صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

of Ovid, (tu comes antiquus, tu primis junctus ab annis, Ex Ponto, II, 5, 43,) and Valer. Flaccus, I. 22, (Haemoniam primis Pelias frenabat ab annis,) but of Virgil himself against it, (primis et te miretur ab annis. En. VIII. 517.) 2dly, Because it deprives Sinon's story of its chief pathos; a pathos so necessary to the attainment of his primary object, that of exciting such pity in the breasts of the Trojans as would induce them to spare his life, and, therefore, so necessary to the success of his plot. 3dly, Because it takes away from Sinon his best excuse to the Trojans for having taken up arms against them, viz., that he had done so in pursuance of a child's duty of obedience to his parent. 4thly, Because Sinon's informing the Trojans that he had been at the war from the beginning, could serve no other purpose than that of exasperating them the more against him. How then is the difficulty to be got rid of ? I answer, simply by referring gnatos, not to Sinon, but to parentem, and by translating the passage, not my children and my parent, but the children and the parent, meaning Sinon's brothers and sisters, and his and their parent. All difficulty is thus removed, and Virgil's consistency vindicated. There is a precisely similar use of gnatum, En. Iv. 605, where gmatumque patremque does not mean my son and my father, but the son and the father, h. e. the son and his father. So also, IEn. VI. 116, gnatioue patrisque; the son and the father, the son being the speaker himself. Also, En. VIII. 808, rex . . . . . Eneam . . . . . gnatumque tenebat—The King kept Eneas and the son, meaning, not his own son, but Eneas's son. See also, Bn. II. 663. Numerous other instances also might be adduced, in which gnatus is thus referred, not to the speaker, but to its correlative parens, or pater, or mater, expressed. I am aware that it has, on a similar occasion, been suggested by Forbiger, (note to v. 178,) “Virgilium hanc fictam Sinonis narrationem consulto ita composuisse, ut homo iste sibi ipse contradiceret, aut ambigua et obscura proferret;” but this is a suggestion from which I must wholly dissent, because it is evident that, in proportion as Virgil made the story obscure, or inconsistent with itself, it was the less likely to obtain credence with the Trojans; to which if it be replied, that Virgil, as Poeta, had it in his power to represent the Trojans as crediting whatever story he thought proper, I answer, that to represent the Trojans so void of acumen as to credit an unlikely, ambiguous, and, above all, a contradictory story, is to diminish our respect for, and sympathy with, not only the Trojans, but Eneas himself, and thus to contradict the whole scope and design of the poem. And further, I think that the more carefully the story is examined, the more evident does it appear, that Virgil has taken the greatest and most successful pains to fabricate a story for Sinon, which is so consistent with itself, and so extremely like the truth, that it was hardly possible for the Trojans not to be deceived by it. With the strictest observance of the well-known fact, that a scene (whether of things or persons,) from which we have been long absent, presents itself to our minds exactly as we were accustomed to see it, and not as it exists now, changed by the time which has since elapsed, Virgil represents the picture present in Sinon's mind, to be that of the children, children as he left them so many years ago, and not that of the children now grown up to be adults. As a further argument in favour of the above interpretation, I may observe, that it relieves the passage from the manifest awkwardness of the non-mention of Sinon's wife, or of his ever having been married. In the parallel passage, quoted by Ursini (Virg. collat. cum Græcis scriptoribus,) from Lucretius, in which gnati has the meaning attempted to be fixed on it in the passage before us, there is no such awkwardness, mention being made of the wife along with the children— “Nam jam non domus accipiet te lata, neque uxor Optima, nec dulces occurrent oscula gnati Praeripere, et tacitā pectus dulcedine tangent.” Lucr. III. 907. W. 149. Mihique hatc edissere.—Que connects edissere, not to its unlike, eris ; but to its like, obliviscere. The semicolon, therefore, which the editors have placed at Graios, should have been placed at eris ; and the comma which they have placed at eris, should have been at Graios. W. 155. Vos arae ensesque nefandi.-“Neque ullis adpetitus insidiis est, neque devotus hostiae; denique sic de omnibus jurat, ut, per ea quae non fuerunt dans sacramentum, careat, objurgatore.”—Antiq. Interpr. See the similarly equivocating oath of Andromache; Seneca, Troad. 604. V. 157. Fas mihi.-The subsequent teneor points out the structure; fas est, not fas sit; i. e. Testor fas mihi esse . . . . . et me teneri. V. 169. Fluere ac retro sublapsa referri.-“Fluere; diffluere, dilabi ; retro sublapsa referri ; pro prosaico, retro ferri, labi ; de mole quae in altum erat invecta.”—Heyne. Both explanations ‘wrong, because no example has been, nor I think can be, produced of fluere used in the sense of diffluere, dilabi; or otherwise than as signifying to flow like the water in a river; and because retro sublapsa referri, where it occurs before, (Georg. I. 200,) is thus explained by Heyne himself: “Non aliter quam is retro sublapsus refertur qui navigium agit atque illum in praeceps prono rapitalveus amni;” an explanation which, even although it had not been, almost totidem verbis, Virgil's own, would have been established beyond the possibility of doubt by the nearly parallel passage of Lucretius, IV. 422.

“Denique ubi in medio nobis equus acer obhaesit
Flumine, et in rapidas amnis despeximus undas,
Stantis equi corpus transvorsum ferre videtur
Wis, et in advorsum flumen contrudere raptim;
Et quocunque oculos trajecimus omnia ferri
Et fluere adsimili nobis ratione videntur.”

V. 199. Hic aliud, &c.—This prodigy is not merely ominous, but typical, of the destruction about to come upon Troy. The twin serpents prefigure the Grecian armament; which, like them, comes from Tenedos, (where, as must not be forgotten, it is lying concealed at the very moment of the prodigy); like them, crosses the tranquil deep; like them, lands; and, going up straight (probably over the very same ground,) to the city, slaughters the surprised and unresisting Trojans, (prefigured by Laocoon's sons,) and overturns the religion and drives out the Gods (prefigured by the priest Laocoon.) Even in the most minute particulars the type is perfect: the serpents come abreast towards the shore, like ships sailing together; (Argiva phalana: instructis navibus ibat......... Littora.........petens; ) with flaming eyes raised above the waves, by the whole length of the neck and breast, (flammas quum regia puppis Eatulerat; ) and with the hinder part floating and curling along on the surface of the water (the hinder vessels of the fleet following the lead of the foremost ; ) and, when their work is done, (the Trojans slaughtered, or, with their Gods, driven out of the city, ) take possession of the citadel, under the protection of Pallas (Jam summas arces Tritonia, respice, Pallas Insedit, &c.) W. 204. Horresco referens.—This interjection is not placed indifferently any where in the middle of the sentence, but in its most natural and effective position, after the words gemini a Tenedo tranquilla per alta, excitatory of expectation; and immediately before immensis orbibus angues, expressive of the actual horrid object. The weaker effect which it would have had, if placed at a greater distance before immensis orbibus angues, is shown by Dryden’s translation—

“When, dreadful to behold, from sea we spied
Two serpents, ranked abreast, the seas divide.”

And the still weaker, which it would have had, if placed after,
by Surrey's—
“From Tenedon behold in circles great
By the calm seas come fleeting, adders twain;

Which plied towards the shore (I loathe to tell)
With reared breast lift up above the seas.”

W. 206. Pectora quorum, &c.

“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,
With head uplift above the wave, and eyes
That sparkling blazed; his other parts besides
Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
Lay floating many a rood,” &c.—Par. Lost, I. 192.

W. 209. Fit Sonitus spumante Salo.—The translators, who represent the sound made by the foaming of the brine to have been loud, err doubly; 1st, in not understanding that sonitus, without an adjunct expressive of loudness, is not a lowd sound, but simply a sound, (see II. 732; Georg. Iv. 79; &c.); and 2dly, in not perceiving that propriety of description requires that the sound of foam should not be represented as loud. Dryden, as usual, errs most—

“Their speckled tails advance to steer their course,
And on the sounding shore the flying billows force."

I know but one translated passage, (not Dryden's own,) which can at all vie with this in incorrectness; it is where Pope, instead of describing Jupiter as seizing Ate by the shining-curled head, in order to fling her from heaven, describes him as snatching her from the top of his own head—

“From his ambrosial head, where perched she sate,
He snatched the Fury-Goddess of debate.”
PoPE's Iliad, xix. 125.

W. 209.” Arva, There is no occasion to suppose, with Heyne, that arva is used “pro littore,” because, interpreted literally, it affords a better meaning, viz., the fields, or cultivated plain inside the beach, where it is probable the solennis ara stood, at such a distance from the actual shore as to be in no danger from the violence of the sea during stormy weather. Compare Pelago premit arva sonanti, En. I. 246, and comment. W. 213--216. Primum . . . . Post.—There is a most material discrepancy between the account given by Virgil, and the view presented by the sculptor, of the death of Laocoon and his two sons. According to the former, the serpents first (primum) kill the two sons, and afterwards (post) seize (corripiunt) the father, subeuntem ac tela ferentem, and kill him also; while, according to the latter, the serpents are twined about and kill the father and the two sons simultaneously. Virgil's is the more natural and probable account, because it was more easy for the serpents to conquer Laocoon's powerful strength, (see II. 50,) with the whole of their united force and folds, than with such part only of their force and folds as was not employed upon the sons. There is even some difficulty in understanding (nor does an examination of the sculpture tend much to diminish the difficulty,) how two serpents, already twined about, and encumbered with the bodies of two persons, even although those bodies were small (parva), could seize, and squeeze to death, a third person, possessed of more than ordinary strength, and armed. The sculptor, if he had had the choice, would doubtless, no less than the poet, have represented the killing of Laocoon to have been subsequent to the killing of the sons; but his art failed him; sculpture could not represent successive acts; the chisel could fix no more than a single instant of fleeting time: driven, therefore, by necessity, he places the three persons simultaneously in the folds of the serpents, and his (so much admired) group becomes, in consequence, complicated and almost incomprehensible, and appears in the most disadvantageous contrast with the simple and natural narrative of Virgil. Such is the infinite inferiority of sculpture (and of painting) to poetry. The sculptor (or painter) labours day and night,

« السابقةمتابعة »