will suit as well the reading which I propose, as that which the Editors follow: or rather it seems to favour mine. AEN. IV. 256. “Haud aliter terras inter caelumque volabat; The learned have generally thought this place corrupted; for what is "secare litus?" Dr. Bentley therefore proposes that we should read, "Litus arenosum Libyae ventosque legabat," because Virgil in another place says, But then what is "legere ventos?" It is observable that the Paris, the Medicean, and some other MSS., place the third verse before the second; “Haud aliter terras inter caelumque volabat, "Litus arenosum Libyae, ventosque secabat." According to this order of the verses, the word "litus” may be the accusative case, governed of "veniens," though the preposition "ad" be not expressed, as Aen. I. 2.-"Lavinaque venit Litora." II. 742.-"Sedemque sacratam Venimus." But without changing the order of the verses, this passage may be set to rights; for Pierius testifies that in the greatest part of the MSS. he found "Litus arenosum ac Libyae," and in some "et" instead of "ac:" but the Trin. MSS. has "Litus arenosum ad Libyae;" and this perhaps is the true reading; for it is not unusual with this author to throw the preposition out of its natural place, as in Aen. III. 58. "Delectos populi ad proceres." And in Georg. II. 506. "Sarrano in dormiat ostro." Communicated from (R.) AEN. IV. 256. "Haud aliter terras," &c. In the former remarks upon this passage, I find that I trusted too much to my memory, and thereby did a great injustice to Dr. Bentley's correction. In his learned notes upon Horace, Carm. I. xxxiv. 5. he proposed to correct this place of Virgil, thus: "Haud aliter, terras inter coelumque, legebat "Litus arenosum Libyae, ventosque secabat, &c." The conjecture is a very ingenious one, and well supported; it wants nothing but the authority of MSS. or old Commentators to ensure it. But after a review of his and my own attempts to amend this passage, I am almost inclined to think that the common reading may be justified, and that "volabat litus Libyae" may stand for, "Volabat ad litus Libyae," by an ellipsis of the praeposition; for when the verb expresses motion, the substantive, which signifies the place to which that motion is directed, is frequently put in the accusative case, without a praeposition; thus we read in Virgil, in addition to the instances before given, "devenere locos," "haec limina tendere adegit," "fines venturum Ausonios," "Libycas averteret oras." Now I am upon Virgil again, I would offer one more emendation of that author. GEORG. I. 360. “Jam sibi tam curvis male temperat unda carinis." In the Roman MS. Pierius found "Jam sibi tum A curvis," &c. And he says that Servius seems to acknowledge this reading: but Servius's copy rather ran thus: “Jam sibi tum ET curvis male temperat unda carinis." For his comment is this; "Sibi non pascit, sed crescit in perniciem suam (nam in carinam scindenda consurgit.) Et navigantium perniciem. Temperat autem absolute posuit: nam certe subauditur, male temperat seipsam sibi." The common reading is not Latin, I think, and according to Servius's comment, A can have no place here, but a copulative is necessary between "sibi" and "carinis." R. Communicated. An alteration of the following passage of Virgil has already been mentioned: "Invidia infelix furias, amnemque severum 6 Immanemque rotam, et non exsuperabile saxum.” X Now because no mythologer, poet, or scholiast, or other writer, mentioned snakes as part of Ixion's punishment, but only a moving wheel; the author made no doubt but "orbes" ought to be restored from the Roman codex, as preferable to "angues." "tortosq: Ixionis orbes, "Immanemque rotam." To this some objections have been made, which I now propose to consider. 66 "It is a rule," saith the Gentleman, "when MSS. differ, to prefer a recondite and less usual reading to a more obvious And this rule must then be allowed very good, when "a large number of MSS. are on the side of the former, against "one and no more." ❝ one. 66 I answer, that to lay this restraint upon the rule is to beg the question. For the point to be made out by him is, that 50 MSS. are always, or generally, at least in the case before us, better than one; which he attempts, by laying down a rule that "supposes" them to be so; and by this engine or critical mill destroys at once the finest emendations that ever were made. The incomparable Gronovius, in his notes on Seneca's tragedies, prefers the reading of one codex to forty, almost every where; and for unanswerable reasons. The present texts of Tertullian, Sallust, Herodotus, Florus, and Plautus, depend chiefly on single MSS. We don't find the restorers of these books telling noses while they introduce new readings; they all say, "est turba semper argumentum pessimi." The truth is, a great many particulars are to be considered in things of this nature, besides antiquity and number, which need not here be mentioned. I make, therefore, no scruple of setting aside a Canon which never was admitted, which was made only to serve a turn, and tends to make this branch of learning altogether mechanical. But Well: The Gentleman alleges Virgil here intended two "distinct" punishments, or two distinct "parts" of the same torture; and that this appears from the "shortness" of the narration. this again unfortunately is the question. We want to know whether the Poet intended to express "one" punishment, or more; and it lies on the Gentleman to prove the latter. it appears from the "shortness" of the narration. I should rather imagine, that in so short a narration Virgil should mention but "one" torment, though there had been "really two." Besides, in a much "shorter" passage he expresses a "single" punishment in just as many words: "Atq: Ixionii vento rota constitit orbis.” And it will appear, by the authorities hereafter to be produced, that no writer whatever speaks either of two punish ments of Ixion, or of two parts of the same punishment, "Servius" only excepted; who, in all probability, has been here interpolated, and corrected by the greater number of MSS. Besides, supposing snakes used for cords and binding a criminal to the wheel; (which is utterly unsupported by Mythology and poetical language) yet what writers, before this said Gentleman and partners, were ever yet so weak as to make them "parts" of the punishment? He proceeds, though "orbis" be "volutus," and "rota" the "machina" itself, yet making use but of one and the same punishment, and the hendiadis and tautology nevertheless subsisting, we cannot in so short a narration admit them both." 66 Here I remark, in the first place, that he does not so much as spell his pretended figure right, which ought to be written hendiadys," or rather ev dia duo, ev dia duniv. Nor secondly, δύο, δυοῖν. which is much worse, does he understand the nature of it; but perpetually confounds it with what is certainly no figure at all, "tautology:" whereas every schoolboy knows, that in this form of speech, used often by Orators and Historians, as well as Poets, two substantives are only put instead of a substantive and an adjective, as "pateris" and "auro" for "pateris aureis." In the place then before us, there is nothing either like " "paraphrase" or " tautology." And to call them the same as the Gentleman does, is contrary to all rhetoric. This cuts the very sinews of his objection, and therefore I dismiss it. Again he urges, "The gentleman might spare the pomp of "sixteen testimonies (and yet he very formally adds a seven"teenth) to prove what every one would have granted him,— "that Ixion was fastened to a wheel, which was perpetually in "motion." I reply: The author of the emendation had two distinct views in producing so many vouchers. The first was to shew that "snakes" were "never" mentioned in Ixion's punishment. The second was to make it highly probable that as Virgil followed the Greek Poets, so the Latin Poets imitated him in this very passage. Foreseeing this stale and trifling objection, he suppressed (for which he was to blame) a great part of his evidence, which shall now be added. Soph. Philoct. 697. Λόγῳ μὲν ἐξήκουσ', ὄπωπα δ ̓ οὐ μάλα Τὸν πελάταν λέκτρων Πότε τοῦ Διὸς, Ιξίονα ΚΑΤ' ΑΜΠ ΚΑ 8 Ἔλαβ ̓ ὁ παγκρατὴς Κρόνο. Eurip. Herc. Fur. 1297. καὶ τὸν ΑΡΜΑΤΗΛΑΤΗΝ Ιξίον ἐν ΔΕΣΜΟΙΣΙΝ ἐκμιμήσομαι. 1 66 And in " Plutarch” de audiendis poetis, Ωσπερ ὁ Ευριπίδης εἰπεῖν λέγεται πρὸς τοὺς τὸν Ιξίονα λοιδορέντας ὡς ασεβῆ καὶ μιαςὸν, οὐ μέντοι πρότερον αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Σκηνῆς ἐξήγαγον ἢ τῷ τροχῷ προσηλῶσαι, quam rotae adfigerem." Every body knows that Virgil follows Pindar, Apollonius, Euripides, and Sophocles, frequently; and that none of the Latin Poets ever recede from known mythology; and therefore it is highly probable that Virgil left" orbes," and not "angues." It is also plain that Virgil was a text to the succeeding Poets, as the ancients were to him. They all make use of his figures, diction, and numbers, and I think some of them allude to the place in dispute. Propertius III. iii. 64. “Num rotɑ, num scopuli, num sitis inter aquas?" Ovidii Ibis 176. "Quiq: agitur rapidae vinctus ab orbe rotae." Met. IX. 123. "at orbes "Concubitus vetitos poterant inhibere paterni." They are the words of Hercules to Nessus, the son of Ixion. Seneca Herc. Fur. 750. Sisyphi numquid lapis "Gestandus humeris lubricus nostris venit? Med. 744. "Rota resistat membra torquens, tangat Ixion humum." And 1011: "Membra quis praebet rotae." "Membra quis teritur rota." MS. Flor. queritur. Heinsius reads : Herc. Oet. 945: "Merui manus praebere turbinibus tuis, 66 Again 1068: "Haesit non stabilis rota |
