New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-27
| ] l..
THE MAGICAL LEGEND.

But there was after all. break OF hundreds Of
years between the chance remarks Of Seneca and
Gellius and the founding OF the monastery at
Monte Vergine: and when one came TO examine
the evidence more closely. one found no trace Of
a popular Renaissance dating from Virgirs own
times but very strong argument 10 show that
whatever popular fancy had done was due to q
direct literary stimulus. For example, ViTgils
own famous line about appe-beari Avella
stared out from the story about his wonderful
garden. II appears that Comparetti in his second
edition will concede all this He has added sew
eral pages Of new matter to his discussion Of
Monte Vergne. and the substance OF II Is that all
the part Of the Virgllian legend In which Naples
Octavian (Augustus). Marceus and Virgil figure
while 1t is purely Neapotan and therefore popu-
lar yet shows by It's correction with real his
torcal facts. such were the relations between
Octavian, Marcellus and Virgil that il origna ed
among the educated populace-among the lower
classes that frequented those monasteries and
medieval monastc schools In Southern Italy
which were under the influences OF Neapoli,an
feeling For this part. therefore, and in the linn
tied sense, may be admitted literary origin of
the popular Neapolitan legends concerning Vlr-
gil"
But even this will hardly satisfy Victor. lie
will be content with nothing short OF textual
proof that every one OF the Nea politan legends
speeding Virgil was due 10 verbal misconceptions.
Much OF his criticism upon contradictory pas
sages in Comparetti's first edition still holds good.
He can stin maintain. If he chooses to renew his
attack on Comparettis theory. that the hstori-
cal and psychological phenomena behind the lit
erary tradition exactly the same those be-
hind the popular legends: and II he accepts
Compsrettis new method Of discrimination be-
tween literary and popular tales ne need only
say that the distinguished Italian professor has
destroyed the whole fabric of literary tradition
respecting Virgil. and has placed criticism and
anecdote from the time OF Asconius Pedianus
onward on basis Of popular sentiment. The
mistakes Of learned men In medieval times the
specimens Of which more numerous in Com
paretti's collection nov than they were in his
first edition. are as gross as those attributed to
the populace. and there is still the same room for
minute verbal criticism OF the various Latin
texts in which the magical legends Of Virgil were
first imbedded as there when Victor first
showed how 1t could be applied.
Comparetti attempts TO meet the primary fact
upon which adverse criticism was based by
changing the date OF Alexander Neckams book
de Naturis Revum" In 1872 ne thought that
decade OF the twelfth century. Now. without any
new evidence. without even a hint OF change he
fixes the date Of publication between 1850 and
1900. He was probably right In his first edition;
but by the change he brings Neckam In after
those two famous travellers. Conrad OF Cuerfurt
and Gervsse OF 1ibu-y. neither Of whom in
the words OF Victor "is worthy OF belief, and
thus weakens, far as mere conjecture can DO
It, the argument that the first man to deal with
the Virgilian legends WAS who never saw
Italy, and never had anything to do with the
Neapolitan popuiace. The difference is only
matter OF five years, yet 1t means everything In
a close discussion OF an obscure point In literary
history. But even II Neckam's work be subse-
quent to that Of others there are still 10 be con-
sdered the more general facts that the tales
about Virgil were not at all peculiar in character
that without his name they were as much the
property OF the North AS Of the South. that with
his name they were found nrst not IN the writ
inss Of N~en"litans- nor Of Italians anywhere.