Laudator Temporis Acti

Vergil, Aeneid 5.229-231 (tr. J.W. Mackail):

These scorn to lose the honour that is their own, the glory in their grasp, and would sell life for renown; to these success lends life; they can, because they believe they can.

hi proprium decus et partum indignantur honorem
ni teneant, vitamque volunt pro laude pacisci;        230
hos successus alit: possunt, quia posse videntur.

T.E. Page ad loc.:

hi...] 'The one think scorn not to retain their sure glory and secured prize, and are ready to barter life for honour; the others success inspires; they are strong, for they trust their strength.' proprium, partum: 'sure' and 'secured,' i.e. in anticipation. possunt...: cf. Liv. 22.3.4 dum se putant vincere, vicere. Confidence gives capacity, and men often do what they think they can do.

James Henry, Aeneidea, Vol. III (Dublin: Published for the Trustees of the Authorm 1889), pp. 75-77:

HOS SUCCESSUS ALIT; POSSUNT QUIA POSSE VIDENTUR (vs. 231). —La Cerda, Heyne, Wagner, Peerlkamp, Conington, and common opinion, VIDENTUR sibi; Servius and Voss, VIDENTUR spectantibus. I agree with La Cerda and common opinion, and believe the author's meaning to be their previous success renders them self-confident, and their self-confidence renders them able (Homer. Lat. 494: "geminat victoria vires"). Previous success and ability are thus two links of a chain of thought, connected together by the intermediate link, self-confidence. The interpretation of Servius and Voss (their previous success renders them self-confident, and the confidence which the spectators repose in them renders them able) cuts the connecting link into two halves, and calling one of the halves self-confidence, leaves it in connexion with the left-hand link, and calling the other half the confidence reposed in them by the spectators, leaves it in connexion with the right-hand link; and thus, instead of giving us the three mutually connected and dependent ideas, previous success, self-confidence, and ability, presents us with four thoughts, of which the two former, previous success and self-confidence, stand wholly separate and apart from the two latter, the confidence of the spectators and ability; and leaving previous success and self-confidence without their natural and expected consequence, ascribes the consequence to the newly introduced cause, the confidence of the spectators.

It is painful to observe the malicious pleasure with which Voss, on every occasion on which it is at all possible, deals Heyne a knock on the head either with the awkward cudgel of Servius or with his own far more redoubtable fist. The present occasion is one of the few in which the blow is not accompanied with some such insulting expression as "So würfeln die drei herren Heyne, Heumann, und Bryant über Virgil!" (5.138). "Albern! wenn man die regeln des versbaues kennt" (3.123). "Ihr heiligen Musen ! Das ohrzerreissende 'exstinxsti' trägt epische würde!" (4.682). "Das steht wohl Heyne an, solche citate zu beekeln!" (4.700). "Was sagt der verwirrte!" (5.183). "Schön! veniebat veniens" (5.373). "Der scharfsinnige!" (6.161). "Der feine spötter!" (6.255). "Diese erklärung ist ihm durch die elfenbeinpforte gekommen" (6.895), and soforth, and soforth; expressions which cannot fail to remind the reader of the boastful and vituperative language with which a Homeric hero delighted to second his assault on his antagonist, often a better man than himself. It is indeed greatly to be regretted that Voss should have descended from his high status as an accomplished scholar, an acute critic, and a poet able, as proved by his famous Idyl, to compete even with Goethe himself, to these unworthy personalities; directed too against a man distinguished alike for his immense and varied erudition, and for the temperate and becoming language in which he puts forward his own opinions and combats the opinions of others; a man who (his Virgilian labours alone taken into account) has contributed more to the advancement of classical literature in Europe than perhaps any man that ever lived. The errors of such a man (and who may hope to discuss without error the meaning of almost every word of Virgil?) are at least deserving of lenity. Servius, the third of the commentators of whom I have here been led to speak, derives from the accident of his having lived so much nearer to the time of Virgil a double advantage over the other two: viz., a vernacular knowledge of the language, and access to sources of information respecting Virgil which have since been lost. Notwithstanding these two great advantages, Servius (or whoever else may have been the author of the commentaries ascribed to Servius) was, owing to defects in himself, infinitely inferior as a commentator of Virgil, both to Voss and Heyne. Totally destitute of poetical sentiment, and stone-blind to Virgil's fascinating grace and elegance, Servius sees nothing in the Aeneid but a mere matter of fact narrative, such as might have come from the pen of an Aratus or an Avienus, and writes comments on it which bear the same relation to those of Heyne and Voss as we may suppose critiques upon the dramas of Shakespeare, written some two hundred years ago by the master of a village grammar school in Yorkshire, would bear to those of Schlegel.