Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

correct, we must conceive the words ad lævam' as spoken in reference to the inhabitants of Rome, and not in respect of Hannibal, in the same manner as, 'ultra Iberum ;' chapter fifth, above given." Now, it is quite true that this method of apprehension will explain the use of the term "lævam;" for, whenever Hannibal turned round upon his course, he would wheel towards the left hand of any one who dwelt at Rome, or who, in fact, lay eastward of his course; but it is equally true, that such a method of expression is calculated to confound all distinct and accurate expression whatever, and is, at the same time, apparently at variance with the very passage in the fifth chapter which the Doctor has referred to. If the Doctor, as the critics formerly quoted seem to do, still considers Hannibal as pursuing, with a little deflection, the line of his march along the Rhone, then, to be sure, the right hand of Hannibal would be towards the left hand of any person Rome-ward, i. e. eastward of his position; and whenever Hannibal inclined towards his right hand, so long as his face was northward, he would, at the same time, and by the same movement, turn upon the left hand of a Roman, in the same manner as two persons advancing together, alongside of each other, and in the same direction, generally discover that the right hand of the one is towards the left hand of the other. But the question is, whether or not any person, adopting language of this sort, contrary, as Dr Hunter evidently feels, to all received use, and, indeed, common sense, would be understood? Were a General to order his soldiers to turn to the "left," and they were of consequence to wheel to their own right, but towards his left, he being placed on the right extremity of their fine, such soldiers would undoubtedly be considered as either mad or contumacious-they would deserve to be dismissed as lunatics, or to be cashiered for disobedience of orders.

On the other hand, if Dr Hunter conceives Hannibal as, in fact, not

advancing northwards, but as returning southwards, with his right hand towards the river Rhone, and his left towards the Alps, and consequently towards Rome, then any reference, to the left hand, of an inhabitant of Rome, is inadmissible, because it implies confusion where there is no call for any, the left hand of Hannibal being now turned towards the left hand of a "Romeinhabitant." So long as Hannibal is on his march from Lyons to the Tricastini, that is to say, so long as he continues his march southwards, you cannot possibly say, "flexit iter ad lævam," without suggesting to the reader the notion of his holding to his own left hand, in preference to the left of a person placed with his face in a contrary direction. For the very same reason that the right hand of Hannibal is towards the left hand of Livy, before Hannibal returns upon his steps, must Hannibal's left be considered as turned towards the left hand of the historian, whenever that return is commenced. "Nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus." What good reason is there for altering the received and fixed use of words, when a plain and common-sense acceptation is at hand?

The Doctor illustrates his position," that the reference is made to the left of a Roman, and not of Hannibal," by instancing the phrase "ultra Iberum," in the fifth chapter of that book. Now, let us turn to this passage, and consider its application to the question at is

sue.

We find Hannibal resolving, immediately upon his being declared General, to carry the war into Italy, and, as a preparatory step, deter mining to make war upon the Roman Allies, the Saguntines. But that he might not disclose his intentions all at once, he begins by attacking the "Olcades," a people of what was termed " higher Spain," that is to say, of that part of Spain which lay "citra Iberum," or was upon the Roman side of the Ebro; and then it is added, "ultra Iberum ea gens, &c., meaning "beyond the Ebro,

In this opinion, the Doctor seems to coincide with Russerti, who says: "Livins regionem designat, quæ sion Hannibali sed sibi aut cuivis Italo Ad Lavam esset."

that nation," designating the "Olcades" as lying "ultra Iberum," when, in point of Roman apprehension and relation to the Ebro, they were "citra Iberum," in "hither Spain." But who does not in an instant see, that Livy, in this case, as well as in the case of Hannibal upon the banks of the Rhone, puts himself in the situation of Hannibal, and consequently terms that "ultra Iberum," which was, in fact, so, in reference to New Carthage, from which Hannibal had just started? There is nothing "existimandum" in this case, 66 respectu digentium Rome;" it is quite the reverse, for it is undoubtedly to be conceived in respect of Hannibal, and not of Rome, and consequently it does not, at first sight, appear in what way the one instance can illustrate the other. It is quite true, that, had the Historian adopted the usual and received mode of expression, he would have said "citra Iberum," and then he could have spoke " respectu digentium Rome;" but he speaks here, "respectu Hannibalis," and consequently uses the words "ultra" on the occasion. The cause of the whole mystery appears to lie in the apprehension which Dr Hunter seems to entertain respecting the position of Hannibal; and finding, as he conceives, the order of right and left reversed, or "lævam" standing where "dextram" was to have been expected, he quite logically instances another case in illustration, where the co-relative terms" ultra" and "citra" are transposed, or where "ultra" is found where "citra" might have teen expected.

At the same time, however, that we have advanced our own view of the subject, under an impression of its truth, we cannot disguise from ourselves, nor would we wish to conceal from our readers, a lurking suspicion that a critic, so accurate and experienced as Dr Hunter is well known to be, would not have hazarded even a conjecture at random; and that therefore it is quite possible that we have either misunderstood his meaning, or misconceived the author's statement. If this shall prove to be the case, we shall be proud to be better informed by one who has done so much towards inducing a

[merged small][ocr errors]

habit of accurate and philosophical thinking upon scholars of the present age.

We turn, therefore, with pleasure, from this contested passage, upon which we have, perhaps fruitlessly, endeavoured to shed some new light, to one which Dr H. has seemingly 66 put to rest for ever." Although the note to which we refer has been in the possession of the public since 1822, we do not think that the emendation referred to has attracted that notice, or produced that conviction, to which it appears so eminently entitled. The passage is as follows:

Livy, book II. c. 1. 1. 34.-"Traditumque inde fertur ut in Senatum vocarentur, qui Patres, quique conscripti essent. Conscriptos videlicet, in novum Senatum appellabant lectos." We shall give Dr Hunter's own words:"In this passage," says the Doctor, "the author seems to offer a conjectural account of the origin of the expression 'Patres Conscripti,' by which the Senators, when assembled, were invariably addressed, conceiving the term Patres' to be applicable to those Senators who had survived the cruelties of Tarquinius Superbus, and Conscripti' to describe those recently enrolled by the Consuls to make up the number of three hundred.

[ocr errors]

"This, although evidently conjectural, and given with apparent diffidence, (traditum fertur) by the author himself, who flourished nearly five hundred years after the events which he here records, is, I believe, the only account received by men of letters; and yet it is certain, 1st, That the Senators were invariably addressed Patres conscripti,' and not Patres et conscripti;' 2dly, That the edict for convoking the Senate, ordered ut vocentur in curiam,' not Patres et conscripti,' but 'Senatores quibusque in senatu sententiam dicere licet.' I am inclined to think, therefore, (adds the Doctor,) that Livy has rather sought than found the reason why the Senate was invariably addressed in the terms 'Patres conscripti,'-that by these terms were meant, agreeably to their literal import, the Fathers whose names were contained in the roll of the Senate, who alone had a decisive U u

Classical Reveries.-No. IV.

voice*, or the right of deciding upon every question submitted to their deliberation; and that the terms were employed, not only as the most respectful and honourable form of address, but likewise to distinguish the Senators on the roll from the other persons present, quibus in senatu dicere sententiam licebat,' who joined in the deliberations, having the 'jus sententiæ,' though not the 'jus suffragii," a deliberative, but not a decisive voice in the question."

[ocr errors]

Hereupon the Doctor quotes Horace in illustration of this interpretation, Ars. Poet. 312, seqq.; and, after some admirable and convincing reasoning, concludes by observing:"1st, That the right of adjusting the roll of the Senate belonged to the Censors, who, though originally elected for five years, continued in office for eighteen months only.

66

[ocr errors]

2dly, That one of their most important functions, after their election, was to adjust the roll of the Senate, by leaving out, prætereuntes,' the names of such of the Senators as had been guilty of misconduct, and by 'legendo in senatum,' the names of those who, in virtue of the magistracies which they had held since the last 'lectio senatus,' had become entitled to that distinction. These were magistratus majores,' or 'cu. rules,' originally held by none but Patricians.

"Sdly, If, after this, there still remained vacancies, these were supplied from amongst those who had borne the inferior magistracies, magistratus minores,' &c. &c.

[ocr errors]

"That such was the order observed by the Censors in filling up the vacancies, may be fairly inferred from the procedure of Fabius Brutus, who was named Dictator for the sole purpose of settling the roll of the Senate, and filling up the vacancies occasioned by death.-Vide Livy, B. 23, c. 23. se neque senatu, &c. et seqq.

Now, from all these previous admissions, the Doctor's ultimate inference is simply this, that the Roman Senate contained two classes

[March

of members. Those "qui senatores
erant," i. e. those who had the right,
from their names being placed upon
the Censors' roll, of voting as well as
of speaking, and those "quibus in
senatu sententiam dicere licebat," i. e.
those who had not yet been enrolled,
rate, but not to vote. When the Se-
and were only permitted to delibe-
nate, therefore, was addressed, it
would neither have been proper, nor
common sense, to have addressed
sion; and accordingly it was the
those who had no vote in the deci-
thers, and they alone, whose atten-
"Patres conscripti," the enrolled fa-
tion was solicited.

lesson than the above criticism in-
There cannot be a more useful
culcates upon every scholar, who
would wish to rise one single degree
above a mere copyist. He must not
say of their own history, laws, or
imagine, that, whatever the Romans
language, must of necessity be cor-
rect.
Quintilian, and Aulus Gellius †, and
Let him read Pliny, Cicero,
he will find, if he is not blinded by
mere
which is at once absurd and fanciful.
66 authority," much criticism,
He will find ample reason to doubt
whether or not a dead language may
not be more critically understood
than a living one; and whether or
ter," may not possess better oppor-
not 66
Crevier, Heynè, and Dr Hun-
tunities of discovering the truth than
have mentioned.
any of the great Latin names we

with the Editor, and conclude.
We have now to settle accounts

the following passage in the 43d We offered an emendation upon chapter of the 21st book of Livy, in that the passage in Hannibal's speech, our last "Reverie," and proposed, where, before the battle of Ticinus, he addresses his soldiers, should be read," Ac nescio majora vincula majoresque necessitatesvobis quam captivis vestris fortuna circumdededunt) nullam ne ad effugium navem rit (dextrâ lævâque duo maria clauhabentibus," &c. upon which the following note is affixed by the Editor:-"It does not seem to have oc

Quere-Had the Consuls no decisive voice previous to their enrolment in the Censor's books?

+ e.g. "Parcus" is derived by him from "par," equal to, and "arca,” a chest ; because a miser is, as it were, a chest or box, in which money is secured!

[blocks in formation]

"Alterâ manu fert lapidem, panem ostentat alterâ."

[ocr errors]

Which, when rendered into English, is neither more nor less than this "When a mother wishes to correct her child, she shows him a piece of bread and butter, and calls him sweet pet,' whilst the terrific birch is concealed behind her back." And thus, my dear Public, for to you do I now appeal,-the very Editor himself being a party in the dispute, does this same intelligent critic support me with one hand, whilst he very coolly knocks me down with the other. Yet out of the ashes of ancient, modern Rome has arisen ; and the good city of St. Andrew's is now looking wonderfully fresh and vigorous, from the ruins of her former grandeur and magnificence. In the same manner must I just endeavour to gather up the "debris" of my former showy and imposing edifice, and try if I cannot construct a cottage, or at least something "tenable" out of it.

That the word "habentibus," with the part of the sentence belonging to it, might, did the sense permit, refer to and describe "captivis," we do not deny; nay, what is more, from the "juxta position," we should naturally expect this to be the construction and arrangement of the sentence. Yet, in the face of all these admissions, we will be bold enough to aver, that "vobis" being the leading and prominent word in the sentence, is justly, and quite constitu

were

tionally entitled to the preference. It is to the "you," to the soldiery before him, that the speech is addressed; and, in the emphatic and gesticulated language of a spoken oration, the party addressed, the "vobis," the "soldiers," would have no difficulty in discovering that "they," not the "captives,' addressed, and described by the "nullam ne ad effugium navem habentibus." Had there been any dubiety in the case, and had this description been at all applicable to the situation of the captives, or at all likely to have been applied to them, then it might have been necessary for Livy to have arranged the words otherwise; but, in the present instance, no such necessity appears to us to have existed. "Alius ad Cæsarem venit, qui orationem hujusmodi habuit." Who ever thought, or thinks of applying the " qui orationem hujusmodi habuit" to "Cœsarem," though that word stands in "juxta position" to " qui ?” "Legatus mittitur ad cum-qui diceret,' is of the same family, with many others.

Our ingenious," therefore, and "learned friend," the Editor, will pardon us in our turn, if, with all deference, we consider this explanation as fatal to the objection stated.

GAMMA.

P.S. We have this moment, whilst employed in correcting the proofs of the above, received a letter from a very able and erudite classical scholar, who finds fault with both the Editor and Gamma, and has no doubt that the passage came from Livy's pen thus: "Ac nescio an majora vincula, majoresque necessitates vobis quam captivis vestris fortuna circumdederit, nullam ne ad effugium navem habentibus. Dextra levaque duo maria claudunt; circa Padus amnis, &c., ab tergo, &c." This indeed cuts the Gordian knot at once! "sed non omnia possumus omnes."

The unfortunate note, which the Editor affixed to the preceding "Reverie," certainly from a feeling the very reverse of disrespect to his "ingenious" and "learned" correspondent, who has honoured it with his strictures, was written upon the spur of the moment, and without that mature reflection and examination which the subject required; but now that he

has had a little time to look into the matter, he regrets to say, that he still remains unconvinced by all that " Gamma" has adduced in support of his proposed alteration. The passage which has given occasion to the dispute is as follows:-" Nescio, an majora vincula majoresque necessitates vobis, quàm captivis vestris, fortuna circumdederit. Dextrâ lævâque duo maria claudunt, nullam, ne ad effugium quidem, navem habentibus." This "Gamma" proposes to read, "Nescio an majora vincula majoresque necessitates vobis, quàm captivis vestris, fortuna circumdederit, (dextrâ lævâque duo maria claudunt,) nullam, ne ad effugium quidem, navem habentibus." Now, it is perfectly certain, and nobody ever doubted, that "habentibus" must refer to "vobis," because it would be arrant nonsense to suppose that it could apply to the "captivi montani," the prisoners taken by Hannibal in his combats with the Alpine Highlanders. But the Editor remarked, that as "Gamma" has reconstructed the passage, throwing the two sentences into one, and reading "Dextrâ lævâque duo maria claudunt" as a parenthesis, which, of course, goes for nothing, as far as either the arrangement or general scope of the passage is concerned, the effect was, that, according to the natural collocation of the passage as amended, "habentibus" should agree with "captivis" instead of "vobis ;" which defect in the arrangement, if it really existed, would of course be fatal to the emendation suggested by "Gamma." The learned "Rêveur," however, still contends that he is right, because "vobis" is emphatic, and the soldiery_could have no doubt that they only were pointed out as the persons who had not a single ship for any purpose, much less for escape. The Editor never supposed that the soldiery would have a moment's hesitation in comprehending the words of their illustrious chief; but as "Gamma," by throwing into a parenthesis, and virtually sinking the most important clause, "Dextrâ lævâque duo maria claudunt,' had run the two sentences into one, the mind was naturally led to refer the "habentibus" to the nearer substantive " captivi;" and thus, that which before was too clear to be mistaken, became ambiguous, and required explanation. It is to no purpose to quote such passages as "Alius ad Cæsarem venit, qui orationem hujuscemodi habuit," &c. &c. because they are by no means in point, it being impossible to mistake the antecedent to "qui." Here, however, the case is directly the reverse; for it is so far from being impossible to mistake the substantive that agrees with " habentibus," that, as "Gamma” has constructed the passage, it will naturally, in the first instance, be referred to "captivis," (with which, he will not deny, that it may syntactically agree,) and is only carried back to "vobis," when it is discovered, that referring it captivis" would evolve nonsense. Now, as no ambiguity existed in the passage as it stood originally, the Editor was inclined to be sceptical as to the emendation proposed by his learned friend.

to

"The very head and front of his offending

Had this extent; no more."

If any principle of Latin arrangement be better established than another, it is this, That words connected in sense should be placed as close as possible to each other, and that the words of one clause should never be intermixed with those of another. When Horace, in his first Ode, says " terrarum dominos evehit ad deos," it is impossible to ascertain whether he means that the "palma nobilis" exalts the " terrarum dominos" to the rank of gods, or simply raises the victors to a level with the gods, "terrarum dominos," the lords, rulers, or governors of the world. If we say, " Vidistin' hominem malum qui hoc mihi dedit," the punctuation alone can determine (and it is not good to trust the sense of a passage to punctuation merely) whether we mean, "Did you see the wicked man who gave me this?" or, "Did you see the man who did me this mischief?" If the former sense were intended, the arrangement should be, "Hominem malum vidistin', qui hoc mihi dedit?"-if the latter, "Hominem vidistin', qui hoc malum mihi dedit?" This example will serve to shew the importance of arrange

« AnteriorContinuar »