Page images
PDF
EPUB

“ qui Gottschedium Magistrum colat et commendat. Deleamne igitur, quæ modo scripsi ? non faciam.

Utinam potius “ de alta turri concionari, atque, ut omnes, qui ubique sunt, “ audirent, clamare liceret : Gottschedius laudatus est : am

plissimus laudatus est professor Lipsiensis : Plaudite ! “ De Commentario ab Editore addito non opus est, ut multa “ dicam.

Quid enim examinem notas, quæ ad modun Minel“ lii concinnatæ sunt? Nam, licet hæc verba non in fronte

gerat liber, auctorem tamen illustre illud exemplum secutum esse, cuique patebit; quare

verbum non amplius addam.” Klotzii, Acta Litt. t. ii.

p.

162-7. AUREL. 8vo. 1767. Cum Schol. Bondii.

“ Cette édition qui est en très-beaux caractères et sur de “ beau papier, mérite d'être recherchée. D'ailleurs elle est

une copie fidèle de celle de Jean Bond.” Journ. des Sçavans, Mars, 1767, p. 181. Paris. 8vo. 1770. Valarti.

This edition is very little esteemed : the editor states that it is formed on a collation of seventy-six MSS. : but it is pretty certain that he never consulted a single one : the text is taken chiefly from Sanadon's edition, with a selection of the notes of Bentley and Cunningham. See Harles, Introd. Lit. Rom. v. ii. p. 391 ; Mitscherlich, p. li.; and Dibdin's Introd. v. i.

p. 423.

Paris. 8vo. 1777. De Sivry.

This edition is held in very little estimation, and is not much sought after. De Sivry has displayed too much fondness for editorial dissection, by dividing several of the Odes into two or more parts, and by adopting new readings; he has also detracted from his own merits as an editor by some very frivolous arguments which he has written to exonerate the poet from any imputation of a want of delicacy. It was very severely reviewed in the Bibl. Philol. Lips. t. i. p:

198—217; and Jani, Prolegg. p. xli. which see. Consult also Harles, Introd. Lit. Rom. t. ii. p. 392 ; and Dibdin's Introd. v. i. p. 423-4. Lips. 8vo. 1778. (Odarum lib. iv.) Jani. 2 vols. £1.

“ Multa exempla scripta editaque collegit contulitque cl. “ Jani, vulgatam quidem recensionem posuit instar fundamenti: " contextum tamen ad MSStorum auctoritatem et artis criticae “ leges sobria verecundaque ratione constituit, varietate lec“ tionis ab exegeticis observationibus secreta, et poëtam tam “ grammatice quam cum sensu iudicioque pulcri, interdum vel

“ justo uberius vel parcius, explicuit. Denique in prolego“ menis de codicibus et editionibus poematum, de vita, ingenio, “ poesi, moribusque vatis etc. pulcre docteque egit. Neque “ tamen pauca reliquit futuris interpretibus explicanda, et emen“ danda, praecipue cum fontibus, ex quibus Horatius tantum “ non hausit omnia, componenda. Acerbius tamen duriusque “ est iudicium, quod quidam vir doctus et criticis sacris initi

atus, (Wagnerum dici, rumor est,) tulit in Biblioth. Critica “ Amstel

. part iv. p. 84 sqq.” Harles, Introd. in Not. Lit. Rom. t. ii. p. 393. This Bibliographer further observes “ Præ“ clara est, et ob sobriam lectionis deligendæ rationem et ob “ interpretationem, at nondum absoluta : Hor. Opp. recensuit “ varietate lectionis et perpetua adnotatione illustravit.” Harles, Brev. Not. Lit. Rom. p. 268. “ Speraveramus

Heynium, V. cl., absoluta Virgilii ac Tibulli editione, “ similem operam navaturum esse Horatio. Nunc dole“ mus hanc ab eo provinciam in Janum esse translatam, « in

quo voluntatem quidem et studium, non vero facul“ tatem, imitandae rationis Heynianæ inesse videmus.Quid “ sibi proposuerit hac editione Janus, audiamus ipsum nar“ rantem : -videbam deesse adhuc editionem, qua Horatius “ non solum perpetuo commentario optimisque interpreta« tionibus collectis illustratus, sed etiam cum spiritu ac sensu “poëtico, plenaque sermonis Latini poetici, in primis lyrici, cog“ nitione esset expositus; quae doceret adolescentem cum

sensu pulchri legere nobilissimum poëtam, atque in quovis “ carmine non tantum intelligere singula, sed etiam totum et

singularum partium ad illud rationem recte tutoque (quid “ tuto ? an veluti hostem ex specula?') contueri, quae omnium, “ qui a primariis Horatii editoribus collati essent, codicum varietatem, praecipuasque virorum doctorum emendationes et “ conjecturas, plenius et accuratius exhiberet ac percenseret;

denique qua textus Horatianus quam et exactissimo et mo“ destissimo inprimis judicio fieri posset, constitutus ederetur. “ Ad talem igitur editionem praestandam ut adspirarem ne

cesse esse videbam, si Horatium edere vellem.' Huic rationi “ si opus, non dicam omnino, at ex parte aliqua responderet, “ esset quod ei gratias haberemus. Nunc contra accidit. In quo, quanta conscientiae vis esset, ipse ostendit. Nam p. 1,

spem se tenuisse,' ait, ' ut indulgentia virorum doctorum “ saltem probaret studium, si ingenium rectumque judicium de" siderasset.' Deinde p. 8, nobis declarat, se magnum “ subinde timorem incessisse, ne nihil forte eorum omnium “ recte praestiterit.' Et aliis etiam locis tenuitatem ingenii “ doctrinaeque ingenue fatetur. Sed modestiam, dicat aliquis, “ editoris non nosti; non ex apimi sui sententia locutus est. “ Atqui Janum remoto joco esse locutum, ex iis, quæ ad me

[ocr errors]

6

“ dium proferemus, adparebit. Praefationi proximus est Elenchus codicum scriptorum ad quos adhuc Horatius re“ censitus est: cui subjicitur commemoratio quorundam codi

cum pondum collatorum. Sequitur Elenchus Editionum : “ Horatii vita a Suetonio conscripta : Eiusdem vita ab ipso “ Jano ad Coss. annos digesta : tum disputatiunculae quatuor, “ de moribus Horatii, de poësi Lyrica, inprimis Horatiana, “ de amicis Horatii, et de scriptis ejus. Atque haec quidem “ praeludia, sine praefatione, paginas implent sedecim supra “ centum. Sunt in iis multa utilia tironibus, haud pauca tamen “ ex quibus adparet, Janum nullam dum judicandi maturitatem “ consecutum esse.—Codicum aliquot scriptorum, quibus antea “ nemo usus erat, excerpta habuit Janus : Dessaviensium duo

rum: Menteliani e Saec xi. : quatuor Lipsiensium : duorum “ Altorfinorum : Franequerani, et Helmstadiensis.-At, si in “ critica parte non magni fuit Jani opera, forte in explicando “ interpretandoque poëta, cum laude versatus est? Quantum hac in re præstiterit, age, videamus. Omnia fere referuntur “ ad explicandam vim pulchritudinemque poëticam : quod qui“ dem, si certa ratione modoque fit, in primis utile est legenti“ bus et jucundum. At vero Janus quid egit? Nimirum ple“rumque exclamat, Docte! Exquisite! Pulchre ! Splendide! Magnifice! Omnino ita in animum videtur induxisse suum,

se optimum interpretum Horatii fore, si omnem rationem 66 exueret et fureret. Poëtarum interpres ne sit nobis frigidus

plumbeusque, qui spiritu sensuque poëtæ non commoveatur et “ auferatur ; sed in ipsa interpretatione ad se redeat, judicii “ sanitatem acumenque sequatur, neque Corybantum more cla“met.-Satis consumpsimus temporis in hujus libri descrip

tione. Hoc igitur erat cum sensu judicioque pulchri enarrare

poëtam, atque Aestheticam exercere, prout vulgo in Ger“ mania dicitur, nomine barbaro et Graecis inaudito. Omnino • ita Maximam nos tribuimus laudem poëtarum interpretationi“ bus, ut quaeque maxime interiorem sensum atque causas

pulchritudinis aperit. At hoc non sine Graecarum Latina“rumque literarum cognitione interiore praestari potest; et “ faciendum est certa ratione, breviter, perspicue; modoque “ tironibus accommodato. Nunc cum omnia undique corra“ deret atque constiparet Janus, etiam ipsa mole notarum “ tirones obruit, et obscurus fit, quod in aliis ejusmodi editioni“ bus quoque accidere vidimus. Nam, ut de magnitudine libri “ judicare possint lectores, tomus primus duos tantum com

plectitur Carminum libros, ac paginas explet 436; et ut per“ fectam suis numeris Horatii editionem nanciscantur tirones, “ duobus aliis voluminibus beabuntur.” Bibl. Crit. v. i. pt. iv. p. 84–96. q. v. A correct and useful edition, formed on à careful collation of several MSS. and preceding editions ;

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

this editor has bestowed considerable pains on the illustration of the text of his author. The reader may consult Bibl. Crit. Amst. v. i. pt. iv. p. 84, &c.; Mitscherlich. p. li.; Dibdin's Introd. v. i. p. 424; Fournier, Dict. p. 270; and Brunet. t. ii. p. 140.' 2 vols. Reprinted at Leipsick, in 8vo. in 1800. ARGENT. 4to. 1788. Oberlini.

A very elegant and accurate edition, “ splendore elegantia

que nulli cedentem.” (Harles, Brev. Not. Lit. Rom. p. 269.) In the compilation of this edition, Oberlin collated four Strasburgh MSS. which are supposed to be very ancient, the various readings of which are inserted at the end of the volume. Mitscherlich speaks favourably of it. See Dibdin's Introd. v. i. p. 425; Fournier, Dict. p. 270 ; and Brunet, t. i.

[ocr errors]

p. 140,

PARMÆ. fol. 1791. Apud Bodoni.

Splendidæ huic editioni, a Jos. Nic. de Azara curatæ, “ nullæ additæ sunt notæ; sed editor auctoritate codd. meliores

delegit recepitque lectiones, multaque melius interpunxit. Usus autem est quinque odarum codd. e bibl. Chigiana ; “ tribus epistolarum et A. P. ac 11. sermonum ex eadem bibl. “ et uno cod. Zeladæ." Harles, Suppl. ad Brev. Not. Lit. Rom. v. i. p. 422. Of this magnificent edition 200 copies only were struck off, fifty of which are on vellum paper : it is excessively rare. See Dibdin's Introd. v. i. p. 425 ; Horne's Introduction, v. ii. Append. p. xcvii.; Fournier, Dict. p. 270 ; and Brunet, t. ii. p. 140-1, who states that there were four copies struck off ON VELLUM. This edition was succeeded by two others printed by Bodoni, the first in 1793, of which 150 copies only are said to have been struck off'; the second in 1794, in 8vo. of which last there were 200 copies only printed : there are also a few on vellum

paper. Lond. 4to. 1792–93. Combii. 2 vols. £2. 2s.

A very magnificent and valuable edition; the text of which is formed chiefly on that of Gesner. “ The editor, Dr. Charles

Combe, does not appear to have consulted the authors, from “ whose works the notes are taken, very diligently, nor to have

incorporated their critical emendations and remarks with much “care.' Waddel, in particular, has proposed many ingenious “ readings, and some judicious interpretations, that are not at “all noticed. Wakefield and Taylor also, though formally “ mentioned as auxiliaries, have reason to complain of being

passed over in silence. Baxter, Bentley, and Gesner, appear to have furnished by far the greater part of the notes in the

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“ second volume; but in the first we find more variety.

Though the present work consists of two large volumes in

quarto, yet we are sorry to remark, that some things are omitted which ought to have been there, and that we have “ found, notwithstanding, throughout the whole, much heavy, “ uninteresting, and superfluous matter. We believe, indeed, “ that the eyes of many readers are disgusted, and their pa“ tience soon wearied out, on seeing the text of a favourite “ author swallowed up by notes and conjectural criticism. “ This is eminently the case with Dr. Combe's book, and “ often, where there is no difficulty, or, at least, such only as “ might have been removed in a few words. But as the va“ riorum edition is often unnecessarily tedious without being “ full or satisfactory, so it is sometimes unpardonably brief, “ where it should have been copious, and, perhaps, diffuse. “ We must farther remark, that, in so extensive a work as the “ present, the purchaser might reasonably expect to find every " thing necessary to elucidate the text of Horace; and we are “ of opinion that the entire omission of such parts of ancient “ mythology, history, and geography, as incidentally occur, “ will be thought a very great defect. We cannot help re“gretting it the more, as we see so many columns that might “ have been more profitably filled. For these reasons we feel “ ourselves obliged to say, that the variorum edition of Horace “ is, at the same time, strikingly redundant and deficient. We “ do not however deny, that the notes and prolegomena contain “ a valuable treasure of critical and philological learning. We “ complain that it has not been judiciously selected and

arranged, that redundancies have not been retrenched, and " that deficiencies have not been supplied. With regard to the

typographical merits of the present work, they must be ac

knowledged to be great. It is printed on fine wove paper; “ the type is excellent, and the press-work extremely clear and “ neat. The margin also is spacious, and the arrangement “ such as does the printers much credit. But we are sorry to

add, that all these beauties are disgraced by a slovenly “ negligence and inaccuracy which pervade the whole.” Critical Review for November, 1796, p. 256-64. In the compilation, the editors carefully collated the Editio PRINCEPS, and seven Harleian MSS. T'he notes are chiefly selected from those of Lambinus, Torrentius, Cruquius, Sanadon, Bentley, Cunningham, Baxter, Gesner, and others. It is supposed that there were 30 copies only struck off on a LARGE PAPER, which are excessively rare. Lond. small 8vo. 1794. Wakefieldi. 2 vols.

A very neat and correct edition, which is held in consider

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »