The Correspondents of the EDINBURGH MAGAZINE and LITERARY MISCELLANY are respectfully requested to transmit their Communications for the Editor to ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & COMPANY, Edinburgh, or to HURST, ROBINSON, & COMPANY, London; to whom also orders for the Work should be addressed.

Printed by J. Ruthven & Sons.

66

THE Communication of our ingenious friend "Philologus," containing emendations of two difficult passages in the Agricola of Tacitus, naturally called our attention to the text of that profound and philosophical historian, to the varia lectiones of the MSS, and older editions, and to the attempt made by our able and intelligent correspondent, to remove the difficulties by which commentators and readers have been so generally, and, we will venture to add, so unaccountably perplexed. But as our inquiry has terminated in a complete dissent, both from the propriety of the emendations, and the soundness of the opinions stated by our friend, we owe it both to him and to ourselves, to specify distinctly the grounds upon which that dissent rests. The first passage upon which he has annotated, forms part of the speech of Galgacus to the Caledonians, on the eve of their great and final struggle against Roman aggression, and is as follows: "Trinobantes, fœminâ duce, exurere coloniam, expugnare castra, ac, nisi felicitas in socordiam vertisset, exuere jugum potuêre: nos integri et indomiti, ET LIBERTATEM NON IN PRÆSENTIA LATURI, primo statim congressu non ostendamus, quos sibi Caledonia viros seposuerit?" On this our correspondent remarks"The "libertatem non in præsentiâ laturi' is very obscure: the non ostendamus' was originally 'unde ostendamus,' so changed, without authority, in order to elicit some sense from the passage, by throwing it into an interrogative form and, in the original MSS., there was an in' before libertatem,' and 'præsentia' was either præsentiam' or 'pænitentiam."" To remove this obscurity, our correspondent proposes to transfer the syllable præ" from præsentiam," to the next word "laturi," thus making "præliaturi," by borrowing an i, he does not say whence, and to adopt "the 'nitentiam' of the other reading," which he converts into "renitentiam." Hence, the passage would, after these several operations, run thus:-" Nos integri et indomiti, et in libertatem, non in renitentiam præliaturi, primo statim congressu unde ostendamus quos sibi, &c." which he translates as follows-"We are entire and unsubdued, and about to fight for liberty, not for a struggle against the yoke, whence, at the first onset, we may show," &c. It is true that the MS. Vatic. 3429, have "in libertatem, non in pænitentiam, certaturi," which is, in substance, the reading proposed by our correspondent; but the ancient editions, without exception, have "et in libertatem, non in præsentiam, laturi," which, considering the doubtful authority of the MS. Vatic. must determine "laturi" as of sufficient authority. Minucianus first edited "in præsentiâ," upon what authority we know not; and for "unde ostendamus," Pichenas gave 66 non ostendamus." A few editions have "et in libertatem, non in prædam, certaturi;" a reading which Brotier prefers. More modern editors, puzzled with "laturi," a reading too well authorised to be altogether rejected, have proposed to substitute (6 ablaturi," "illaturi," " ulturi," &c. &c. Thus far the authority of MSS., editions, and editors. For our own parts, we decidedly prefer the commonly-received reading. But, says our correspondent, "The libertatem non in præsentiâ laturi' is very obscure." To us, however, the "darkness" is not " visible." Surely nobody would find any difficulty in comprehending "ferre servitutem," to bear slavery, to be slaves: " ferre libertatem," therefore, which is just its converse, must be equally intelligible. Let us add, "in præsentiâ," which does not thicken the darkness a bit, and we have as distinct and obvious a meaning obtruded upon us as can well be imagined: "Shall not we, who are at once entire and unconquered, and who are not now to taste liberty for the first time, (who are not merely free at present, but who have always been so, and who, therefore, know how to appreciate the blessing for which we are to contend,) shew the enemy what sort of men Caledonia has set apart for her defence?" Such appears to us to be the plain and simple meaning of the passage in question: the objections to the emended interpretation appear to us of the most formidable description :-

66

1. The liberty our correspondent has taken with the text is at once violent and arbitrary and if a commentator is to take the head of one word, and the tail of another-Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Jungere si velit— and to piece them together after this fashion, any thing may be made to mean any thing, and there is an end to all certainty and utility in annotation. 2. "Renitentiam" is a barbarous word, for which no classical authority can be produced. 3. Even if such authority could be produced, the passage, thus emended, would still be nonsense: " præliaturi in renitentiam!" "about to fight for a struggle," as our critic renders it! 4." Præliari in libertatem" cannot possibly mean to fight for liberty, although it may very well mean to fight against liberty. Pugnare in hostem" does not surely mean to fight for an enemy. Every one knows, that when "in" governs the accusative, its effect depends on the verb with which it is combined in the sentence: thus, "mittere in urbem,”— pugnare in hostem,"—" rejicere tela in hostes,"" Cæsar in arma furens," &c. &c. In this view, therefore," præliaturi in libertatem" should mean, "about to fight against liberty;" and " præliaturi in renitentiam," " about to fight against a struggle, against the yoke," which we take to be exceedingly like nonsense. 5. Our correspondent has not shown how " præ" and "laturi" form " præliaturi." 6. And, lastly, "unde," which indicates derivation, and, according to circumstances, is equivalent to "ex quo" or “ex quibus," cannot possibly stand before" ostendamus," because it has no antecedent to which it can refer," primo congressu" being simply the manner in which the soldiers of Galgacus were to show " quos sibi Caledonia viros seposuerit." In fine, the whole gist of the speech of Galgacus is to impress upon his fellow-soldiers, that their countrymen had not only never been under the yoke-" nam et universi servitutis expertes"-but had been undebased and uncontaminated even with the sight of slavery-" oculos à contactu dominationis inviolatos habebant:" hence, in the passage under consideration, he describes them as " integri et indomiti," and for that reason, "libertatem non in præsentiâ laturi.”

We have hardly left ourselves room to say any thing of the next passage, which is as follows:-" Si quis piorum manibus locus; si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magnæ animæ; placidè quiescas: nosque, domum tuam, ab infirmo desiderio, et muliebribus lamentis, ad conteinplationem virtutum tuarum voces, quas neque lugeri, neque plangi fas est : admiratione te potiùs, temporalibus laudibus, et, si natura suppeditet, similitudine decoremus." Agric. 46. For "similitudine decoremus," our correspondent proposes to restore the old corrupt reading of the MS. Vatic. 3429, "militum decoramus," and attempts to support his opinion, by asserting that "potiùs" does not, as has been universally believed, apply to the foriner part of the sentence, but ought to be construed as a comparative degree before"laudibus ;" thus contrasting "admiratione" with "temporalibus laudibus." Now, with due submission, we maintain that this is not Latin: for, if Tacitus had intended to convey the meaning which our correspondent indicates, he would unquestionably have said "admiratione te potiùs, quan temporalibus laudibus," &c. With regard to " militun," again, it is plainly a corruption, and out of tune with the prodominating idea in the fine apostrophe to the manes of Agricola, with which this, the last, chapter of his life commences. The emendation of Grotius which we have given above, and which is now generally adopted, we consider one of the most ingenious, refined, and successful attempts at restoring a corrupted passage, which we have almost ever met with; it harmonizes so admirably with the obvious meaning of the passage, at the expence of little or no violence to the text; and, in the absence of all authority, is entitled to the preference it has received. But that the reader may be the better able to judge of the truth of these remarks, let us attempt to convey the meaning of the author in the shape of translation; " If there be any final habitation reserved for the spirits of virtuous men; if, as philosophers teach, the soul does not perish with the body,mayest thou rest in peace; and may the contemplation of thy virtues, which

it would be improper to mourn or bewail, recal us, thy family, from weak regret, and unavailing lamentation; inducing us rather to pay them the just tribute of our admiration and praises, and, if our frail nature will permit, to emulate thy bright example!" Such we humbly take to be the meaning of this much-discussed passage; and, if it be, it must be apparent, on the first glance, that the contrast which the author intends to convey, is that between weak and unavailing sorrow, for the loss of a great and good man, and a just admiration of his virtues, which naturally creates a desire to imitate his example. "Potiùs," therefore, expresses this comparison; for what sense is there in contrasting "our admiration" with "the temporal praises of soldiers," of whom not one word has been said, and who were the last persons in the world whom Tacitus would have thought of when he uttered this fine burst of affection for the memory of his great and virtuous relative? This idea is completely confirmed by what follows, and which proves to demonstration, that the author was thinking and speaking of his own family alone: “Is verus honos, ea conjunctissimi cujusque pietas."-For "militum decoramus," some of the manuscripts have "multum decoramus ;" and Ursinus, from a manuscript in his own possession, the authority of which, however, has been uniformly contested, corrected the passage thus:-" Admiratione te potiùs, quam æmulatione, et si natura suppeditet, imitatione virtutum decoremus.' Sed jam tempus equum, &c.-The best proof of the esteem in which we hold our friend" Philologus," is the pains we have taken to show the grounds upon which we differ from him.

The following articles will appear in our next and succeeding Numbers: "Oehenschlaeger-Corregio, and Robinson Crusoe in England;""The Remains of Gabriel Killigrew," being the conclusion of "The Literary Legacy;""The Pirates of Ithaca ;' "Extract of a Letter from the United States;" ;""Review of Swale's Geometrical Amusements;" "On the Atmosphere of the Planets;" "On Steam-coaches ;""Henry the Minstrel's Wallace;" "Twelve Sonnets for the Sentimental;" "Letter to the Editor, by Arator;""Continuation of the Life of Caleb Cornhill;" "Horæ Seniles, No. IV.;" "Reminiscences of Auld Langsyne, Nos. III. and IV.;” "Gallant Adventures of Francis Corkincap, Esq. Canto II. ;"" Stanzas to a Young Lady on St Valentine's Eve;"The Paraphrase of Job, chap. Xxxix. v. 5. ad fin." "The Highlander and Ariosto's Isabella;" "The Poet's Grave;""Death of Crescentius ;" "The Review of Dr Hunter's Edition of the First Five Books of Livy;" "Dan Macormick, a Sketch from Life;" " A Rowland for an Oliver, or the Country Parson versus his Patron and Employer;" "Letters from Italy;" "Letter to the Editor on Modern Literary Bully-ism," "Shakespeare in Germany;" "Lucubrations of Geoffrey Plumpington, Esq.;" "Characters omitted in Crabbe's Parish Register, No. V." &c. &c. &c.

tr

The Lines of Mathew Veitch, who describes himself as "a man of mus lin, a poor ribbon-clipper," are at his service, whenever he chooses to call for them.

"The Reminiscences of Colin Kildoddie, Jun." somehow escaped our observation till very lately. The author shall learn our determination as soon as we find leisure to dip a little into his lucubrations.

"The Dysart Club, a Poem," is one of the cleverest things we have met with for a long time; but a great deal too personal, which circumstance alone has prevented our inserting it this month. We shall, however, keep it in reserve.

The author of " Marie" seems to be afflicted with an inveterate propensity for borrowing, without acknowledgment, from our amiable and ingenious friend Bernard Barton, with whose works, we can assure him, we are indifferent well acquainted. If he defies us to the proof, we shall be happy to indulge him in that particular. Apropos of Mr Barton. We take shame