, the Poet never altered his purpose. Whatever he afterwards wrote, is left to stand separately on its own inscription and title, insulated as it were, and posthumous to the great body of his works: which he certainly had meditated to complete in the two books of Satires, the one of Epodes, the three of Odes, and the one of Epistles. Mæcenas was Horace's only patron: and the Poet has succeeded in leaving that recorded indelibly. Even in regard of Augustus, it may sound somewhat extraordinary, and yet it is perfectly true, that in the common meaning of that term he never was the patron of Horace. Except in those words imputed to Suetonius, unáque et alterâ liberalitate locupletavit, there exists no evidence of Horace having owed anything to the patronage of the Emperor. Virgil and Varius, beyond a doubt, were deeply indebted to that Prince's generosity. And Horace, who felt a service done to a friend as a kindness conferred on himself, has in that beautiful address to Augustus in favorem sui temporis Poëtarum, made the acknowledgement, to the honour of all parties concerned. 2 E. 1. 245-7. At neque dedecorant tua de se judicia, atque Munera, quæ multâ dantis cum laude tulerunt, Dilecti tibi Virgilius Variusque poëtæ: &c. Can it be believed, that if Horace had himself owed any substantial obligation to so munificent a Prince, he would have left no vestige of thankful expression behind him? No such vestige exists in his writings. Horace's temper, in truth, was that of the most happy contentedness and gratitude. In the Satire, 1 S. vi. Hoc erat in votis.... when the man of letters, (being one, as he calls himself, 2 C. XVII. 29, Mercurialium virorum,) puts up his prayer to Mercury, v. 5, Maiá nate....as to his patron God, v. 15. utque soles, custos mihi maximus adsis ; he invokes the patronage on this one condition, v. 13. Si quod adest, gratum juvat,.. that for his present blessings he is truly grateful. And in a passage also of a much later date, otherwise remarkable for its moral beauty, that point is distinctly put forward. 2 E. 11. 210, 11. Natales grate numeras? ignoscis amicis ? At an early period the bounty of Mecenas had made him abundantly rich, with an understood readiness at any time. to give more, if more should be needed. And even the concluding words of the Ode last quoted— Bene est, cui Deus obtulit Parcâ quod satis est manu. |