I stand corrected as to the source, however that is not the full source.
It may be bad Latin; that's not for me to say, if so it is odd that circle of
scholars signed off on it. Gibbon certainly knew his Latin.
I copied it from my collection of poems containing "lacrymae"--that part of the
text reminds me of Dowland's "I saw my lady weep" (though composed much
earlier...)
I have a note here that the material is based on Gibbon, but Gibbon is not
searchable in my lifetime. The standard attribution is to Johnson, famous at
Oxford for his Latin (though apparently not in the this case, pity it is in
marble...)
The story of the quote and the "Round Robin" plus the full poem is reproduced
below.
Not long after his death the Literary Club set on foot a subscription, and
raised a fund to erect a monument to his memory in Westminster Abbey. It
was executed by Nollekins, and consisted simply of a bust of the poet in
profile, in high relief, in a medallion, and was placed in the area of a
pointed arch, over the south door in Poets' Corner, between the monuments
of Gay and the Duke of Argyle. Johnson furnished a Latin epitaph, which was
read at the table of Sir Joshua Reynolds, where several members of the club
and other friends of the deceased were present. Though considered by them a
masterly composition, they thought the literary character of the poet not
defined with sufficient exactness, and they preferred that the epitaph
should be in English rather than Latin, as "the memory of so eminent an
English writer ought to be perpetuated in the language to which his works
were likely to be so lasting an ornament." These objections were reduced to
writing, to be respectfully submitted to Johnson, but such was the awe
entertained of his frown that every one shrank from putting his name first
to the instrument; whereupon their names were written about it in a circle,
making what mutinous sailors call a Round Robin. Johnson received it half
graciously, half grimly. "He was willing," he said, "to modify the sense of
the epitaph in any manner the gentlemen pleased; _but he never would
consent to disgrace the walls of Westminster Abbey with an English
inscription_." Seeing the names of Dr. Wharton and Edmund Burke among
the signers, "he wondered," he said, "that Joe Wharton, a scholar by
profession, should be such a fool; and should have thought that Mund Burke
would have had more sense." The following is the epitaph as it stands
inscribed on a white marble tablet beneath the bust:
OLIVARII GOLDSMITH,
Poetae, Physici, Historici,
Qui nullum fere scribendi genus
Non tetigit,
Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit
Sive risus essent movendi,
Sive lacrymae,
Affectuum potens ac lenis dominator:
Ingenio sublimis, vividus, versatilis,
Oratione grandis, nitidus, venustus:
Hoc monumento memoriam coluit
Sodalium amor,
Amicorum fides,
Lectorum veneratio.
Natus in Hibernia Forniae Longfordiensis,
In loco cui nomen Pallas,
Nov. xxix. MDCCXXXI.;
Eblanse literis institutus;
Obiit Londini,
April iv. MDCCLXXIV.
OF OLIVER GOLDSMITH--
A Poet, Naturalist, and Historian,
Who left scarcely any style of writing untouched,
And touched nothing that he did not adorn;
Of all the passions,
Whether smiles were to be moved or tears,
A powerful yet gentle master;
In genius, sublime, vivid, versatile,
In style, elevated, clear, elegant--
The love of companions,
The fidelity of friends,
And the veneration of readers,
Have by this monument honored the memory.
He was born in Ireland,
At a place called Pallas,
[In the parish] of Forney, [and county] of Longford,
On the 29th Nov., 1731,[*]
Educated at [the University of] Dublin,
And died in London,
4th April, 1774.
"Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "David Tayler" schrieb:
> I am deeply distressed to learn that Pliny, or Caius Plinius Secundus, author
> of Naturalis Historia, is guilty of faulty Latin.
The quote was taken from Samuel Johnson, Epitaph on Goldsmith, 22th June
1776, if I'm not mistaken. It is not classical nor was it cited in full
length.
The full quote is: Qui nullum fere scribendi genus non tetigit, nullum
quod tetigit non ornavit. Nullum refers to sribendi genus. If the clause
stands alone, nullum is faulty; that's why it was later changed into
Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit by knowledgable persons. Cf.
http://www.bartleby.com/100/249.23.html or
http://www.psleo.com.br/fr_lat_n8.htm or
http://www.mundodelivros.org/376A686E333130/ch63.html
Please, do address sources and teachers alike. Dulce et honestum est pro
Sapientia laborare (that's not classical either, nevertheless it's right
IMO). Let's not waste our time with insipient arguments.
Mathias
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
