[929] Scaligerana Secunda.
[930] Miræus, quoted in Melchior Adam’s Life of Lipsius, praises his eloquence, with contempt of those who thought their own feeble and empty writing like Cicero’s. See also Eichhorn, iii. 299; Baillet, who has a long article on the style of Lipsius and the school it formed (Jugemens des Savans, vol. ii. p. 192, 4to edition); and Blount; also the note M. in Bayle’s article on Lipsius. The following passage of Scioppius I transcribe from Blount:—“In Justi Lipsii stylo, scriptoris ætate nostra clarissimi, istæ apparent dotes; acumen, venustas, delectus, ornatus vel nimius, cum vix quicquam proprie dictum ei placeat, tum schemata nullo numero, tandem verborum copia; desunt autem perspicuitas, puritas, æquabilitas, collocatio, junctura et numerus oratorius. Itaque oratio ejus est obscura, non paucis barbarismis et solœcismis, pluribus vero archaismis et idiotismis, innumeris etiam neoterismis inquinata, comprehensio obscura, compositio fracta et in particulas concisa, vocum similium aut ambiguarum puerilis captatio.”
Minerva of Sanctius. 28. Morhof, and several authorities quoted by Baillet, extol the Latin grammar of a Spaniard, Emanuel Alvarez, as the first in which the fancies of the ancient grammarians had been laid aside. Of this work I know nothing farther. But the Minerva of another native of Spain, Sanchez, commonly called Sanctius, the first edition of which appeared at Salamanca in 1587, far excelled any grammatical treatise that had preceded it, especially as to the rules of syntax, which he has reduced to their natural principles, by explaining apparent anomalies. He is called the prince of grammarians, a divine man, the Mercury and Apollo of Spain, the father of the Latin language, the common teacher of the learned, in the panegyrical style of the Lipsii or Scioppii.[931] The Minerva, enlarged and corrected at different times by the most eminent scholars, Scioppius, Perizonius, and others more recent, still retains a leading place in philology. “No one among those,” says its last editor Bauer, “who have written well upon grammar, has attained such reputation and even authority as the famous Spaniard whose work we now give to the press.” But Sanctius has been charged with too great proneness to censure his predecessors, especially Valla, and with an excess of novelty in his theoretical speculations.
[931] Baillet.
Orations of Muretus. 29. The writers, who in this second moiety of the sixteenth century appear to have been most conspicuous for purity of style, were Muretus, Paulus Manutius Perpinianus, Osorius, Maphæus, to whom we may add our own Buchanan, and perhaps Haddon. The first of these is celebrated for his Orations, published by Aldus Manutius in 1576. Many of these were delivered a good deal earlier. |Panegyric of Ruhnkenius.| Ruhnkenius, editor of the works of Muretus, says that he at once eclipsed Bembo, Sadolet, and the whole host of Ciceronians; expressing himself so perfectly in that author’s style that we should fancy ourselves to be reading him, did not the subject betray a modern hand. “In learning,” he says, “and in knowledge of the Latin language, Manutius was not inferior to Muretus; we may even say, that his zeal in imitating Cicero was still stronger, inasmuch as he seemed to have no other aim all his life than to bear a perfect resemblance to that model. Yet he rather followed than overtook his master, and in this line of imitation cannot be compared with Muretus. The reason of this was that nature had bestowed on Muretus the same kind of genius that she had given to Cicero, while that of Manutius was very different. It was from this similarity of temperament that Muretus acquired such felicity of expression, such grace in narration, such wit in raillery, such perception of what would gratify the ear in the structure and cadence of his sentences. The resemblance of natural disposition made it a spontaneous act of Muretus to fall into the footsteps of Cicero; while, with all the efforts of Manutius, his dissimilar genius led him constantly away; so that we should not wonder when the writings of one so delight us that we cannot lay them down, while we are soon wearied with those of the other, correct and polished as they are, on account of the painful desire of imitation which they betray. No one, since the revival of letters,” Ruhnkenius proceeds, “has written Latin more correctly than Muretus; yet even in him a few inadvertencies may be discovered.”[932]
[932] Mureti opera, cura Ruhnkenii, Lugd. 1789.
Defects of his style. 30. Notwithstanding the panegyric of so excellent a scholar, I cannot feel this very close approximation of Muretus to the Ciceronian standard; and it even seems to me that I have not rarely met with modern Latin of a more thoroughly classical character. His style is too redundant and florid; his topics very trivial. Witness the whole oration on the battle of Lepanto, where the greatness of his subject does not raise them above the level of a schoolboy’s exercise. The celebrated eulogy on the St. Bartholomew Massacre, delivered before the Pope, will serve as a very fair specimen, to exemplify the Latinity of Muretus.[933] Scaliger, invidious for the most part in his characters of contemporary scholars, declares that no one since Cicero had written so well as Muretus, but that he adopted the Italian diffuseness, and says little in many words. This observation seems perfectly just.
[933] O noctem illam memorabilem et in fastis eximiæ alicujus notæ adjectione signandam, quæ paucorum seditiosorum interitu regem a præsenti cædis periculo, regnum a perpetua bellorum civilium formidine liberavit! Qua quidem nocte stellas equidem ipsas luxisse solito nitidius arbitror, et flumen Sequanam majores undas volvisse, quo citius illa impurorum hominum cadavera evolveret et exoneraret in mare. O felicissimam mulierem Catharinam, regis matrem, quæ cum tot annos admirabili prudentia parique solicitudine regnum filio, filium regno conservasset, tum demum secura regnantem filium adspexit! O regis fratres ipsos quoque beatos! quorum alter cum, qua ætate cæteri vix adhuc arma tractare incipiunt, eâ ipse quater commisso prælio fraternos hostes fregisset ac fugasset, hujus quoque pulcherrimi facti præcipuam gloriam ad se potissimum voluit pertinere; alter, quamquam ætate nondum ad rem militarem idonea erat, tanta tamen est ad virtutem indole, ut neminem nisi fratrem in his rebus gerendis æquo animo sibi passurus fuerit anteponi. O diem denique illum plenum lætitiæ et hilaritatis, quo tu, beatissime pater, hoc ad te nuncio allato, Deo immortali, et Divo Ludovico regi, cujus hæc in ipso pervigilio evenerant, gratias acturus, indictas a te supplicationes pedes obiisti! Quis optabilior ad te nuncius adferri poterat? aut nos ipsi quod felicius optare poteramus principium pontificatus tui, quam ut primis illis mensibus tetram illam caliginem, quasi exorto sole, discussam cerneremus? vol. i. p. 197, edit. Ruhnken.
Epistles of Manutius. 31. The epistles of Paulus Manutius are written in what we may call a gentleman-like tone, without the virulence or querulousness that disgusts too often in the compositions of literary men. Of Panvinius, Robortellus, Sigonius, his own peculiar rivals, he writes in a friendly spirit and tone of eulogy. His letters are chiefly addressed to the great classical scholars of his age. But, on the other hand, though exclusively on literary subjects, they deal chiefly in generalities, and the affectation of copying Cicero in every phase gives a coldness and almost an air of insincerity to the sentiments. They have but one note, the praise of learning; yet it is rarely that they impart to us much information about its history and progress. Hence they might serve for any age, and seem like pattern forms for the epistles of a literary man. In point of mere style there can be no comparison between the letters of a Sadolet or Manutius on the one hand, and those of a Scaliger, Lipsius, or Casaubon on the other. But while the first pall on the reader by their monotonous elegance, the others are full of animation and pregnant with knowledge. Even in what he most valued, correct Latin, Manutius, as Scioppius has observed, is not without errors. But the want of perfect dictionaries made it difficult to avoid illegitimate expressions which modern usage suggested to the writer.[934]
[934] Sciopp. Judicium de Stylo Historico.