* show that he was still alive; and in another part of the poem, † Horace addresses the eldest of Piso's sons, as a young man of cultivated talents; "O major juvenum, quamvis et voce paternâ Which implies that he was not less than eighteen or twenty years of age. But L. Piso the high priest, could not surely have a son so old. He himself died at the age of fourscore, in the seven hundred and eighty-fifth year of Rome. He was born, then, in seven hundred and five; and was not above thirty when the Art of Poetry was written. It is clear, therefore, that he is not the person to whom Horace writes; but, among the number of other men who bore that name, I wish that you would help me to discover the Piso to whom that poem was most probably addressed. 2. You know how much trouble it has cost the critics to find out Horace's true design in the third ode of his third book. This masterly performance is distinguished by greatness of thought and dignity of expression; but we are surprised and grieved to find, that the end does not correspond with the beginning; and that Juno's speech is totally unconnected with what precedes or follows it; so that after admiring the detached parts of this ode, we are forced to condemn it as a whole. Taneguy Le Fevre explained it by a conjecture, which Dacier thinks deserving of as high encomiums as the ode itself; and which is, doubtless, very ingenious. You know that his explanation turns on the supposed dread of the Romans lest the seat of their empire should be removed to Troy; and that he fancies the ode to have been written with a view to divert Augustus from such a design, by showing him how earnestly the gods had co-operated towards the destruction of Troy, and how much their resentment would be provoked by an attempt to rebuild that ill-fated city. The people might the more naturally suspect Augustus of such an intention, because it was thought to have been entertained by his adoptive father. § But this conjecture, I fear, will not bear examination. It is impossible to prove those pretended fears of the Romans; which are rendered highly improbable, when we consider that Augustus was remarkable for his affectionate partiality towards Rome; as may be seen in his life, by Suetonius, c. 28, 29, 30. I shall mention but two examples of it. He encouraged almost all the great men of Rome to adorn the city by superb edifices; || and himself erected a temple to Mars the Avenger, where the senate was ordered to assemble during its deliberations concerning wars and triumphs. These are not the actions of a man who wished to found a new capital. The example of his uncle is not applicable; that project was formed by him towards the end of his life, when he was intoxicated by prosperity, and engaged in a thousand wild enterprises, which the prudence of Augustus carefully avoided. The cautious firmness with which the latter prince always refused the office of dictator, confirms my remark.** Such are the reasons which hinder Horat. Art. Poet. v. 55. § Suet. L. i. c. 79. + Ibid. v. 366. Vell. Paterculus, L. ii. c. 89. Tacit. ubi supra. me from acquiescing in Le Fevre's explanation. I am sorry for it, and will not be easy till you supply me with another more solidly founded, and equally well fitted to remove all difficulties. 3. Antiochus, King of Syria, had taken possession of several cities in Cole-Syria and Judea, belonging to young Ptolemy, then under the protection of the Romans. That people undertake the defence of their pupil, and order Antiochus to restore his towns. He despises their orders, and keeps those towns in his possession; in consequence of which, the Romans send to him a second embassy, which, without making any mention of young Ptolemy's pretensions, "claim those towns as belonging to the Romans by the right of war. These are Justin's words, which present us with a very perplexing difficulty; because we do not perceive how the Romans could have acquired those places by the right of war, since they were so far from having made conquests in Asia then, that they did not carry their arms into that country till a later era. A treaty indeed subsisted between them and the kings of Egypt, but it was a treaty merely of friendship and alliance, neither preceded nor followed by any war. I thought that an examination of the other historians, who relate the same transactions, might throw light on this obscure passage of Justin. But Livy, who mentions several times the negotiations by which the Romans endeavoured to recover for Ptolemy the places taken from him by Antiochus, is altogether silent with regard to this "right of war," in virtue of which they were demanded. I acquainted the learned Mr. Breitinger, professor of Greek at Zurich, with my difficulty on this subject; which, after attempting in vain to resolve, he was obliged to leave unexplained. But, "Nil desperandum, Teucro duce; et auspice Teucro." 4. A difference of opinion between Scaliger and Isaac Vossius, concerning the time of Catullus' death, made great noise in the republic of letters. I have not at hand the original arguments of those learned men, which are contained in their respective editions of Catullus; but Bayle§ has given us a particular account of their dispute, with his own reflections on the subject. I am sorry that I cannot draw from the fountain head; but Bayle's accuracy as a compiler will not be disputed. Notwithstanding the labours of these great scholars, I am far from thinking the question decided. Vossius seems to me to place Catullus' death too early, and Scaliger certainly fixes it at too late an era. That poet surely did not die in the year of the city six hundred and ninety-six; but neither did he live to see the secular games of Augustus celebrated in seven hundred and thirty-six. Let us prove these assertions and endeavour to find out the true era in question, which must have been at an intermediate time between the years just mentioned. Catullus speaks of Great Britain and its inhabitants, || with which Justin, L. xxx. c. 1. + Tit. Liv. Epitom. L. iv; Eutrop. L. ii.; Valer. Maxim. L. iv. c. 3. Tit. Liv. L. xxxiii. c. 34, 39, 40. § Bayle, Dictionnaire Critique, art. Catulle. || Vid. Catull. Carm. xi. &c. Cæsar first made the Romans acquainted,* by his expedition thither, in the year of Rome six hundred and ninety-eight. Catullus also mentions the second consulship of Pompey, which happened on that same year. He lived so late as the year seven hundred and six, since he speaks of the consulship of Vatinius. § I will not make use of Scaliger's arguments to prove that the poet witnessed Cæsar's triumphs, because I do not believe them well-founded. I will not particularly examine whether the words "paterna prima lancinata sunt bona," || best apply to the first or last victories of Cæsar, because I do not believe them to have any reference to the one or the other. We need only to read the epigram attentively, to perceive that Catullus always addresses Cæsar in the second person, "Cinode Romule, hæc videbis et feres ? Es impudicus, et vorax, et helluo;" and Mamurra in the third: "Parum expatravit ? an parvum helluatus est? Paterna prima lancinata sunt bona." The poet alludes, therefore, not to Cæsar's dissipation, but to that of Mamurra; and all the consequences deduced from his applying his words to the former, are built on a false hypothesis. T Catullus, on the other hand, did not live to see the secular games celebrated by Augustus, since he died before Tibullus. Ovid, in an elegy written on the death of the latter, places Catullus among the poets whom his friend will meet with in the Elysian fields: ** "Si tamen a nobis aliquid nisi nomen et umbra Obvius huic venias hederâ juvenilia cinctus But when did Tibullus die? A little epigram of Domitius Marius informs us, that he died the same day, or at least in the same year, with Virgil:++ "Te quoque Virgilio comitem non æqua, Tibulle, Now it is well known that Virgil died the twenty-second of September, seven hundred and thirty-four. Catullus then could not see the secular games, which were not celebrated till seven hundred and thirty-six. We may go farther, and affirm, that Catullus was dead before the *Tacit. in Vit. Agricol. c. 13. † Cæsar. Comm. L. iv.; Dion. Hist. L. xxxix. p. 113. § Idem, lii. Catull. Carm. cxi. || Idem, xxvii. ver. 29. Were we curious to ascertain exactly the date of this epigram, a passage of Cicero would lead us to fix it at the year 708. For, notwithstanding Bayle's reasonings, we cannot regard it in any other light than that of a satire written against Mamurra; an opinion embraced by the learned Dr. Middleton. There is no weight in the observation, that Catullus would not have ventured to write this epigram against Cæsar in the plenitude of his power. Cæsar's clemency towards his enemies is well known; and the terms in which historians speak of his lenity shown to this satirist implies that he was then possessed of power to punish him; otherwise his moderation would have been of little value. Tacitus (Annal. L. iv. c. 34,) speaks of this affair as a parallel to that of Bibalculus, who satirised Augustus when the latter was certainly invested with sovereign dominion. ** Ovid. Eleg. L. iii. 9.†† V. Tibull. Carm. L. iv. c. 15. Don. in Vit. Vir. year seven hundred and twenty-one. This is proved by a contemporary historian, the friend of Cicero and of Catullus;+ I mean Cornelius Nepos. In his life of Atticus, speaking of a certain Julius Calidius, to whom Atticus had rendered very important services, he distinguishes him, "as the most elegant poet of that age since the death of Lucretius and Catullus." The latter, therefore, was dead before Nepos wrote this passage; of which it is not difficult to fix the date. Nepos' Life of Atticus consists of twenty-two chapters; the first eighteen of which were, as he tells us, written while the subject of them still lived. The passage mentioning the death of Catullus is in the twelfth chapter; from whence it follows, that Atticus survived Catullus. But Atticus died during the consulship of Cn. Domitius and C. Socius. § Did we wish to ascertain still more accurately the precise year of Catullus' death, we should not be much mistaken in fixing it at the middle term between the years of Rome seven hundred and six, and seven hundred and twenty-one; which will give us the year seven hundred and fourteen; which very well agrees with all other particulars known concerning him. The The only argument adduced by Scaliger, that can occasion any difficulty, is, that Catullus composed a secular poem. Vossius' conjecture, that the secular games were celebrated at the commencement of the seventh century of Rome, is altogether unwarranted: that of Bayle, I fear, rests not on much better authority. beginning of that century was deformed by so many disorders, and by such a marked neglect of ancient ceremonies, T¶ that there is not any probability that such games should then have been either exhibited or expected. But it is not necessary to suppose that Catullus' poem was written for the secular games. It might have been intended merely for Diana's festival, which was celebrated yearly in the month of August, as Bentley conjectured. ** This is confirmed by comparing this poem with Horace's Carmen Seculare. In the former, both the boys and girls form but one chorus, which addresses itself to Diana: ++ "Dianæ sumus in fide Puellæ et pueri integri." In Horace, the boys address themselves to Apollo, and the girls to Diana: 11 "Supplices audi pueros Apollo, This distinction had been established by the oracle who commanded the celebration of the games. §§ But I have done. This is enough for one letter. Your time is precious, and I would not offend you by carrying too far the liberty I have taken in writing to you. I have the honour to be, with much respect, yours, &c. *Sueton. L. i. c. 55; Voss. de Hist. Latin. L. i. c. 24. Cornel. Nepos, in Vit. Attici, c. 12. Sueton. L. ii. c. 37. § Idem, c. 18. EDWARD GIBBON. + Catull. Carm. i. Idem, c. 21. ** Bentl. in Præfat. Edit. Horatian. VII. MR. GESNER TO MR. GIBBON. 1. You inquire who were the Pisos, of whom Horace speaks in such honourable terms in his Art of Poetry. Dacier and Sanadon would probably, most learned sir, have obtained more credit with you, had they cited the authority on which their opinion rests; independently of which, it seems no better than a guess, which a slight argument is sufficient to overturn. This authority is that of Porphyrio, an ancient writer, who treats of the names mentioned in Horace, and who here perhaps copies from some author more ancient than himself. In his corrected edition, Porphyrio says, "Horace's work, entitled the Art of Poetry, is addressed to L. Piso, who was afterwards governor of Rome; for Piso was himself a poet, and a patron of literary pursuits." But chronology, you say, does not warrant this explanation. It does; for Tacitus tells us, in his Annals, (lib. vi. c. 10,) that Piso died U. C. 785, at the age of eighty. He held his office twenty years; and therefore entered on it U. C. 765; before which period Horace must have sent to him the Art of Poetry, (which I suspect once stood at the third epistle of the second book,) because Porphyrio says, "who was afterwards governor of Rome." Let us suppose that Piso's son was born when the father was thirty years old; and that the son was sixteen when Horace addressed him, "O major juvenum;" the Art of Poetry will then have been written in the fifty-second year of Horace's age; which well agrees with Bentley's computation; a subject which I remember to have examined and approved when about the same time of life I published my edition of Horace. If we think sixteen years too young for the praises bestowed by the poet, we may add to them five, or even ten years more. But to this mode of reckoning it is objected, that Virgil was alive when Horace wrote his Art of Poetry; and as the latter died in the year of Rome seven hundred and thirtyfive, Piso, who was then but thirty years old himself, could not have a son above ten or twelve at the utmost. But some critics do not disapprove of the application of "juvenis" to a boy of ten years, and of a forward genius: Grotius and others were poets at that age; and the Roman courtiers would naturally, I think, be prodigal in using the term "juvenis," after Cicero gave so much offence by applying the term "puer" to Augustus. But I see not any convincing argument to prove that Virgil was alive when the Art of Poetry was written. For, in the passage alluded to, Horace does not contrast living poets with those that were dead, but ancient poets with the modern; and, according to the critics whom he mentions, not death alone, but the being dead a certain number of years, was necessary for the attainment of poetical fame. "Est vetus atque probus, centum qui perficit annos. See the first epistle of the second book. 2. Concerning the third ode of the third book, I formerly gave my opinion in the observations accompanying my edition, which, as |