Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries, Vol. 2Hallam, Henry
History
Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries, Vol. 2
Hallam, Henry
Literature, Modern -- History and criticism
[25] The following are the heads of the fourth chapter of the
first book, which may serve as a specimen of the Adversaria: Ad
Victoris Uticensis librum primum notæ et emendationes. Limites.
Collimitia. Quantitas. H. Stephanus notatur. Impendere. Totum.
Omnimodè. Dextrales. Asta. Francisii Balduini audacia castigatur.
Tormenta antiqua. Liguamen Arx capitis. Memoriæ. Cruciari.
Balduinus denuo aliquoties notatur. It is true that all this
farrago arises out of one passage in Victor of Utica, and
Barthius is far from being so desultory as Turnebus: but 3000
columns of such notes make but a dictionary without the help of
the alphabet. Barthius tells us himself that he had finished two
other volumes of Adversaria, besides correcting the first. See
the passage in Bayle, note K. But he does not stand on very high
ground as a critic, on account of the rapidity with which he
wrote, and, for the same reason, has sometimes contradicted
himself. Bayle. Baillet, n. 528. Niceron, vol. vii. Morhof, lib.
v. 1. 10.
|Other critics--English.|
15. Rigault, or Rigaltius, Petit, Thysius, and several more, do honour
to France and the Low countries during this period. Spain, though not
strong in classical philology, produced Ramiresius de Prado, whose
Πεντηκονταρχος [Pentêkontarchos], sive quinquaginta militum ductor,
1612, is but a book of criticism with a quaint title.[26] In Latin
Literature we can hardly say that England made herself more
conspicuous than in Greek. The notes of John Bond on Horace,
published in 1606, are properly a work of the age of Elizabeth: the
author was long a schoolmaster in that reign. These notes are only
little marginal scholia for the use of boys of no great attainments;
and in almost every instance, I believe, taken from Lambinus. This
edition of Horace, though Antony Wood calls the author a most noted
critic and grammarian, has only the merit of giving the observations
of another concisely and perspicuously. Thomas Farnaby is called by
Baillet one of the best scholiasts, who says hardly anything useless,
and is very concise.[27] He has left notes on several of the Latin
poets. It is possible that the notes are compiled, like those of Bond,
from the foreign critics. Farnaby also was a schoolmaster, and
schoolmasters do not write for the learned. He has however been
acknowledged on the continent for a diligent and learned man. Wood
says he was “the chief grammarian, rhetorician, poet, Latinist, and
Grecian of his time; and his school was so much frequented, that more
churchmen and statesmen issued thence than from any school taught by
one man in England.”[28]
[26] This has been ascribed by some to his master Sanctius,
author of the Minerva, Ramirez himself having been thought
unequal to such remarks as we find in it. Baillet, n. 527.
[27] N. 521.
[28] Athenæ Oxonienses, vol. iii.
|Salmasius.|
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account