Page images


Roth,' Orelli,' Düntzer,3 C. Fr. Hermann, W. E. Weber,”

Ritter (Sat. iii. 117 n.), the antiquarian researches of Becker, Rein, Teuffel, &c., above all, the explanatory and critical essays of Madvig, and the corrected text of Otto Jahn, have removed many of the most formidable obstacles from the student's path. But though the materials thus exist for the more adequate elucidation of our author, no attempt has yet been made to bring them within the reach of English schoolboys. To meet this want an English commentary is plainly required: indeed, such a work was some time since promised by Prof. Ramsay, whose competence for the task is so indisputable, that I had resolved to indulge in some other field my taste for the writers of the Silver Age, placing at his disposal the notes which I had amassed on Juvenal. When, however, it became doubtful whether Prof. Ramsay would be able to redeem

1 D. Junii Juvenalis Satiræ tres, tertia, quarta, quinta. Edidit Car. Lud. Roth. Norimbergæ, 1841. The notes are generally sound and sensible (in Sat. v. 155, however, he makes ab hirsuta capella ab humero pilis vestito).


2 Ecloga Poetarum Latinorum. Turici, 1833. (2d Ed. Contains Sat. iv. viii. xv.)

3 Die Römischen Satiriker. Braunschweig, 1846. Chiefly for popular use. Most of the satires were printed before this reached me.

4 I have endeavoured in vain to procure his Spicilegium Annotationum, ad Juv. Sat. iii. Marburga, 1839, and De Juv. Sat. vii. Temporibus Disput. Gottinga, 1843, which last I only know from Teuffel's Review of the Literature on Juv. since 1840, in Jahn's Jahrb. 1845, pt. i. p. 97 sq. His Essays in the Rhein. Mus. (vol. iv. p. 314 sq., vi. p. 454 sq. of the New Series) are of no great value.

5 Germ. transl. and notes. Halle, 1838; review of Heinr. From both of these I have gathered something; more than from his namesake E. W. Weber (D. Jun. Juv. Sat. xvi. Recens. et Ann. instr. Ern. Guil. Weber. Wimariæ, 1825. See Madv. Opusc. i. 32 n.).

• From Schmidt's Satirarum Delectus. Bielefeldæ, 1835, Döllen's Beiträge zur Kritik u. Erklärung u. s. w. Kiew, 1846, and Häckermann's edition of Sat. i.-v. with Germ. notes, Greifswald, 1847, I have learnt nothing new.

his promise, I at last, in compliance with a suggestion of the Publishers, resumed the work which had been laid aside, or rather commenced a new one; for, in place of a complete edition for the use of scholars, I now undertook a school edition, which instead of engrossing eight or ten years of study might, I thought, be despatched in half as many months. But even a cursory survey sufficed to show that many difficulties had been overlooked both by others and by myself, and led me to examine anew, as far as my store of books would allow, every point, whether of history, or antiquities, or grammar, which seemed to demand explanation. This necessary labour, interrupted for some months by weak health, has occasioned, and may perhaps excuse, the delay which has taken place in the publication.

In whatever respects this book may be found deficient, it can at least boast a purer text than any existing School Juvenal: for this advantage it is indebted to Otto Jahn,1 the learned editor of Persius, who has been followed throughout, except in orthography and punctuation: in a few passages, however, I have been unwilling to desert the received reading for one which I could not understand; and in one I have adopted a later emendation. Three Satires, which are generally, and justly, passed over by younger readers, have been altogether omitted. But the distinctive merits or demerits of the book, whatever they may be, are to be sought for in the illustrative notes, of which, therefore, a more particular account may be expected.

1 D. Junii Juvenalis Saturarum Libri v. Cum scholiis veteribus recensuit et emendavit Otto Jahn. Berolini, 1851.


The reader, it will be seen, is everywhere presented rather with facts and authorities than with mere opinions. and results: those who require help, but are unwilling to help themselves, must seek for satisfaction elsewhere. Especial attention has been paid to the peculiar usage of words: Juvenal and his contemporaries employ civilis, numerosus, imputo, olim, &c., in a sense very different from that which they bear in Cicero. Such niceties beginners will certainly disregard, unless they are forced upon their notice; and this can only be done by adducing a number of pertinent examples. Still more important is this in the case of words (such as recitatio, dominus, delator, parasitus, orbus,) a full understanding of which involves to no inconsiderable extent a knowledge of the state of manners and of society in general: many details, indeed, which throw the greatest light upon history, but yet cannot find a place in professed historic narratives, are very rarely learnt at all, unless from such commentaries as I have here attempted.


In the collection of illustrative passages I have been much assisted by works now little used, the Lexicon of Pitiscus and Dempster's supplements to Rosini Antiquitates, but far more by the varied learning of Torrentius, Casaubon, J. Fr. Gronovius, Burmann, and above all of Lipsius, whose works indeed cannot be dispensed with by the student of the later Roman literature: obligations to more recent scholars have been often confessed in the course of the work. A necessary, and not the least wearisome, part

'The reasons for this are obvious, and are stated in the preface to Bp. Butler's Sermons.

2 Even Forcellini is very defective in regard to later authors.

of my task, has been the perusal of the notes of former commentators: some of these have been named already; of the rest, Grangæus has been the most serviceable; something too has been gleaned from Britannicus, Lubinus, the Valesii, Ruperti,' and Holyday. In the main, however, the notes are my own; no citation has been borrowed without verification,3 and indeed space has often been saved by a reference to previous writers who had anticipated my researches.

Here these remarks might have ended, were it not that the desire to rescue, so far as I am able, certain authors from undeserved contempt, which has led me to make copious extracts from their writings, emboldens me further to suggest the feasibility of introducing them into our classical course at Cambridge. A great step was taken towards the improvement of the Classical Tripos, when to papers in composition and philology a separate historical paper was added. By the admission that the subject

1 Chiefly in regard to Silius, Athenæus, Lucian, the Greek Anthology, Wernsdorf's Poet. Lat. Min., and Heyne's editions of other authors. What else he has is mostly from Grangæus.

2 Achaintre and Dusaulx (text with Fr. transl. and notes. 4th ed. 1804) I have but seldom consulted, and always fruitlessly.

3 Some passages indeed I have transcribed at second hand for want of access to the originals, and of these a very few, four or five at most, may have escaped subsequent revision.

That the Oxford system, even more than the Cambridge, requires enlargement, has been acknowledged in the recent changes, and appears from the Report. "From the year 1807 to 1825 the Students were encouraged to study many works which have now almost entirely disappeared from the University Course, such as Homer, Demosthenes, Cicero, Lucretius, Terence, Plutarch, Longinus, Quintilian. [All of these, except Plutarch, are included in the subjects recognised at Cambridge.] A list of twenty classical authors was not unfrequent even so late as 1827. At present fourteen, thirteen, or even twelve, are sufficient for the highest honours." Page 62,

matter of the classics is entitled to distinct recognition, a principle has been conceded which is capable of wider application. For if, as is generally allowed, in two of the highest branches of knowledge, moral philosophy and history, the ancients are still unsurpassed, there seems no good reason why ancient philosophy should be refused the reparation lately made to ancient history. Indeed so many voices have lately been raised in behalf of such extension,' that the question may now be regarded as one of time only. But the reform may be carried out in such a way as not to touch what seems to be one great defect in the present system, the strange anomaly by which the philosophical works of Cicero-works undertaken for the most part merely as a relief from chagrin and disappointment, and confessedly little better than translations,-are set before students as the only source from which to derive a knowledge of the later Academy (for instance) and the Porch; although these schools are represented by writers so clear, so manly, and in every way so improving as Plutarch, Seneca, Epictetus, Antoninus. The surpassing excellence of the speeches, letters, and rhetorical treatises of Cicero, together with his never-failing elegance of style, have doubtless occasioned this undue exaltation, but they can hardly excuse it. The great objection to a reversal of this

1 See in the Report the evidence of Mr. Beatson (p. 277), Mr. Cope (p. 279), Mr. Thompson (p. 288), Mr. Warter (p. 291), Mr. Williams (pp. 293, 294), Mr. Worsley (p. 298). And the general feeling of classical men is, I believe, strongly in favour of the change.

2 I mention these writers, because I am most familiar with them: but there is no reason why Sextus Empiricus, as the champion of the Sceptics, and the New Platonists, so important to the ecclesiastical student, should be excluded from the circle of recognised subjects. Others too might be named.

« PreviousContinue »