39

under inextricable difficulties in explaining their author; which might eafily be avoided by allowing, that the Poet's characters are general, and not intended to be perfonal.

fecret name wa was.

31. Poftquam nos Amaryllis, &c.] The allegorical Commentators fancy that the Poet meant Rome by Amaryllis, and Mantua by Galatea. by Galatea. Politian pretends that Amaryllis was the fecret name for Rome. But, as La Cerda juftly obferves, this contradicts itself: for if it had been fo, the Poet had offended against religion, by pronouncing the name, which it was unlawful to reveal, Befides, no ancient author whatfoever has ventured to inform us what this La Cerda feems to incline to the opinion of Fabius Pictor and Nannius, who tell us, that the Argeus campus, which is inclofed by the feven hills, was rendered uninhabitable by the inundations of the Tiber; but that, on offering facrifices to Vertumnus, the waters returned into their channel. Hence Rome was called Amaryllis from the gutters, by which the waters were carried off, auapis fignifying a gutter. But La Cerda himfelf thinks this may poffibly be too far fetched, and that the Poet may intend no more than to call Rome by the name of a fictitious fhepherdefs. Ruaeus looks upon thefe opinions as trifles, and juftly rejects the allegorical interpretation for the

༣༢༤

following reafons. 1. As the Poet has twice mentioned Rome expressly, and by it's proper name, in this Eclogue, what could induce him to

call it fometimes Rome and fome

times Amaryllis? 2. He diftinguishes Galatea from Mantua alfo when he fays, that whilst he was a flave to Galatea, he had no profit from the cheefes which he made for the unhappy city. 3. If we admit the allegory, that verfe Mirabar quid moefta deos, &c. is inextricable 4. Servius has laid it down as a rule, in the life of Virgil, that we are not to understand any thing in the Bucolicks figuratively, that is, al legorically.

Galatea reliquit.] Many of the Commentators will have this to be what they call an Euphemifmus, or civil way of expreffing what would otherwife feem offenfive. They affirm that Galatea did not forfake, Tityrus, but Tityrus Galatea. This is ftill upon a fuppofition that Gala tea is Mantua: but as we reject that interpretation, the Euphemifmus becomes unworthy of our confideration.

un

33. Peculi. It is used for Pecului. Peculium is commonly derstood to fignify the private flock, which a flave is permitted to enjoy, independent of his mafter. Plau tus, in his Calina, ufes it to exprefs the feparate purfe of a wife, made up without the husband's knowledge,

Nam

W

"Nám peculi probam nihil habere "addecet

*Clam virum, et quod habet, partum ei haud commode'ft, ": "Quin viro aut fubtrahat, aut ftupro invenerit."

Cicero ufes it for the property of a flave, in his Paradoxa; An eo"rum fervitus dubia eft, qui cupi"ditate peculii nullam conditionem "recufant duriffimae fervitutis ?"

Many other paffages are quoted by the Commentators, to fhew, that peculium means the ftock of a flave; whence they infer, that Virgil ufes it in this place, to exprefs that Tityrus was in a state of fervitude. It must be confeffed, that the word is moft frequently used in this fenfe; but there want not inftances to prove that it alfo fignifies the property a freeman, or, as I understand it in the paffage now before us, Gain. Petronius Arbiter, in his eighth chapter, uses it in a ludicrous fenfe, to exprefs what every man may certainly call his own. Horace, in his Art of Poetry, has the very words sura peculi, in the fame fenfe, that I have given them here;

of

Though many a ui&im went from my folds,

Have been devoted thus to ruft and gain,

Be capable of high and gen'rous thoughts?

Lord Rofcommon."

confideration in the fame sense. Dryden tranflates the paffage under

"I fought not freedom, nor afupir'd to gain."

And Dr Trapp,

"No hope of freedom or of gain I faw."

Peculium, no doubt, as well as cause exchanges were made by catpecunia is derived from pecus, betle, before the invention of money; and the moft ancient coin had cattle impreffed on it. Igitur, fays

ac pafcendi, ut fructus quam Varro, eft fcientia pecoris parandi poffint maximi capiantur ex ea,

quibus ipfa pecunia nominata "eft: nam omnis pecuniae pecus fundamentum." Columella tells us exprefsly that both words are derived from pecus; "Nam in rufti

catione vel antiquiffima eft ratio pafcendi, eademque quaeftuofiffima; propter quod nomina quo"que et pecuniae et peculii tracta vi"dentur a pecore."

34 Septis. Servius tells us, that fepta fignified thofe places in

their birth,

fenced in, for the people to give

L

their votes; and that because these fepta refemble fheep-folds, or ovilia, the words are often put one for another. Thus in this paffage, feptis is ufed for ovilibus; and on the contrary in Lucan,

"Et miferae maculavit cvilia Romae."

And Juvenal,

35

But this pointing is followed in very few editions. Burman indeed seems to approve of it on the authority of Servius and Fabricius, but he has preferved the common pointing.

Ingratae urbi.] Mantuas but fome doubt may arife, why Mantua is called ingrata, and what is meant by that epithet. It is commonly used to fignify either unplea fing or ungrateful. In the former

"ovili."

But I think it more probable, that these inclosures in the Campus Martius took their name from the sheepfolds; the founders of Rome having been fhepherds. This is certain, that it was no poetical liberty taken by Virgil to call the folds fepta; fince that word is ufed by Varro, in his first book, "Num de feptis, 66 quae tutandi caufa fundi, aut "partis fiant, dicam." Here it is very plain, that Varro ufes the word for what we call fences. He fays there are four forts of Septa, or fences: the firft he defcribes to be a quick hedge; the fecond a dead hedge; the third a ditch and bank; and the fourth a wall.

.

"At nifi purgatum 'ft pectus, quae "proelia nobis,

Atque pericula tunc ingratis in"finuandum

vocares;

which Creech interprets, At nifi animi noftri fint purgati, quot tumultibus agitaremur, quae pericula nos miferos manerent. Thus alfo Horace, "Ingrato mifera vita ducenda eft,"

which Defprez interprets Vita mifera infortunato protrahenda eft tibi. I believe it is in this last sense, that we are to understand the paffage before us. We do not fee any reafon, why Virgil fhould call Mantua ungrate ful. Tityrus carried his cattle and cheese thither to fell, and if he did not bring his money home with him, it was his own fault to spend it. Nor is there any evident reason, why he should call it unpleafing, unlefs, as Burman interprets it, because it was filled with foldiers. But there appears an evident reafon, why he fhould call it unhappy; for it was fo in it's fituation, fuffering on account of it's nearnefs to Cremona, as the Poet himself intimates in the ninth Eclogue;

"Mantua,. vae miferae nimium vi"cina Cremonae."

37. Mirabar, &c.]

Meliboeus

37 ryllis, what made you forrowful, and invoke the Gods;

Amarylli.] The allegorical interpreters are at fuch a lofs to make fenfe of this verfe, that they are obliged to find an error in it, and that we ought, instead of Amarylli to read Galatea. Accordingly we we find Galatea intruded into fome editions. La Cerda has not altered the text here, though he feems very well inclined to it. "Some, fays he, read Galatea, "thinking the fense would other "wife be obfcure, and produce "manuscripts in confirmation of "that reading. They do not want "reafon for this emendation: for "Meliboeus, as appears from the "whole courfe of this Eclogue, "pretends to know nothing about "Auguftus or Rome; nay Tityrus informs him of them. There "fore how fhould he, who knew "nothing of Rome, hear of her "complaints? how fhould he fee "her apples? how should, he hear "the complaints of the trees and "fountains, there? All these make "against Amaryllis; but plead "ftrongly for Galatea, that is, for

trees.

"faid to be abfent from a place "where he never was. It is was. It is plain, that this learned Commentator was led into all this perplexity merely by his being blinded with Allegory. But Catrou goes more roundly to work, and boldly reftores, as he calls it, Galatea to the text. The reader will be furprised fays he, to find Galatea here inftead of Amaryllis. I confefs "that most of the modern editions "have Amarylli; but I have not "fubftituted Galatea without au "thority. Several manuscripts, as "La Cerda affirms, and feveral "ancient editions, read Galatea in

7

ftead of Amaryllis. Befides, the "edition printed at the Louvre, "from manufcripts, has reftored "Galatea in the text. Hereby all "the difficulties vanish, and all the "obfcurity clears up. If we re“tain Amarylli, and mean thereby "the city of Rome, would it be "probable, that Meliboeus fhould know what paffed there, he who "perhaps had never ftirred out of

his own village? Could Virgil's "father have caufed fo much grief "there by his abfence? He was a sman of no diftinction, who went

to seek credit at Rome, and was "not regarded there, at least not 5 with any inquietude. Nor is it simore dnatural to imagine, that a perfon is here meant for whom Tityrus, that old man with ‹á› 15 white beard had an inclination. $ He was not of an age to form biat

fuch engagements, except in me "taphor. Thus we fee in the text, "his Amaryllis and Galatea are "changed at once into two cities. "Befides the recital of a paffion "would be out of place in a Poem "intended to praise and thank Cae"far. It would be an idle diftrac"tion hardly tolerable to the mind, " and a difagreeable excurfion. "Whereas, by reading Galatea, "and fuppofing through the whole "Eclogue a perpetual metaphor, "where under the names of Ama"ryllis and Galatea are always meant Rome and Mantua, the whole work becomes uniform, and attains it's end, without giv"ing any change to the mind."" By the confeffion of thefe allegorical interpreters themselves, their whole interpretation falls to the ground, unless we read Galatea for Amaryl+ lis: but there does not seem suffi cient authority for that reading; which feems to have been utterly unknown to Servius, Pierius, Phi largyrius, and other most celebrated Commentators; and to have been invented only to fupport the imagi nation, that Amaryllis was Rome, and Galatea was Mantua. We must therefore fubfcribe to the opinion of the learned Ruaeus, who judiciously obferves, that the fenfe is very plain, if we do not confound" ourfelves with allegory Tity"rus, fays he, has caft off Gala? tea, loves Amaryllis, and goes "tea, "to Rome. Amaryllis being left

at