from Justin; "That Sesostris being put to flight by the Scythians, left behind him his army and baggage." The historian having observed, in § 15, that the Scythians, after returning from the pursuit of the king, rendered Asia, which they had subdued, tributary; how is it possible that, in § 18, he should say, that this happened not in consequence of their own military success, but in consequence of the permission of Sesostris? We are not now inquiring what is historically true, but what is Justin's report; which must not be supposed inconsistent with itself.

2. If we here consult Arrian, he tells us merely that "Alexander proceeded to the river Hyphasis, with a view to conquer the Indians who lived beyond it; but that the Macedonians, then perceiving there was no end to their labours, refused to advance; and finally prevailed on Alexander, through the earnest intreaty of Coenus, to prepare for his return; since every thing seemed adverse to his farther progress. Then Alexander erected twelve great altars, as monuments of his conquests." Arrian says nothing about the Cuphites, the camp, or the two hundred thousand horsemen, who so much terrified the Macedonians. Curtius, lib. ix. c. 2 and 3, relates, "that Alexander, when he came to the Hyphasis, discovered that the farther bank was inhabited by the Gangarida and Pharrasi ; that their king, with twenty thousand horse and two hundred thousand foot, meant to obstruct his passage; being furnished besides with two thousand chariots and three thousand elephants; which last formed the most alarming part of his strength. The Macedonians then refused to follow the king farther; and obtained, through Conus' entreaty, that preparations should be made for their return home." He subjoins: "Alexander came forth on the third day, and ordered twelve altars of square stone to be erected as a monument of his expedition, and the fortifications of his camp to be enlarged, and beds of a gigantic size to be constructed, that by diffusing an air of vastness on every object around him, he might excite the credulous wonder of posterity." Plutarch, in his treatise concerning the fortune of Alexander, speaks to the same purpose. By comparing these authors with Justin, the reader will perceive that he differs from them all in several essential circumstances; and particularly in saying that Alexander had two motives for enlarging the fortifications of his camp; one of which regarded the enemy, and the other had a relation to posterity: "Moved by such just prayers, he ordered a camp to be built more magnificent than usual, as at the end of his victory; that its fortifications might be an object of terror to the enemy, and of admiration to posterity."-Justin, ibid. § 16. The other historians are totally silent as to what regards the enemy; which is favourable to that reading of Justin which on the faith of manuscripts stands in the text, and extremely adverse to your emendation. For "the end of his victory" must refer to some recent victory, and not to his victories in general; otherwise Justin, as you acknowledge, would have said, "the end of his victories," as in § 10, above, wearied, not less by the number of his victories, than by his toils." As to Alexander's second motive,

concerning which all other historians are silent, "that his fortifications might be an object of terror to the enemy;" there would not surely be any room for it, on the supposition that he had determined to move his camp, and leave the country, without fighting a battle. The Cuphites could not be seized with alarm at seeing the monuments of the exploits of a man who had not ventured to engage with their army; nor, on that supposition, would there be any mention of victory, terror, or sacrifices of thanks; for that the word gratulatio refers to the solemn victims sacrificed in gratitude for success, and frequently mentioned by Arrian, cannot be doubtful to those conversant with ancient writers. Besides, the word omissis including the idea of something begun or neglected, does not please, nor seem conformable with Justin's style. Your prolix discussion concerning the age, design, and character of Orosius has but little connexion with the present subject. It is universally acknowledged, that he so closely, or rather superstitiously, follows Justin's footsteps, that he frequently expresses himself in the same words and phrases; and it has long ago been proved by good critics, that Justin's text, such as it stood in the copy used by Orosius, may in innumerable places be restored by an attention to the latter writer. He must be blind indeed, who does not perceive that in the passage before us Orosius must have copied Justin. Whence could he otherwise have derived the name Chosidum or Cuphitum, which is not mentioned by any other historian? and if that be the case, Orosius must have found in his original, not that "the enemy were omitted," but that "they were beat;" in which sense Justin ought to be interpreted.

4. I grant that a town taken by a siege cannot be said to be defended by its own walls. But may it not be defended by troops in the citadel? When the enemy are obliged to raise the siege of the citadel, the town may thereby be delivered from all danger. The expression, at least, might be used by an author fond of antithesis and amplification.

5. Your new conjecture concerning the towns of Syria which the Romans acquired by the law of war, would solve the difficulty, were not that conjecture built on an anachronism. For the league entered into with the ambassadors of Antiochus, who came to crave peace, which you find in Livy, lib. xxxviii. c. 37, was not prior, but subsequent to Antiochus's expedition into Egypt, mentioned in Justin, lib. xxxi. c. 1. You may consider whether the following words of Livy do not refer to this subject: "After this, Quintius and his ten lieutenants received the ambassadors of kings, nations, and cities. Those of king Antiochus were first introduced. They said the same things as formerly, when at Rome, without gaining belief; and they were now told, not in the ambiguous language which the Romans had used before the defeat of Philip, and while their own fortune was still doubtful, but in express terms, that Antiochus must evacuate all the cities of Asia, which had belonged either to Philip or Ptolemy."-Livy, lib. xxxi. c. 34; with which compare c. 39 and 40. Be satisfied with this authority. Farewell and prosper.

Zurich, 14th November.

1

V.-MR. BREITINGER TO MR. GIBBON.

Although I had long dedicated myself, and had purposed to spend my life, in more severe and sacred studies, yet it is not without pleasure that, at the invitation of my friends, I occasionally descend into the pleasing fields of literature; never losing an opportunity to stimulate the diligence of those who delight in such pursuits, and to serve as a whetstone to others, though myself unfit for carving. Nothing, therefore, could have been more agreeable to my wish, than to be called back to those studies, formerly my delight, by you; anonymously at first, but now in open war. I cannot but commend your sagacity and genius, which require rather the rein than the spur; and I earnestly wish that you were accompanied in this literary walk by a scholar of more cultivated taste, and more copious erudition, than myself.

66

You employ many arguments in defending your emendation of Justin, lib. xii. c. 8, § 17; where instead of "the enemy being beat," you substitute the enemy being omitted." I formerly gave you my reasons for rejecting this emendation, and shall not repeat them here, nor enter into a particular discussion of the answers which you make to my objections. Thus much only in general I will observe, that the reading in the text, which is approved of by the consenting authority of the manuscripts, must be acknowledged to contain a very natural meaning, conveyed in good Latin, and in Justin's style. This reading, indeed, makes mention of a battle with the Cuphites, concerning which the other historians of Alexander are silent. But ought this silence to make us alter Justin's text, especially as none of those historians deny such a battle to have happened? If such licence be indulged to critics, that they may expunge or alter the words of an historian, because he is the sole relator of a particular event, we shall leave few materials for authentic history. Two reasons strongly militate against your correction: the first, that if it be admitted, there will no longer be any consistency in Justin's narrative; and the whole clause must be expunged which mentions the return of the Macedonians into their camp; which, if they did not mean to fight, it was not necessary for them to leave. The second reason is, that the phrase omittere hostes, though frequently used by Justin, is never, that I know, applied by him in the sense which you give to it. The generals entitled to direct military measures are said omittere hostes; but never the soldiers, whose duty it is to obey orders; and who, in the passage under consideration, request that they may not be ordered to renew the engagement with the enemy. To this may be added, that wherever this phrase omissis hostibus occurs in Justin, it denotes not an end, but only a change of the war. Turn to the passage which you formerly referred to, lib. xxvii. c. 3, § 6, "They left off fighting against their foreign enemy, and made war on each other:" to which you will find a parallel in lib. xxix. c. 2, §7, "By this oration he prevailed with Philip to leave off fighting against the tolians, and to make war on the Romans." But it is sufficient that

Orosius read cæsis hostibus in the copies of Justin which he made use of. If, by saying omissis hostibus, Orosius confirmed your conjecture, the reading of the text would be doubtful indeed.

I have nothing further to add to my observations concerning the cities of Syria which the Romans acquired by the right of war.

year.

That we may not harp on the old string, but have new matter for our friendly contest, you raise a difficulty concerning the first consulship of Julius Cæsar, which happened on the first of January, in the six hundred and ninety-fifth year of Rome, and in the forty-first of his age; although by the laws ascertaining the age of candidates, no person was entitled to crave that honour before his forty-third But this law, which was proposed by Villius, appears not, any more than the other laws appertaining to the same object, to have been of perpetual authority; as we learn, both from the Roman historians and from the consular Fasti. Livy, lib. viii. c. 4, says, that in the consulship of C. Marius Rutilus and Q. Servilius Ahala, it was provided by a law of the people, that no person should bear the same magistracy twice in the space of ten years. But this law seems either not to have been confirmed, or not to have remained in force; for we afterwards find, both in the Fasti and in Livy, that T. Manlius Torquatus was a second time consul in the space of four years; M. Valerius Corvus, in eight; and L. Papirius Crassus, in six; L. Papirius Cursor was four times consul in eight years; which things are inconsistent with this law. To this subject may be referred what Dio. Cassius says concerning another law of the same kind, in his fortieth book, sect. 56: "Pompey restored the law of the Comitia, which prohibited any person from being elected into any office of magistracy in his absence-a law which had fallen into total disuse and confirmed another which had been a short time before enacted by the senate, forbidding any man who had been a magistrate in the city to command in any foreign province before the expiration of five years. Yet Pompey, who had just passed these laws, was not ashamed to accept his command in Spain for five years longer; and to grant, by the same decree, to Cæsar (whose friends impatiently brooked such regulations) the permission of being candidate for the consulship in his absence," &c. That the law proposed by Villius was not uniformly observed, appears from Cicero's oration against Rullus; where the orator boasts that he was the first man, not graced by ancient nobility, who had obtained the consulship in the year that he was entitled to solicit it; but his passage does not inform us what was the force of Villius's law, when the candidates were patricians of ancient family, or men of consular dignity. Dolabella certainly, after Cæsar's murder, seized the consulship, when only twenty-five years old, as we are informed by Appian. On which subject Dio Cassius, lib. xliv. § 22, says that Dolabella intruded himself into the consulship, though in nowise belonging to him; and Suetonius insinuates, that Julius obtained something to which he was not by law entitled: "As the Comitia were already proclaimed, his demand could not be attended to, unless he entered the city as a private person; and many opposing his being indulged

with any favour to which he was not legally entitled, he chose to postpone his claim to a triumph, lest he should be excluded from the consulship."-Sueton. lib. i. c. 88. Nearly to the same purpose Anthony, in Cæsar's funeral oration, in the forty-fourth book of Dio Cassius, says, "For this reason (his success in Spain) you granted to him a triumph, and immediately appointed him consul. In the urgency of his affairs he postponed his triumph; and accepting the consulship, thanked you for that honour, which he thought sufficient for his own glory." It is therefore plain, that by deferring his claim to a triumph, he obtained the consulship, though a year younger than the age required for holding that office. Had the Romans intended to enforce against him the Villian law, there would not have been any reason to withhold from him the honour of a triumph.

I should willingly admit your remarks, though written in French, on Salchlini's little work, into the Museum Helveticum, were not that publication interrupted at present; and it is uncertain when the printer will be allowed, or will have inclination, to publish a new

volume.

Farewell, my noble sir, and prosper; and love me as a man devoted to every kind duty.

Zurich, March 1, 1757.

BREITINGER.

VI.-MR. GIBBON TO MR. GESNER.

Sir,-Among the Romans, that generous people, who had so many institutions worthy of being admired and imitated, the most respectable old lawyers, whose long labours had rendered them the oracles of the bar, did not think their time useless to the community, when it was employed in forming the talents of youth, and in providing for themselves worthy successors. This excellent custom ought to be adopted, and extended to other sciences. Whoever is acquainted with your reputation and your works, will not deny you the title of one of the most learned men of the age; and I hope that my foolish presumption does not deceive me, when I ascribe to myself some natural aptitude for succeeding in the pursuits of literature. Your correspondence would be highly useful to me. On this ground only I request it. In the hope that it will not be refused, I proceed to beg your explanation of some difficulties that I have met with, and your opinion of some conjectures that have occurred to my mind.

1. Who was that Piso, the father, to whom Horace addresses his Art of Poetry? Mr. Dacier supposes him to have been the highpriest who obtained a triumph for his exploits in Thrace, and who died præfect of the city in the seven hundred and eighty-fifth year of Rome.* But that could not be the man; for Horace's Art of Poetry was written before the year seven hundred and thirty-four, since it makes mention of Virgil (who died that year) in terms which

Tacit. An. vi. c. 10; Flor. Hist. Rom. L. iv. c. 12; T. Liv. Epit. L. c.