1807.] Defence of the common Reading of a Verse in the Aeneid. 451 
These performances I knew were painted 
by the younger Sanby, for his own pri- 
vate amusement, and as studies from na-’ 
ture; I knew also that he considered the 
branch ef the art as too much degraded 
at tliat time to think of bringing them 
forward; but 1 could never have supposed 
that the discerning part of his friends, 
who were judges of the art itself, would 
suffer such a talent to lie in obscurity a 
moment; and left town fully expecting to 
hear of He being honourab y adopted, and 
ranked, as it well deserved in such hands, 
among ‘the hi gh, because the more inter- 
esting part of the ai t, to minds that view 
pictures with esteem, in proportion as 
they influence the feelings and imagina- 
tion. 
How much then was I disappointed, 
when on a late visit ofa few days to town, 
(after five vears absence,) I found the 
objects of my earnest solicitude had been 
neglected, abandoned, and almest forgot ! 
That they still existed, but unseen and an- 
known, except to their author and avery 
few real students of nature; and that with 
respect to the public they had never met 
their eye, under an idea that the common 
prejudices againft this prostituted branch 
of the fine arts, were yet too rife to be 
successfully combated. 
This excuse may satisfy others, but my 
mind it does not influence, who hold it to 
be a first-rate duty to publish talents that 
we know, and know to be unduly appre- 
ciated. I must, therefore, beg leave to 
unburthen it to you, and, through your 
medium, to the public; not doubting that 
all who have been favoured witha sight 
of these truly fine, touching, and original 
examples of enchanting nature, will yield 
my motive their approbation, in hopes 
that it may be the weak means of bring- 
ing forward a new pleasure from the 
arts, exciting merit to take its due place 
so long declined, and adding to the 
honours of a country so justly celebrated 
for the variety of its men of genius, re- 
flection, and abilities. Your's, &c. 
Bristol, Nov.4, 1807. G. CUMBERLAND. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
R. Foster, in his “ Essay on Ac- 
cent and Quantity,” supposes that 
the small Roman? and*t have been the ° 
means of corrupting the following pas- 
sage th Virgil, and that instead of pater 
we ought to read patet : 
Hic viridem Afneas frondenti ex ilice metam 
Constituit, signum nautis, pater, unde reverti 
Scirent, et longos ubi circumMectere cursus. 
ZEN. Vv. 150, 
This reading he attempts to support, 
by saving , that the word pater is here un- 
necessary, if not absurd; and that, when 
it is joined in construction with neas, | i 
the other parts of the poem, it is gene- 
rally in close position with it as, a anes 
pater /imeas, At pater jnens,” &c. 
Critics are commonly too ready to give 
a different reading from that which they 
find, and to suppose that every passage 
which does not accord with their own 
ideas, has been corrupted by the negli- 
gence or ignorance of transcribers. This 
emendation of Mr. Foster I have always 
considered as too refined. I am ready, 
indeed, toacknowledge his great learning 
and abilities; but  nullius addictus ju- 
rare in verba magistri,” is a motto which 
should be adopted by every man, 
Ifthe word pater be unnecessary in 
this passage, why do we ever find it joined 
in construction with /ineas, Auchises, 
and others? It 1s employed. by Virgil in 
several parts of his poem, to denote age 
or veneration; and is found eighteen 
times conjoined with Aeneas, and ten with 
Anchises in the At‘neid. ‘The frequent 
use of this word, therefore, is a proof that 
Virgil did not consider it either as unne- 
cessary or absurd. | 
With respect to the position of pater, 
in the 130th line of the fifth book of tie 
ZEneid, this, L think, may be also sufti- 
ciently defended. It is nearly as far se- 
parated from /Eneas in the following pas- 
sage: 
Cum pater in ripa, gelidique sub ztheris axe 
Ei neas, tristi turbatus pectora bello, 
Procubuit. En. VIII. 28. 
But here, says Mr. F. though pater is se- 
arated, it stands first; and the sense of 
the word is very emphatical. It surely 
cannot be of much importance whether 
word is placed first; and the sense of pater 
in the corrected as well as in the present 
line, 1s equally impressive. What, how- 
ever, has fully convinced me, that this 
emendation of Mr, Foster 1s altogether 
gratuitous and unnece ssary, is the opinion 
of Heyne, who has not only adopted the 
ancient reading in this passage, but, in 
another part of the same book of the 
JEneid, has substituted pater for pariter, 
and placed the word at a great distance 
from Acestes: 
Amissa solus palma superabat Acestes : 
Qui tame aérias telum contendic in auras, 
Ostentans artemque pater arcumque senan- 
tem. f&ni V. 519, &e. 
In the same work Mr. F. has proposed 
an alteration of the following line in the 
CEdipus of Sophocles: 
STPE'VANTA xEtp09 Tig duiunrs Pern. 
For 
- — 
