« PreviousContinue »
in Monsteią deus ille noster Plato. Cum in Pi zeum Socrates venisset ad Cephalum, locupletem et festivum senem ; quoad primus ille sermo haberetur, adest in disputando senex : deinde cum ipse quoque commodissime locutus esset, ad rem divinam dicit se velle discedere; neque postea revertitur. Credo Platonem vix putasse satis consonum fore, si hominem id ætatis in tam longo sermone diutius retinuisset. Multo ego satius hoc mihi cavendum putavi in Scævola : qui et ætate, et valitudine erat ea, qua esse meministi ; et iis honoribus, ut vix satis decorum videretur, eum plures dies esse in Crassi Tusculano. Et erat primi libri sermo non alienus à Scævolæ studiis : reliqui libri Teyvonoylav habent, ut scis. Huic joculatoriæ disputationi senem illum, ut noras, interesse sane nolui.”
If Cicero had not opened himself, and declared his own thought and doings herein, men that be idle, and ignorant, and envious of other men's diligence and well doings, would have sworn that Tully had never minded any such thing; but that of a precise curiosity we feign and forge, and father such things of Tully as he never meant indeed. I write this not for nought; for I have heard some, both well learned, and otherwise very wise, that by their lusty misliking of such diligence, have drawn back the forwardness of very good wits. But even as such men themselves do sometimes stumble upon doing well by chance, and benefit of good wit, so would I have
our scholar always able to do well by order of learning and right skill of judgement.
Concerning Imitation, many learned men have written with much diversity for the matter, and therefore with great contrariety and some stomach among themselves. I have read as many as I could get, diligently; and what I think of every one of them, I wil freely say my mind. With which freedom I trust good men will bear, because it shall tend to neither spiteful nor harmful controversy.
In Tully it is well touched, shortly taught, * not fully declared by Antonius in the second book de Oratore; and af
Ergo hoc sit primum in præceptis meis, ut demonstremus, quem imitetur ; atque ita, ut, quæ maximè excellant in eo quem imitabitur, ea diligentissimè persequatur: tum accedat exercitatio, qua illum, quem antè delegerit, imitando effingat, atque ita exprimat, non ut multos imitatores sæpe cognovi, qui aut ea, quæ facilia sunt, aut etiam illa,
terward in Oratore ad Brutum, for the liking and misliking of Isocrates ; and the contrary judgement of Tully against Calvus, Brutus, and Calidius, de genere dicendi Attico et Asiatico.
Dionysius Halicarnassæus tepi Miphoews, * I fear, is lost; which author, next Aristotle, Plato, and Tully, of all others that write of eloquence, by the judgement of them that be best learned, deserveth the next praise and place.
Quintilian + writeth of it shortly, and coldly for the mat
quæ insignia, ac pænè vitiosa consectantur imitando." De Orat. lib. 2. p. 109.
“ Atticos, inquit, volo imitari. quos? nec enim est unum genus. Nam quid est tam dissimile, quàm Demosthenes et Lysias ? quàm idem et Hyperides ? quàm omnium horum Æschines ? Quem igitur imitaris? Si aliquem, cæteri ergo Atticè non dicebant. si omnes, qui potes, cùm sint ipsi dissimillimi inter se?” Cic. de claris Orat.
* This book of Imitation, Dionysius divided into three parts: the first contained the whole question concerning Imitation; the second, what authors in poetry, philosophy, history, and oratory, were to be imitated; the third, how this Imitation was to be performed : which last book, he tells us, he had not finished at the time he gives us this account of it.
Dionysius's words are these, though corrupt enough, in his Epistle to Cn. Pompey, p. 206, of the learned Dr. Hudson's edition. I shall cite them as I think they ought to be read. Πεποίηκα δε και τούτο εν τούς πρός Δημήτριον υπομνηματισμούς περί Μιμήσεως.
Τούτων ο μεν πρώτος, αυτήν περιείλησε την περί της μιμήσεως ζήτησιν ο δε δεύτερος, περί του, τίνας άνδρας μιμείσθαι δεί, ποιητάς τε και φιλοσόφους, ιστοριογράφους και ρήτορας" ο δε τρίτος, περί του, πως δεί μιμείσθαι. έστι δε ούτος ατελής.
+ “ Ante omnia igitur imitatio per se ipsa non sufficit; vel quia pigri est ingenii, contentum esse iis quæ sunt ab aliis inventa. Quid enim futurum erat temporibus illis, quæ sine exemplo fuerunt, si homines nihil nisi quod jam cognovissent, faciendum sibi aut cogitandum putassent? nempe nihil fuisset inventum
“ Itaque ne hoc quidem suaserim, uni se alicui propriè, quem per omnia sequatur, addicere. Longè perfectissimus Græcorum Demosthenes, aliquid tamen aliquo in loco melius alii. Plurima ille : sed non qui maximè imitandus, etiam solus imitandus est. Quid ergo? non est satis omnia sic dicere, quomodo Marcus Tullius dixit? Mihi quidem satis esset, si omnia consequi possem. Quid tamen nocet, vim Cæsaris, asperitatem Cælii, diligentiam Pollionis, judicium Calvi, quibusdam in locis assumere?” Quint. de Inst. Orat. lib. 10.
ter, yet hotly and spitefully enough against the imitation of Tully.
Erasmus, being more occupied in spying other men's faults than declaring his own advice, is mistaken of many, to the great hurt of study, for his authority's sake. For he writeth rightly, rightly understood: * he and Longolias only differing in this, that the one seemeth to give over much, the other over little, to him whom they both best loved, and chiefly allowed of all others.
Budæus in his commentaries roughly and obscurely, after his kind of writing; and for the matter, carried somewhat out of the way in overmuch inisliking the imitation of Tully.
Philip Melancthon, learnedly and truly.
Joach. Çamerarius largely with a learned judgement, but somewhat confusedly, and with over rough a style.
Sambucus largely, with a right judgement, but somewhat a crooked style.
Others have written also, as Cortesius to Politian, and that very well; Bembus ad Picum, a great deal better ; but Joan. Sturmius, de Nobilitate literata, et de Amissa dicendi Ratione, far best of all, in mine opinion, that ever took this matter in hand. For all the rest declare chiefly this point, whether one, or many, or all, are to be followed : but Sturmius only hath most learnedly declared, “ who is to be followed; what is to be followed; and the best point of all, by what
way and order true Imitation is rightly to be exer
Erasmus, in his Epistles, frequently mentions Longolius, who was a Hollander by birth, and one who in his writings applied himself with utmost care and industry, to the imitation of Tully. “Quid hic commemorem Longolium, qui totus in hoc incubuit, ut Ciceronem exprimeret, nec infeliciter cessit conatus ?” Lib. 27. Ep. 38.
Of the difference that happened betwixt himself and Longolius, Erasmus gives us some account in his Letter to Alciatus. Lib. 21. Ep. 38; wherein he has this severe remark upon those slavish imitators, the Ciceronianists of that
age. “ Exorta est nova secta Ciceronianorum quæ mihi videtur non minus fervere istic, quam apud nos Lutheranorum. Posthac non licebit Episcopos appellare Patres reverendos, nec in calce literarum scribere annum a Christo nato, quòd id nusquam faciat Cicero. Quid autem ineptius, quàm toto seculo novato, religione, imperiis, magistratibus, locorum vocabulis, ædificiis, cultu, moribus, non aliter audere loqui, quàm locutus est Cicero? Si reviviscerit ipse Cicero, rideret hoc Ciceronianorum genus."
cised.” And although Sturmius herein doth far pass all others; yet hath he not so fully and perfectly done it, as I do wish he had, and as I know he could. For though he hath done it perfectly for precept, yet he hath not done it perfectly enough for example. Which he did, neither for lack of skill, nor by negligence, but of purpose, contented with one or two examples; because he was minded in those two books to write of it both shortly, and also had to touch other matters.
Barthol. Riccius Ferrariensis also * hath written learnedly, diligently, and very largely of this matter, even as he did before very well de Apparatu Latinæ Locutionis. He writeth the better in mine opinion, because his whole doctrine, judgement, and order, seemeth to be borrowed out of Joan. Sturmius's books. He addeth also examples, the best kind of teaching; wherein he doth well, but not well enough: indeed he committeth no fault, but yet deserveth small praise. He is content with the mean, and followeth not the best: as a man that would + feed upon acorns, when he may eat as good cheap the finest wheat bread.
He teacheth, for example, where, and how, two or three Italian poets do follow Virgil; and how Virgil himself, in the story of Dido, doth wholly initate Catullus in the like matter of Ariadne. Wherein I like better his diligence and order of teaching, than his judgement in choice of examples for Imitation. But if he had done thus : if he had declared where, and how, how oft, and how many ways, Virgil doth follow Homer; as for example, the coming of Ulysses to Alcinous and Calypso, with the coming of Æneas to Carthage and Dido : likewise the games, running, wrestling, and shooting, that Achilles maketh in Homer, with the selfsame games that Æneas maketh in Virgil : the harness of Achilles, with the harness of Æneas, and the manner of making them both by Vulcan : the notable combat betwixt Achilles and Hector, with as notable a combat betwixt Æneas and Turnus: the going down to hell of Ulysses in Homer, with the going down to hell of Æneas in "Virgil ;
* This work Riccius published under this title, De Imitatione, Libri 3.
+ The same proverbial expression we meet with a little after in this book. The com tors seem very fond of it: “ Post fruges inventas vesci glandibus :” άνδρες βαλανηφάγοι.
and other places infinite more, as similitudes, narrations, messages, descriptions of persons, places, battles, tempests, shipwrecks, and common places for divers purposes,
which be as precisely taken out of Homer, as ever did painter in London follow the picture of any fair personage. And when these places had been gathered together by this way of diligence, then to have conferred them together by this order of teaching, as diligently to mark what is kept and used in either author, in words, in sentences, in matter; what is added; what is left out; what ordered otherwise, either præponendo, interponendo, or postponendo; and what is altered for any respect, in word, phrase, sentence, figure, reason, argument, or by any way of circumstance.” If Riccius had done this, he had not only been well liked for his diligence in teaching, but also justly commended for his right judgement in right choice of examples for the best Imitation.
Riccius also for Imitation of prose declareth, where and how Longolius doth follow Tully; but, as for Longolius, I would not have him the pattern of our Imitation. Indeed, in Longolius's shop be proper and fair showing colours; but as for shape, figure, and natural comeliness, by the judge ment of best judging artificers, he is rather allowed as one to be borne withal, than specially commended as one chiefly to be followed.
If Riccius had taken for his examples, where Tully himself followeth either Plato or Demosthenes, he had shot then at the right mark. But to excuse Riccius somewhat, though I cannot fully defend him, it may be said, his purpose was, to teach only the Latin tongue ; when this way that I do wish, to join Virgil with Homer, to read Tully with Demosthenes and Plato, requireth a cunning and perfect master in both the tongues. It is my wish indeed, and that by good reason ; for whosoever will write well of any matter, must labour to express that that is perfect; and not to stay and content himself with the mean : yea,
further, though it be not impossible, yet it is very rare, and inarvellous hard to prove excellent in the Latin tongue, for him that is not also well seen in the Greek tongue. Tully himself, most excellent of nature, most diligent in labour, brought up from his cradle in that place, and in that time, where and when the Latin tongue most flourished naturally in every man's mouth; yet was not his own tongue able itself to make him so cunning in his own tongue,
he was in