I observed p. 281, that this remark was corrupted, or that it did not come from Servius.

To this a "Gentleman" has said, that Virgil uses "inplicat," to denote the pliableness of the infants' bodies, in opposition to that of the father, and that there is no need at all to suspect the genuineness of a remark so just.

But as far as I can hitherto learn from Latin writers, the word" inplico" denotes no such thing. It means neither more nor less than to encompass any thing by twisting and folding round it. Serpents are said, a thousand times, "implicare,' "circumplicare hominem," "arborem," or any thing that they twist round, be it soft or hard, pliable or inflexible.

However, I would not be too forward to condemn this note, because if (as I find some judicious and ingenious persons think) it be Servius's remark indeed, and a just one too, it will help us to explain abundance of passages in ancient authors hitherto not understood. For instance, Val. Flacc. IV. 333.

"Illius excelsum ramis caput, armaque castor
Implicat."

The word "Implicat," here shows the softness of the head of Pollux. No wonder then that Amycus broke it, as we learn from v. 330.

"tenues tamen ire cruores

"Siderea de fronte vident."

Ver. 255.

"Anguis-spiris nemus omne refusis
"Implicuit.'

The word " Implicuit," shews the softness and pliableness of

the wood.

The word "Implicat," shews the softness and pliableness of Aeneas's head, and Amata's bones, &c. &c.

GEORG. IV. 415.

liquidum ambrosiae diffudit odorem;

"Quo totum nati corpus perduxit."

Servius; "unxit eum quo posset esse videndi numinis capax." I corrected it "vincendi," or "vinciendi," p. 278. A Gentle

man observes" that by videndi is not meant the bare act of seeing only, though perhaps that might be one reason of this unction. See Serv. ad Eclog. VI. 24. But the coming into his presence, which could not be done without difficulty, by reason of the stink of the Phocae."

1. It is not very safe to deal in negatives, but I think here I may venture to say, that there is not any ancient writer, por any learned modern, except the Gentleman, whoever told us that "ambrosia” was good for the eyesight. This I take to be ground enough for supposing that Servius, who was a scholar, would not have given us such an interpretation.

2. Let us suppose that "ambrosia” was good to clear a man's

eyes,

66

Ὄφρ' εὖ γινώσκῃ ἠμὲν θεον ἠδὲ καὶ ἄνδρα.”

Yet here the application of it seems to shew, that it was intended for another purpose;

"TOTUM nati CORPUS perduxit."

"She anointed him ALL OVER to mend his eye-sight." A likely story!

3. "Videre," as the Gentleman will have it, signifies more than to see. What more shall it signify? To bear the stink

of the Phocae? That, or what he pleases:

66

χαιρέτω ἕκαστος οἷς ἥδεται.”

AEN. VIII. 633.

"Illam tereti cervice reflexam

"Mulcere alternos et corpora fingere lingua."

I said, Is not "mulcere alternos" too bold an expression, since motion cannot be represented in a picture? I dare not condemn it, p. 284.

On this a Gentleman has observed,

1. That I am here indebted to Servius, who says, "Non quod in pictura erat dicit; sed id quod intelligimus factum fuisse."

2. That "alternus" is used by the poets for "ambo," and so I may, if I please, take "mulcere alternos" for "mulcere

ambos."

3. That it is an idle question; for in strictness how could they be represented as "playing," v. 632, or "moving," as Serv. interprets it; as both "playing and sucking?" Cod. Answer.

1. How far I am indebted to Servius, the reader must judge.

2. If I loved cavilling, I might say that "alternus" is never used for "ambo," but "alterni." It is sufficient to say that "mulcere alternos," &c., means, "to fondle and lick them by turns," that the nature of the thing requires this interpretation, and that if some writers use "alterni" for "ambo," it signifies nothing in the case before us.

3. In a picture things can be represented in an act of motion, birds flying, water flowing, children playing, &c., but a change of motion, I imagine, cannot be described, as, for instance, a wolf fondling and licking two children by turns. However, I did not condemn it, because poets have given themselves the liberty of going beyond the truth in such representations, and describe pictures, where a change of motion is said to be expressed. But commonly that change of motion is but small, as the trembling of trees when the wind shakes them, &c.

I believe, if a poet, giving an account of a picture, was to insert, "There you might see a man running first to one place and then to another," he would not be much admired for saying so.

AEN. VIII. 131.

Aeneas says to Evander:

66

66

"Sed mea me virtus et sancta oracula Divûm,
Cognatique patres, tua terris didita fama,

Conjunxere tibi, et fatis egere volentem."

I said, p. 284, "If I had the authority of any books, I "should choose to transpose two half lines, and correct the place thus:

"Sed tua me virtus, tua terris didita fama, "Cognatique patres, et sancta oracula Divúm "Conjunxere tibi, et fatis egere volentem."

They who disapprove of the conjecture must acknowledge, that it is proposed with diffidence enough, and not obtruded upon Virgil or the readers.

I. The words "fatis egere," have a more particular reference to the words "sancta oracula Divûm,” than to the rest of what precedes,

("Auguriis agimur Divûm, iii. 5.

"Sed nos fata deûm vestras exquirere terras

"Imperiis egere suis, vii. 240.)"

And, therefore, it seems more proper that "sancta oracula

Divûm" should end the second line, as "fatis egere volentem" ends the third line.

II. In defence of "mea me virtus," it may be said that poetical heroes are given to bragging, that Aeneas boasts of himself upon other occasions, and that it is good sense, and a compliment to Evander: "the consciousness of my virtue en"courages me to seek your alliance, and persuades me that "I shall obtain it, because men of worth are naturally friends "to each other.”

Something may be said on the other hand. It may be said, that the places where Aeneas commends himself are not quite parallel to the one before us. He says to his son,

"Disce, puer, virtutem ex me;"

where it is more allowable. And he says to a lady whom he met in a wood, who proved to be his mother;

"Sum pius Aeneas-fama super aethera notus."

Addressing himself to an unknown lady, he thought it proper to recommend himself to her favour, by adding somewhat in his own praise. His calling himself "pius Aeneas," has been observed to be no boasting, but rather telling the name he went by. May we add, that if there be any indecorum here, it is owing to Homer's “ καὶ μεῦ κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει,” copied by Virgil? And may I venture to say, that Virgil follows Homer sometimes, where he might as well have let it alone? as Aen. X. 517. Of this let every one judge as he thinks fit.

It might also be said that Aeneas's business being "captare benevolentiam," the first thing to have been mentioned by him, among the motives that brought him to Evander, was the merit of that prince. He might have began so without lessening himself, and descending from his character: "mea virtus," in the first place, and " tua fama," in the last, has the appearance of an awkward "oтegov póragov," and "tua me virtus conjunxit tibi," seems to be a more decent compliment than “

mea.

"Tibi me virtus tua fecit amicum," says the man in Horace, who would insinuate himself into the favour of a rich old fellow. Horace, it may be said, is describing a flattering scoundrel. No matter for that; the flatterer pretends not to be one, and puts on the air of a man of importance.

Further. Every one that is acquainted with Virgil and Lucretius must needs know that Virgil is a great imitator of that excellent poet. He might possibly have had in his mind this verse of Lucretius,

"Sed tua me virtus tamen, and sperata voluptas"But this I lay no great stress upon.

The repetition" tua

tua," is Virgilian: Aen. VI. 695.

"tua me, genitor, tua tristis imago,

Saepius occurrens, haec limina tendere adegit."

III. But, say some, it is enough to prove this conjecture to be wrong, that both Servius and the MSS. are against it. -Why so, Gentlemen? Do you not know learned men are of opinion, that Virgil's text is corrupted in some places, even where Servius and all the MSS. conspire to defend it? It is not impossible that Virgil's own copy of this unfinished poem might be interlined in some places, that some half lines might be out of place, and that they who published it might give it, in some passages, otherwise than Virgil designed it. Thus much is fact, that before the time of Servius, there were various readings in Virgil, and doubts concerning the true text. We learn from Servius and A. Gellius, that even in that finished work of Virgil, the Georgics, II. 247, some read 66 amaro," and others "amaror." But I have not summed all the evidence on both sides. A Gentleman says, that when I disjoined

"mea me virtus, et sancta oracula Divûm,"

up

and transposed the two half lines, I had forgot the two passages produced by myself, where "dii" and "mens sibi conscia recti" occur jointly, " dii" and "mores."

pulcherrima primum

"Dii moresque dabunt vestri."

I have an answer for this objection, that will fit it to a hair, which is, that my transposition

"tua me virtus, tua terris didita fama,"

is confirmed by Virgil himself, who sings thus,

"sed FAMAM extendere factis

“ Hoc virtutis opus”

where, luckily for me, "virtus" and "fama" are neighbours. After all, I look upon the conjecture which I have been reviewing, as a very uncertain one; or, to speak of it in the humblest manner, as only a little more plausible than this objection to it.