novo exhibere.’ (Poet. Prael. v. ii. p. 164.)647 Where, having first put a wrong construction on the word communia, he employs it to introduce an impertinent criticism. For where does the poet prefer the glory of refitting old subjects to that of inventing new ones? The contrary is implied in what he urges about the superiour difficulty of the latter, from which he dissuades his countrymen, only in respect of their abilities and inexperience in these matters; and in order to cultivate in them, which is the main view of the Epistle, a spirit of correctness, by sending them to the old subjects, treated by the Greek writers.
For my own part (with all deference for Dr. Hurd, who thinks the case clear,) I consider the passage, ‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere,’ to be a crux for the criticks on Horace.
The explication which My Lord of Worcester treats with so much contempt, is nevertheless countenanced by authority which I find quoted by the learned Baxter in his edition of Horace: ‘Difficile est proprie communia dicere, h. e. res vulgares disertis verbis enarrare, vel humile thema cum dignitate tractare. Difficile est communes res propriis explicare verbis. Vet. Schol.’648I was much disappointed to find that the great critick, Dr. Bentley, has no note upon this very difficult passage, as from his vigorous and illuminated mind I should have expected to receive more satisfaction than I have yet had.
Sanadon thus treats of it: ‘Proprie communia dicere; c’est a dire, qu’il n’est pas aise de former Ü ces personnages d’imagination, des caracteres particuliers et cependant vraisemblables. Comme Von a ete le maitre de les former tels qu’on a voulu, les fautes que Von fait en cela sont moins pardonnables. C’est pourquoi Horace conseille de prendre toujours des sujets connus tels que sont par exemple ceux que Von peut tirer des poemes d‘Homere.’649
And Dacier observes upon it, ‘Apres avoir marque les deux qualites qu’il faut donner aux personnages qu’on invente, il conseille aux Poetes tragiques, de n’user pas trop facilement de cette liberte quils ont d’en inventer, car il est tres difficile de reussir dans ces nouveaux caracteres. Il est mal aise, dit Horace, de traiter propre-ment, c’est Ü dire convenablement, des sujets communs; c’est Ü dire, des sujets inventes, et qui n’ont aucun fondement ni dans V Histoire ni dans la Fable; et il les appelle communs, parce qu’ils sont en disposition ä tout le monde, et que tout le monde a le droit de les inventer, et qu’ils sont, comme on dit, au premier occupant.’650 See his observations at large on this expression and the following.
After all, I cannot help entertaining some doubt whether the words, Difficile est proprie communia dicere, may not have been thrown in by Horace to form a separate article in a ‘choice of difficulties’ which a poet has to encounter, who chooses a new subject; in which case it must be uncertain which of the various explanations is the true one, and every reader has a right to decide as it may strike his own fancy. And even should the words be understood as they generally are, to be connected both with what goes before and what comes after, the exact sense cannot be absolutely ascertained; for instance, whether proprie is meant to signify in an appropriated manner, as Dr. Johnson here understands it, or, as it is often used by Cicero, with propriety, or elegantly. In short, it is a rare instance of a defect in perspicuity in an admirable writer, who with almost every species of excellence, is peculiarly remarkable for that quality. The length of this note perhaps requires an apology. Many of my readers, I doubt not, will admit that a critical discussion of a passage in a favourite classick is very engaging.
a It would not become me to expatiate on this strong and pointed remark, in which a very great deal of meaning is condensed.
a These words must have been in the other copy. They are not in that which was preferred.
a He however, upon seeing Dr. Warton’s name to the suggestion, that the Epitaph should be in English, observed to Sir Joshua, ‘I wonder that Joe Warton, a scholar by profession, should be such a fool.’ He said too, ‘I should have thought Mund Burke would have had more sense.’ Mr. Langton, who was one of the company at Sir Joshua’s, like a sturdy scholar, resolutely refused to sign the Round Robin. The Epitaph is engraved upon Dr. Goldsmith’s monument without any alteration. At another time, when somebody657 endeavoured to argue in favour of its being in English, Johnson said, ‘The language of the country of which a learned man was a native, is not the language fit for his epitaph, which should be in ancient and permanent language. Consider, Sir; how you should feel, were you to find at Rotterdam an epitaph upon Erasmus in Dutch!’ For my own part I think it would be best to have Epitaphs written both in a learned language, and in the language of the country; so that they might have the advantage of being more universally understood, and at the same time be secured of classical stability. I cannot, however, but be of opinion, that it is not sufficiently discriminative. Applying to Goldsmith equally the epithets of ‘Poetæ, Historici, Physici,’ is surely not right; for as to his claim to the last of those epithets, I have heard Johnson himself say, ‘Goldsmith, Sir, will give us a very fine book upon the subject; but if he can distinguish a cow from a horse, that, I believe, may be the extent of his knowledge of natural history.’ His book is indeed an excellent performance, though in some instances he appears to have trusted too much to Buffon, who, with all his theoretical ingenuity and extraordinary eloquence, I suspect had little actual information in the science on which he wrote so admirably. For instance, he tells us that the cow sheds her horns every two years; a most palpable errour, which Goldsmith has faithfully transferred into his book. It is wonderful that Buffon, who lived so much in the country, at his noble seat, should have fallen into such a blunder. I suppose he has confounded the cow with the deer.
a Beside this Latin Epitaph, Johnson honoured the memory of his friend Goldsmith with a short one in Greek. See ante, July 5, 1774.
b Upon a settlement of our account of expences on a Tour to the Hebrides, there was a balance due to me, which Dr. Johnson chose to discharge by sending books.
c Baretti told me that Johnson complained of my writing very long letters to him when I was upon the continent; which was most certainly true; but it seems my friend did not remember it.
a The son of Johnson’s old friend, Mr. William Drummond. (See pp. 279–81.) He was a young man of such distinguished merit, that he was nominated to one of the medical professorships in the College of Edinburgh without solicitation while he was at Naples. Having other views, he did not accept of the honour, and soon afterwards died.
a A Florentine nobleman, mentioned by Johnson in his Notes of his Tour in France. I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with him in London, in the spring of this year.
a Why his Lordship uses the epithet pleasantly, when speaking of a grave piece of reasoning, I cannot conceive. But different men have different notions of pleasantry. I happened to sit by a gentleman one evening at the Opera-house in London, who, at the moment when Medea appeared to be in great agony at the thought of killing her children, turned to me with a smile, and said, ‘funny enough.’