ページの画像
PDF
ePub

bus, quasi Romanæ gentis auctoribus, tributa in perpetuum remisit;" (Claudius, c. 25.) and that Tacitus meant merely to sneer at an act of gratitude, when he says, "Utque studiis honestis et eloquentiæ gloria nitesceret, causa Iliensium suscepta, Romanum Troja demissum, et Julie stirpis auctorem Æneam, ALIAQUE HAUD PROCUL FABULIS VETERA facunde exsecutus, perpetrat, ut Ilienses omni publico munere solverentur." (Annalium lib. xii. c. 58.) Though this is said of Nero, can we deny, that in the opinion of Tacitus, the landing of Æneas and the Trojan descent of the Romans were among the haud procul fabulis vetera?

That the next great point, the parentage of Romulus, belongs to this period, is shown by the words of Livy himself; for he adds ;-" Et, si cui populo licere oportet, consecrare origines suas, et ad Deos referre auctores, ea belli gloria est populo Romano, ut quum suum conditorisque sui parentem Martem potissimum ferat, tam et hoc gentes hu manæ patiantur æquo animo quam imperium patiantur." Even if Æneas and his Trojans are to find a place among the truths of Livy's history, the parentage of Romulus must be vouched for by the "belli gloria;" undoubtedly a very forcible and convincing evidence, but too much resembling the argumentum baculinum to be received as historical authority.

"Adeo nihil, præterquam seditionem fuisse, eamque compo sitam, inter antiquos rerum auctores constat," (1. vii. c. 42.) is one among many passages, that throw doubt on all details. Let us pass, however, from general reflections to a particular examination of the merits of those historians on whom Dionysius depended. The first is Porcius Cato, a most respectable and distinguished man both in politics and literature, but not a firstrate historian. He wrote De Originibus Italicarum Urbium. "Nec tamen titulum operis, ut ait Festus, implebat." « Vivit

The qualifying power of quasi is sometimes disregarded. Newton, called space, quasi sensorium numinis; but Leibnitz made no allowance for Newton's quasi. A Quarterly Reviewer, (No. liii. p. 42.) says, "N, in which Quintilian heard the tinkling of a lyre, while the M, at the end of many Latin words, displeased him, as the lowing of an ox.' Quintilian's words are, "Quid? quod pleraque nos illa quasi mugiente litera cludimus M, qua nullum Græce verbum cadit? At illi N, jucundam, et in fine præcipue, quasi tinnientem, illius loco ponunt, quæ est apud nos rarissima in clausulis." (Inst. Or. I. xii. c. 10.)

2 Turnebus's note to Cicero's mention of Porcius Cato. "Senex scribere historias instituit," says Cornelius Nepos, “ quarum sunt libri septem. Primus continet res gestas regum pop. Rom.; secundus et tertius,

immo vigetque eloquentia ejus sacrata scriptis omnis generis," says Livy; (1. xxxix. c. 40.) but I doubt that Livy made much use of Cato as an historian: "Cato ipse, haud sane detractator laudum suarum, multos casos ait; numerum non adscribit," lib. xxxiv. c. 15. is the only reference that I have stumbled on except the passage in which L. Valerius is made to quote the Origines, although, as it seems, they were not yet written. Fabius Maximus, seems to be little better than a straw.' Valerius of Antium2 was a sad liar in Livy's opinion. Licinius Macer, and his lintei libri,3 seem to have been of very

man of

unde quæque civitas orta sit Italica: ob quam rem omnes Origines videtur appellasse: in quarto autem bellum Punicum primum, in quinto secundum. Atque hæc omnia capitulatim sunt dicta. Reliqua bella pari modo persecutus est, usque ad præturam Ser. Galbæ, qui diripuit Lucanos; atque horum bellorum duces non nominavit, sed sine nominibus res notavit. In iisdem exposuit quæ in Italia Hispaniisque viderentur admiranda. In quibus multa industria et diligentia comparet, multa doctrina." Velleius Paterculus, however, gives little credit to Cato's account of Capua. 'Ego (pace diligentiæ Catonis dixerim) vix crediderim," &c.

1

66

My reasons for this assertion will be given in another Number.

2 "Audet tamen Antias Valerius concipere summas," (l. iii. c. 5.) is, if I mistake not, the remark with which Livy introduces this Valerius to our notice. In lib. xxv. c. 39. we find "Valerius Antias una castra Magonis capta tradit, septem millia cæsa hostium; altero prælio eruptione pugnatum cum Hasdrubale; decem millia occisa, quatuor millia trecentos triginta captos." In lib. xxvi. c. 49. "Adco nullus mentiendi modus" is the remark on another statement of his. "Quid si Antiati Valerio credamus, sexaginta millia militum fuisse in regio exercitu scribenti, quadraginta inde millia cecidisse, supra quinque millia capta, cum signis militaribus ducentis triginta?" occurs in lib. xxxvi. c. 19. after the mention of the defeat of Antiochus, and the modest account of Polybius. "In augendo eo non alius intemperantior est," lib. xxxvi. c. 38.Adjicit Antias Valerius Pythagoricos" (Livy is speaking of the books of Numa)" fuisse, vulgatæ opinioni, qua creditur, Pythagora auditorem fuisse Numam, mendacio probabili adcommodata fide," lib. xl. c. 29. "Plurium annales et quibus credidisse malis," (than to Valerius Antias) lib. xlii. c. 11. "Si Valerio Antiati credas," lib. xliv. c. 13. "Valerius Antias quinque millia hostium cæsa ait; quæ tanta res est, ut aut impudenter ficta sit, aut negligenter prætermissa," lib. xxx. c. 19. "Ceteri Græci Latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego legi annales, nihil memorabile a Villio actum, integrumque bellum insequentem consulem T. Quinctium accepisse tradunt,” lib. xxxii. c. 6.-Livy's remark on Valerius's magnificent account of Villius. "Si Antiati Valerio credere libet," (lib. xxxix. c. 41.) will warrant my assertion, and account for Cicero's not mentioning this historian, though Valerius wrote at least 75 books of Roman history. See Gellius, lib. vii. ix. where the 45th, 12th, and 75th, are quoted.

3 Livy refers to the lintei libri for the events of about ten years, and

[ocr errors]

limited use, even if he and his lintei libri are to be depended on ; but Livy's expressions,-" Sed inter cetera vetustate incomperta hoc quoque in incerto positum ;" (lib. iv. c. 23.) Quæsita ea propriæ familiæ laus leviorem auctorem Licinium faciunt;" (lib. vii. c. 9.)added to Cicero's character of Licinius,'--will not make us trust to such writers as Licinius or Valerius for that truth ἧς ἱερὰν εἶναι τὴν ἱστορίαν βουλόμεθα, nor will the manner in which the lintei libri are mentioned by Livy, induce us to put much faith in their genuineness.

Ælius Tubero is twice coupled with Licinius Macer by Livy; but I question whether Livy refers to any other Ælius, or to any Gellius whatsoever in such parts of his history as we possess. L. Calpurnius Piso is mentioned by Cicero as leaving" orationes quæ jam evanuerunt, et annales sane exiliter scriptos." (Brutus, c. 27.) Livy also mentions him, as deserving less credit than Fabius in his estimate of the Pometinæ ma→ nubia, which Tarquin set apart for the building of the Capitol, and which "vix in fundamenta suppeditavere." "Eo magis,' adds he, (lib. i. c. 55.) "Fabio, præterquam quod antiquior est, crediderim, quadraginta ea sola talenta fuisse, quam Pisoni, qui quadraginta millia pondo argenti seposita in eam rem scribit; summam pecuniæ neque ex unius tum urbis præda sperandam, et nullius, ne horum quidem magnificentiæ operum, fundamenta non exsuperaturam.'

[ocr errors]

"

We will next consider what Dionysius himself says of his historians.

even for this small space of time he refers not so much to the books themselves, as to Licinius Macer, and what Licinius Macer said he found in them. “Mirum videtur," says Crevier, (the Oxford reprint of whose cdition is the one that I have used,)—" Mirum videtur quonam modo Livius paulo ante scribere potuerit horum consulum nomina in magistratuum libris non inveniri, quæ in linteis libris extare non negat. Sed nimirum libros linteos non inspexerat Livius," &c. See the note on "Licinius Macer auctor est," &c. lib. iv. c. 7. As to the age, condition, &c. of these books, I question if Livy says any thing.

"Nam quid Macrum numerem?" &c. Macrum for Atium, or Acrum, is the conjecture of Car. Sigonius, "eamque conjecturam suis calculis dudum probarunt eruditi." So that, at any rate, the "cujus loquacitas habet aliquid argutiarum; nec id tamen ex illa erudita Græcorum copia, sed ex librariolis Latinis: in orationibus autem multus et ineptus, ad summam impudentiam,"--were thought to suit Licinius Macer.

IN the Catalogue of Books subjoined to Sir William Jones's Persian Grammar, (at least to the third edition printed in 1783, p. 140.) we find mentioned among the works of Jámi,

66

ابسال

[ocr errors]

I whole as Selman and Absal, a tale." I have lately enjoyed an opportunity of examining two valuable copies of Jami's poems, manuscripts equally correct in the handwriting as beautiful in the embellishments, which were executed by native Persian artists; and in these copies the name, aboveprinted, (as a word of two syllables) Selman, appears invariably and unequivocally Selámán (w) with three syllables. I am aware that Selman is a name well known among Asiatics thus Selmán entitled Fársí (or the Persian), celebrated as an early convert from the adoration of fire to the religion of Mohammed, with whom he was contemporary, and Selmán denominated Saveji, (from his birth-place Saveh or Sawah) an eminent poet, with many others. But that in Jami's poem the name is properly Selámán, seems evident not only from the title of the work, and the heads of several chapters, but from the metre; as in the following line,

and in a verse subsequent by many pages:

از اسمان آمد سلامان نام او

چون سلامان از غم ابسال رست

It may here also be remarked, that under the head of

ملمعات

S (terms implying a collection of all the works composed by Sadi) Sir Wm. Jones (p. 139.) enumerates only three, the Gulistán, Bústán, and Mulummaat," or the rays of light. "The first two," adds he, "of these excellent books are very common, but I have not seen the last."-Now the Kuliát or collection of all Sadi's works in prose and verse, contains twenty-two distinct compositions, among which, according to the edition printed at Calcutta, (Introd. p. xxvi.) the Moolummaat is described as Compounds, viz. of Arabic and Persian :" and these, in a fine MS. copy of Sadi's Kuliát, now before me, occupy but six octavo pages. Sir Wm. Jones (p. 143.) mentions "a miscellaneous work on moral subjects in prose and verse," entitled "Negaristán, the Gallery of Pictures, by Jouini." Three works of the same description, and bearing the same title, but by different authors, are enumerated in a cata

66

logue (which I have lately seen) of the Oriental MSS. brought from Persia and Turkey by Sir Wm. Ouseley; one is the Negaristan of Cazi Ahmed al Ghafári, another composed by Ali Ben Teifur of Bastám in Khorasan, and the third, although writ ten in the Persian language, is by a Turkish author, Ahmed ben Kemal Pasha. Among the errata should certainly have been noticed the name of a celebrated poet, which is printed (in p. 140.) Anvári, and in Persian characters: whereas it should have been without the second alif, and might be expressed in our characters Anveri. In p. 140. also, we find the name expressed by "Khosru," and the same name (in p. 141.) by "Cosru." But Sir Wm. Jones, after he had conversed with native Persians in the East, wrote this name (in our letters) Khosrau, as appears from his Discourses in the Asiatic Researches. I shall here observe that bark, a leaf, (p. 4.) should be, according to the Persian pronunciation, barg; that the two letters bd () form a word in sense and sound exactly like our bad, although in India "pronounced like our bud" (p. 11.). Peché, an infant, (p. 23.) should have been Bacheh, (*) and Khezzár (p. 8.) does not properly represent the original letters which might perhaps be better expressed by Khizr or Khezer. But it is probable that in the editions of this Grammar, subsequent to that which alone I have seen (the third), some of the ingenious editors may be found to have anticipated my remarks and corrections. I shall therefore omit the notice of a few other trifling errors, for "ùbi plurima nitent," &c. It is a much more pleasing task to give my evidence in favor of that grammar which, by the elegance of its style, and the admirable selection of passages quoted in illustration of its excellent rules, first induced me to undertake the study of Eastern literature, without any motive besides mere amusement and the very copy which I possess of this fascinating work, has not only afforded much gratification to several ladies who frequently perused it for the sake of its quotations, but actually rendered two of them zealous Orientalists. I am doubtful whether such a result has ever arisen from the perusal of those voluminous and ponderous grammars which followed Sir Wm. Jones's, but which have not, like his, succeeded in combining the utile with the dulce. It must, however, be acknowleged that in many respects, where the more light and pleasing work is not sufficiently minute (particularly on the

« 前へ次へ »