Perhaps nearly all the learning that is necessary for the explanation of the text has been collected'; and future editors will do the best service by applying to the interpretation of the text the knowledge which their predecessors have transmitted.

Bentley often employed the method of interpretation to determine the true reading; and he thought that the reason of the case and the matter (ratio et res ipsa) were sometimes stronger than a hundred manuscripts, as he says in a note on C. iii. 27. In his note on v. 5 of this Ode, he maintains that 'rumpit,' for which there is evidence, is better than 'rumpat,' for which there is also evidence, whether more or less, I do not know. According to Ritter, the evidence is for 'rumpat.' This is just an instance which tries a man's power, if he will venture to give reasons, and I think that Bentley's argument is opposed by the ratio et res ipsa.' Bentley says that 'rumpat' is quite contrary to that which precedes (ducat, &c.), for it would be a lucky thing for the wicked to break off the journey which they had begun, a lucky thing to return home when they have discovered that they are setting out inauspiciously. The sense of the whole passage then, as he thinks, is this:-"Let certain evil omens accompany the wicked. A serpent also is wont to interrupt a journey which has been planned.” This is a very feeble addition to the first stanza; and if we take 'rumpit' as Bentley does, it means that a serpent interrupts any person's journey, whether he is bad or good. But the subsequent words, 'ego cui timebo,' are addressed to Galatea, and all that precedes ought to apply to the wicked; and Horace prays that bad luck may go with them, when they do go, and that a bad sign may break off a journey which they have planned; and this is the same as saying, may they not be able to go where they intend to go. There is no contradiction here. It is not so easy to decide on the other passage (v. 15), whether we should read 'vetet' or 'vetat.' Ritter has rumpat,' 'vetat :' Keller has 'rumpit,' 'vetet.' There is said to be only one

1 Horace contains many words which have a technical meaning: they are words of art. There is one which I intended to notice, but have omitted, the word forma' (Epp. i. 16. 4), which, in the language of the Agrimensores, is a plan of a piece of land, cut on bronze, and perhaps sometimes on other material.

6

MS. for 'vetat,' but if this is so, the preponderance of the evidence forvetet' ought not absolutely to decide in this passage. There are two objections to 'vetat:' one is the form Teque,' by which this line is connected with the preceding, which contains 'vivas;' and the other is the difficulty of being certain about the meaning of 'laevus,' which, as some critics suppose, signifies 'infaustus,' a meaning which is consistent either with 'vetet' or 'vetat.' If 'laevus' signifies auspicious,' then we have with 'vetat' this meaning, And thee neither the auspicious woodpecker nor the wandering crow forbids to go,' which is plainly not sense. I am not sure about the meaning of 'vaga,' but I think it has an inauspicious meaning. The passage is curious, and it might be discussed before a jury of competent men under the guidance of a judge, who would prevent the advocates from quarrelling and abusing one another, as critics do sometimes.

Mr. Macleane observes that he has not accepted a single conjecture made by Bentley. These conjectures, it is said, amount to several hundreds. As far as I know, very few of Bentley's conjectures are now accepted by any editor; and this is a strong condemnation of a man's judgment whose great learning is acknowledged. It seems as if Bentley made many of his conjectures first, and then tried to find out reasons for them. Those who know him only by his criticisms on Milton and his controversial writings, such as the Boyle Lecture and Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, may be curious to learn how he has handled a Latin poet in whom propriety of expression and good taste are conspicuous. If Bentley's Latin notes were translated into English, men who are not scholars, but have plain good sense, would find something of the same kind that they might have seen before in his English writings. It is true that the notes on Horace did not allow him quite so good an opportunity of venting his coarse wit and bad taste as his attack on the Discourse on Free-thinking by Antony Collins, the friend of John Locke; but he has done enough in his Horace to show his great defects, and young men should be warned against being deluded by a profuse display of learning, which is frequently used to support a perverse ingenuity. Bentley's powers of assertion were strong his

a

logical capacity was not; and he is as inferior to his opponent Collins in honesty and just reasoning as he is superior to Collins in learning, abuse, and misrepresentation'.

This work of correcting Horace and other writers still goes on, and will go on as long as there are printers to print. It is doubtful whether we are going backwards or forwards in the critical art, for some of the newest emendations are the worst. We have a proposal by Lachmann and Haupt (Keller) to write 'Thynus' for 'Poenus' in C. ii. 13, 14. I do not know what objection these critics made to Poenus' Bentley has let it pass unmolested. Thynus' was probably suggested by Thyna merce' (C. iii. 7. 3), and 'Bithyna' (C. i. 35. 7; Epp. i. 6. 33). Here the argument turns entirely on the propriety of the expression navita Bosporum Poenus:' the evidence is for the common reading. Horace continually uses proper names to give life and complexion to his poetry, and there are instances in which he uses them, as far as we can see, where other proper names would do as well if they had suited his verse. If the ‘navita' must have some life put into him by a name, I could not think of one better than Poenus, whether Horace used it in the larger or more limited sense; nor if the poet wished to put his 'navita' on the road to some great and distant seat of commerce, could he have chosen a more troublesome course for him than beating up the Bosporus against a strong current. What the 'navita Thynus' would be doing there I cannot tell, as the Thyni were not

2 There is an example of Bentley's perverse argumentation on Epod. xv. 15, where, after proposing and defending 'offensi' instead of 'offensae,' at the end of his note he says that 'offensae' may stand, if a man will interpret it as he does. His interpretation may certainly be accepted. In S. i. 9. 1, he inserts ut' after 'ibam,' because he does not like the expression 'ibam' alone, and he defends his 'ut' by quoting among other passages one from Terence, Phormio, iv. 3.12: 'Ut abii abs te, fit forte obviam mihi Phormio,' which is quite a different thing. In the same satire, v. 36, he puts 'vadatus,' a conjecture, in the place of 'vadato,' because, as he says, in this formula 'respondere ' is used absolutely, and he gives examples, of which there are plenty, but not one where the word 'vadari' occurs. Respondere vadato' would be as regular as 'respondere accusatori;' and Bentley can only bring the text to his supposed standard of uniformity by changing 'vadato' into 'vadatus,' and giving to 'vadatus' a passive signification, which it appears that it had in some writers before Horace, and some longg after his time. It has been suggested that 'vadato' is an ablative in a passive sense (Krüger), a suggestion in which there may be something; and it leaves the genui ine reading untouched.

a naval people; and the Poeni were.

The Bosporus' served Horace on this occasion, and is useful again when he speaks of soaring into the air in the form of a bird (C. ii. 20. 14) and visiting the roaring Bosporus.

When we have long been accustomed to a reading, it is very difficult to accept another, even if there is better evidence for it, and good reasons. Thus in C. ii. 20. 13, Keller has 'jam Daedaleo notior Icaro.' I hardly know whether 'ocior' or 'notior' is supported by the better evidence. Perhaps notior' is; and if we accept it, we escape the 'Daedaleo ocior.' Still partly from habit, and partly for other reasons, I am not yet reconciled to 'notior.' In C. iii. 4. 9, 'altricis extra limen Apuliae,' the question of 'Apuliae' is hotly debated. The word 'Apuliae' following 'Apulo' is not the kind of repetition which seems to me to be an argument against Apuliae;' nor is the argument derived from the quantity of the first two syllables in 'Apuliae' conclusive. It is a case in which critics may differ; but Apuliae' is now generally condemned. There is a note on this passage.

The boldest attempt at alteration that I know is in C. iii. 24. 4: "Tyrrhenum omne tuis et mare Apulicum,' where Keller has 'terrenum omne tuis et mare publicum,' and Ritter has "Tyrrhenum omne tuis et mare Ponticum.' Bentley has said nothing against the common reading. Terrenum' is Lachmann's. It is quite plain that Horace, according to his fashion, would use a proper name here, and the MSS. have 'Tyrrhenum' or some equivalent form. I think it is equally plain that the verse would end with some other proper and 'Ponticum' is supplied by some manuscripts. Others have 'pulicum,' 'publicum,' 'apulicum,' 'punicum.' Here is a case of real difficulty, but it is a most perverse selection to choose 'publicum,' when we plainly require the name of a sea contrasted with the Tyrrhenum.' If the difficulty about 'Apulicum' is insuperable, we must take Ponticum,' which being a proper name answers one demand of the text, but does not satisfy in other respects, for we want the name of a sea corresponding to Tyrrhenum' instead of being carried off to the Euxine.

name,

Habit accustoms us to things which at first seem strange. 'Mare

publicum' may become as familiar by constant repetition a publicum,' 'res publica,' or any other thing public; and as w 'jus privatum,' 'res privata,' and other things private, we s prepared to understand 'mare privatum' when we find it.

GEORGE LO

*

*The Index of Proper Names and the Index to the Note been verified. The Index to the Notes contains also ferences to the additions made to the Notes.