grandson Caius, B. C. 1.; and of course long before any imputation whatever could have been cast on his public or his private integrity.

The vindication of Lollius from certain calumnies, for which no pretence can be found before the period when as the tutor of the young Prince he incurred the hatred of Tiberius, I have with great care and perhaps not without success undertaken in the Gentleman's Magazine, May, 1834, under the title of Vindicia Lolliane.

The two passages of Velleius Paterculus and one of the Elder Pliny, on which alone those calumnies are founded, are in that article produced and subjected to severe examination. Of any fact or even hint in disparagement of Lollius's character, neither in Tacitus nor in Suetonius, does one historical vestige appear; while of Velleius's baseness in flattering the bad passions of Tiberius, proofs and testimonies are brought forward enough to satisfy any reasonable demand.

And I am strangely mistaken if Horace himself, notwithstanding the honours paid to the "Major Neronum" (4 C. xiv. 14.) in his best days (egregius vitâ famâque quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub Augusto fuit. Ann. vi. 51.) did not owe a very marked suppression of his name to that very Ode in praise of Lollius which we are now considering. To what cause, indeed, so probable as Tiberian malignity deeply operating, may the following fact be attributed?

In Velleius's catalogue of Roman Poets, L. II. c. 36, §§ 2, 3, the names of Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, Tibullus, and Naso, are all prominently paraded :—that of Horace is not visible!

Could this striking omission then be the result of mere oversight, with such immense chances in calculation against it? or is it not naturally accounted for at once, by supposing it a sacrifice to the dark disgust of Tiberius's eye?

APPENDIX VI.

ON HORACE'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE GREEK POETS.

It has been already stated (P. D. 70) that Horace acknowledged and justified his borrowing the metres of Archilochus and of Alcæus, with such adaptation as the genius of the Latin language required.

The point of his more substantial obligations to the Greek Poets in subject, imagery, and sentiment, may be studied with advantage in a work of curious literature quoted below. I am inclined to think, however, that the amount of what he owes on that score (and avowedly incurred, for such imitation was an honorable task) has been greatly overrated. And if an estimate in other cases may be taken on the average from that fragment of Alcæus (even allowing the ingenious emendation of χθόνα ... παίειν fur τινα ... πίνειν) ...

Νῦν χρὴ μεθύσκειν καὶ χθόνα πρὸς βίαν

Παίειν, ἐπειδὴ κάτθανε Μύρσιλος.

the sum total then of the debt will prove no great deduction from the solidity of his fame.

At the most, Alcæus supplies only the catchword of the Ode, 1 C. xxxvII.

Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero
Pulsanda tellus :

* Q. Horatii Flacci Carmina Collatione Scriptorum Græcorum illustrata ab Henrico Wagnero. Præfatus est Christ. Adolphus Klotzius. Hale. 1770.

for besides the characteristic touch, pede libero, the foot now of freedom and security; at the very next moment,

nunc Saliaribus

Ornare pulvinar Deorum

Tempus erat dapibus, sodales....

there comes a change over the spirit of the song; the subject is "essentially Roman;" and as it has been well remarked, (Encyclopædia Metropolitana, Horace-Latin Poetry, p. 400,) "the magnificent description of Cleopatra gives the stamp of original genius to the whole."

Thus too the Ode 1 C. XVIII.

opens with Alcæus,

Nullum, Vare, sacrâ vite prius severis arborem.

a strict translation from the well known verse of

Μηδὲν ἄλλο φυτεύσῃς πρότερον δένδρεον ἀμπέλω,

"But the solum Tiburis and the mania Catili in the very next line domesticate the production with peculiar felicity." (Encycl. Metr.)

APPENDIX VII.

QUÆSTIONES HORATIANÆ.

Scripsit C. KIRCHNER, S. Theol. et Phil. Dr. Scholæ Prov. Portensis Rector.-Lipsia. 1834.

THE first of these Questions, occupying 41 pages out of the 60, is entitled De Bentleiana Temporum, quibus Horatius

Poematum suorum Libros scripsit, constitutione: and to the system laid down by Dr. Bentley, he is on four different heads decidedly opposed.

Bentley is wrong, he alleges, in asserting (1.) that Horace at one and the same time devoted his pen only to one species of composition, and (2.) that Horace did not give publication to separate pieces, but only to whole books at a time.

Bentley is wrong also in asserting (3.), that Horace published the books separately one by one, and not more than one together.

Bentley is farther wrong in determining (4.) the years within which the several volumes were composed.

Under the first of these heads, let me be allowed to show a specimen of Kirchner's proposed arrangement.

In the year B. c. 28. and of Horace 37. Kirchner fixes his date for the following pieces, for instance, amongst others, 2 S. 1. Sunt quibus in Satirâ... 1 C. xxxI. Quid dedicatum... 2C. xv. Jam pauca aratro... and 3 C. VI. Delicta majorum....

It is on the suggestions of a fanciful and capricious ingenuity, that Kirchner, like a new Sanadon, has perpetrated this strange divulsion of wholes from wholes, and a conjunction as strange of pieces with pieces tied obtorto collo together. The very sight of his Tabula Chronologica Horatiana is quite enough to astonish and offend by the presumption with which every single piece has its separate year precisely affixed to it, and by the boldness with which all the pieces are dissevered from that connection within the same book, which had remained undisturbed for seventeen centuries.

Luckily, on the one hand, internal evidence, derived from comparing the Alcaic metre in different books, affords an argument which cannot well be eluded: and as if to stumble at that block, Kirchner does not hesitate to declare, that all the Odes of the first, second, and third books were promiscuously written and then published collectively at once in B. C.

18. Of course, therefore, when he places 2 C. XIII. Ille et nefasto... in the same year as 3 C. II. III. XXIX.; and 2 C. XIX. Bacchum in remotis...in the same year as 3 C. IV. with certain inferior modes of structure visible in Odes of the second book from which all those in the third are entirely exempt; he blunders on in the same unsuspecting ignorance about the progressive change in Horace's versification, which has been already produced as an argument against Sanadon. P. D. p. 10.

On the other hand, with regard to the historical facts. themselves and the years of their occurrence, Kirchner may be generally right: it is not on that ground perhaps that any serious objection can be brought against him. His hastiness in every where assuming the identity of such an allusion to a foreign name in Horace with such an event or such a war at such a precise time, this may be regarded as the ignis fatuus, by which he is perpetually led astray in venturing to fix the date of each separate piece.

Let one instance suffice to exemplify the nature of that assertion here made: a detailed examination of the whole would require a volume. Horace, in 3 C. xxiv. addresses the Roman reader thus,

Intactis opulentior

Thesauris Arabum et divitis India...

Therefore, says Kirchner, that Ode must have been written before the year B. c. 24. in which Ælius Gallus is recorded to have led an expedition into Arabia Felix. That invasion, however, terminated, we are told, without success; so that the treasures of Arabia remained as entire and unrifled after that event as they were before it. Yet on such a slight and shadowy link of association as this, Kirchner does not scruple to hang his hypothesis of the new date B. C. 28. and his dislocation of it from Bentley's position at B. C. 24, 23: whereas the very mention of rich India along with Arabia's treasures (as elsewhere, 1 E. vI. 6.) sufficiently