you have not seen them, I shall here repeat and explain. Augustus sometimes represented in sport the suppers of the gods. We know from Suetonius, lib. ii. c. 70, that he was blamed for his imitation of the supper of the twelve gods, which used to take place in the Capitol, where pallets were spread for them; of which we see an example in Livy, lib. xxii. c. 10. Is it not possible that Horace, either with or without the orders of Augustus, might think proper to write verses adapted to such a representation? Might he not endeavour to remove the blame attached to it, by exhibiting an example in which it was not only innocent, but conformable with the institutions and inclinations of the Romans? At the same time his ode would be a compliment to the Julian family, which had long boasted its descent from Æneas and Iülus. For entering on this subject, the poet ingeniously prepares the way, by showing that men had attained divinity through justice and fortitude. Augustus is entitled to our admiration and praise; and, as he sung another ode, written nearly about the same time, " presens divus habebitur," being not less worthy of divinity than Bacchus and Romulus; the latter of whom was not without difficulty admitted to that honour, "till Juno made her most pleasing and acceptable speech in the council of the gods." This speech is of the same purport with that in the Æneid, lib. xii. v. 791, et seq.; and might have been pronounced with propriety, without supposing that Augustus ever seriously thought of changing the seat of his empire. That prince also must have been pleased with an attempt to persuade the people that he condemned a design, said to have been entertained by Julius Cæsar, but which was so much detested by the Romans, and would, if carried into execution, have been so calamitous to Rome. The speech indeed is longer, and more pathetic than might be expected from the beginning of the ode; but he must be ignorant of the nature of lyric poetry, as illustrated in the writings of the ancients, who finds fault with the length of this real or apparent digression. 3. The knot must be hard indeed, which not only baffles the exertions of a learned and ingenious youth, but resists the strength of Breitinger, a veteran in the literary field, whose name I never pronounce but with the highest respect. How could Roman ambassadors require that the cities taken by Antiochus in Asia should be restored, according to the law of war, to Rome, when the senate shortly before had declared those cities to belong to its pupil Ptolemy? Or how could the Romans claim those cities by the law of war, when Scipio, a few years afterwards, was the first Roman general that passed into Asia with an army? Livy, lib. xxxvii. The knot, however, may be untied, without having recourse to Alexander's sword, provided we follow the series of those transactions, as related by Justin and Livy. The latter historian, lib. xxxi. c. 14, relates, "that Philip's courage was increased by his league with Antiochus, King of Syria, with whom, as soon as he learned Ptolemy's death, he proposed, according to the tenor of that agreement, dividing the spoils of Egypt." Justin, again, lib. xxx. c. 2, tells us, "that the Álexandrians sent ambassadors to Rome, requesting the senate P to defend the cause of their pupil, threatened with the partition of his dominions, in consequence of a treaty for that purpose between Philip and Antiochus." This treaty indeed soon began to be carried into effect; for, according to Livy, lib. xxxii. c. 19, "Antiochus, while his ally was occupied in the war with Rome, conquered all the cities belonging to Ptolemy in Cole-Syria; purposing next to invade the coast of Caria and Cilicia, and at the same time to assist Philip with a fleet and army." Meanwhile Philip is conquered by the Roman consul Quintius; who then openly declared to Antiochus' ambassadors, "that their master must evacuate (supply, according to the law of war,') all those cities to which either Philip or Ptolemy had any claims."-Livy, lib. xxxiii. c. 34. Justin's narrative, therefore, though obscured by brevity, is yet consistent with truth. Do you not repent, learned sir, the having written to an indolent old man, who could delay two months sending an answer to a letter so obliging, and so honourable to himself? I will not throw the blame on my advanced age, though I begin to feel my former powers of exertion somewhat slacken and abate under the weight of sixtyseven years. At this time of life most old men are indulged with a diminution of labour; whereas I, on the contrary, am continually burdened with an increase of operations and cares. I belong to several academies, particularly that of Berlin, and this here of Gottingen; which last I am appointed to direct six months in the I also preside weekly in the German society of this place, and frequently correspond with the Latin society of Jena. I am entrusted with the care of the public library, consisting at least of fifty thousand volumes; with the inspection of the colleges in his Majesty's German dominions; and with the superintendence of about twenty youths, who are educated at the public expense. The task also falls on me of writing whatever is inserted in the archives of the university, in the name of the rector and senate and it is my duty to give daily three, four, and sometimes more prelections. To these public offices must be added the avocations of private company, and of a very extensive correspondence. Besides, I have always some work in hand, which requires nicer attention to render it worthy of the public eye. At present I am employed about an edition of Claudian; which, God willing! shall be published in the course of this summer. Thus circumstanced, I confess that I laid aside your letter, which seemed as if it would require more pains to answer than were afterwards found necessary, until I should enjoy a few hours of uninterrupted leisure. This opportunity occurred only yesterday, of which, you see, I made use. It remains that I request you to receive favourably this attempt; and if it does not fully answer your expectation, to ascribe the failure to any other cause rather than my want of inclination to oblige you. Brevity was my aim, because it seemed unnecessary to repeat what you had so well said on the subject. I write in Latin, a language familiar to me, lest I should commit a mistake similar to that of which you, though well skilled in French, are guilty, when you say, Un différent que Scaliger et Is. Vossius ont eu ensemble. From the words it might be concluded, that a difference had subsisted between these learned men, of which the one died nine years before the other was born. I remain sincerely, with much consideration, &c. Gottingen, 12th February, 1758. MATTHEW GESNER. 4. As to the question concerning the age of Catullus, I am entirely of your opinion; and lest you should think that I agree with you merely because, through laziness, I am unwilling to enter into an argument, I shall transcribe the words of a thesis, which I defended in my youth forty years ago, (p. 43, Weimar, 1717,) concerning the secular years and games of the Romans. "There is nothing in the poem which might not have been said, had it been written for any other festival in honour of Diana," &c. I assure you, that within this hour I have compared what is said in your learned dissertation, with Is. Vossius' remarks on Catullus, (edit. 1684, 4to. p. 81, et seq.) and those of Jos. Scaliger, whom he refutes. I also examined the passage of Cicero concerning Mamurra, with Middleton's observations on it; and having examined and well weighed the whole matter, I pronounce sentence, most excellent Gibbon, clearly in your favour. P. S.-Your letters will find me without any farther direction than that of my name and place of abode, or addressed to Mr. Professor Gesner, Counsellor of the Court of his Britannic Majesty, Gottingen. But if you wish to see my titles expanded at full length after the German fashion, here they are, copied from the French and German Title-book, printed at Nordhausen, 1752, 8vo. fifth edition, p. 164. "To M. Gesner, Counsellor of the Court of his Britannic Majesty, Professor in the University of Gottingen, Inspector-General of the Schools of the Electorate of Hanover, Librarian of the University, Director of the Philological Seminary, President of the Royal Society of German Eloquence, Member of the Royal Society of Sciences at Gottingen," &c. There is not one of these titles but deprives me of some part of my time; the only reason for which I here subjoin them; which I shall think you believe, if your letter to me has as short a direction as possible. VIII.-MR. GIBBON TO MR. GESNER. Sir, The multitude of your employments affords at once a proof of your own merit, of the justice done to it by the public, of my presumption, and of your goodness. How enviable is the lot of that small number of superior minds whose talents are equally adapted to promote the purposes either of pleasure or utility! The discernment surely of those princes is worthy of much applause, who having ventured to dissipate the clouds of envy, calumny, and frivolity, that usually surround thrones, render to the truly great men among their subjects, a justice which had been long done to them by the impartial public, and reward their talents, by affording them new opportunities to display them. These are but a small part of the reflections occasioned by your letter, and which, were I to consult my inclination only, would extend to a great length; but my reason tells me, that I must be contented with assuring you, that you have filled with gratitude a man who will always be proud of being called your scholar. I go shortly to England; where, perhaps, I may find an opportunity of proving to you the sincerity of my sentiments, at least of rendering my correspondence less tiresome. My residence in London will give me a sort of local merit. I will send you early intelligence of the labours and discoveries of our learned men, whose example I am unable to imitate; and will expect to learn, in return, what is so proper an object of curiosity, the occupations and studies of your colleagues and disciples at Gottingen. At my return to London, I propose to myself a new pleasure in collecting all your works, which I will make it my first business to procure; and for assisting me in this matter, must request that you would give me the titles of all the curious pieces with which you have enriched the republic of letters. My ignorance of many of them causes both joy and shame. It can only be excused in consideration of my youth, and the place from which this letter is dated. If I venture to propose some new doubts, it is because you know better than any one, that absolute submission is due only to reason, either real or apparent. You will believe that my only motive for discussing your lessons is to render myself worthy of them: "Non ita certandi cupidus, quam propter amorem, Quod te imitari aveo. Quid enim contendat hirundo Cycnis; aut quidnam tremulis facere artubus hædi After this apology, I must confess that I have still some remaining doubts concerning the Piso to whom Horace addresses his Art of Poetry. You think that the manner in which that poet speaks of Virgil does not prove the latter to be still alive; because Horace does not oppose the dead to the living, but the ancients to the moderns. I examined the passage again, and that new perusal excited reflections which confirmed me more strongly in my former opinion. Horace thought the Latin tongue too poor and barren, and deficient in words expressive of abstract ideas which were unknown to Romulus' companions, consisting of shepherds and robbers. This imperfection had been remarked by others. Horace, wishing to remedy it, proposes to the Virgils and Variuses, to co-operate with him in this design, by borrowing from the Greek many energetic terms and phrases which were wanting in Latin. He does not justify a thing already done, but proposes a new enterprise. The futurity which he looks to can only have a reference to authors still alive. The Art of Poetry was therefore written before the year of Rome seven hundred and thirty-five. This explanation agrees so well with the poet's thought, that his opposition between the dead and living * Lucret. de Rer. Natur. L. iii. ver. 5, et seq. poets, concludes with one of the justest and liveliest images that I ever remember to have met with: "licuit, semperque licebit Signatum præsente notâ producere nomen.' The licuit has a reference to the Terences and the Ceciliuses, who were long dead; the licebit, in the future, to the Variuses and Virgils, who were still alive, and might avail themselves of the maxim.+ You say that Piso's eldest son might be ten years old when the Art of Poetry was published; an age at which Grotius wrote verses. Grotius did so; but how few boys of that age have not only the fire to write, but the judgment to criticise poetry? It is not likely that Piso the father should have children at the age of twenty. You well know the paucity of marriages under Augustus, which rendered the conjugal felicity of Germanicus an example so much admired; ‡ pride, poverty, and debauchery, deterred the Roman nobles from marriage, especially amidst the civil wars, which, during Piso's youth, desolated the earth. Augustus' laws on that subject only prove the greatness of the evil; || and Piso was thirty years old, before the first of those laws was enacted. If an ordinary generation is computed at thirty-three years, ** the generations under the first emperors ought rather to be extended to forty, than reduced to twenty years. These, I acknowledge, are but probabilities; but in the science of criticism probabilities destroy possibilities, and are themselves destroyed by proofs. This principle is not to be controverted. The authority of Porphyrio is of too little weight among the learned to be the foundation of an argument; it might at best help to prop an argument, otherwise well supported. The ancients do not assign to him the first rank among Horace's commentators; †† and the moderns, particularly Mr. Dacier, find in him many errors. ground for your first hypothesis. If Piso had a son when he was thirty years old, this son might be sixteen when Horace wrote his Art of Poetry; an age which you think agrees with every quality required in him. Did you not forget in writing this sentence, that Horace died in seven hundred and forty-five, when Piso himself was only forty years old? I do not see any 2. I think it certain that Horace, in the third ode of his third book, meant to show the Romans, that if their prince aspired to divine honours, "Viamque affectat Olympo," he well merited them by his exploits, which rivalled those of the greatest heroes, Bacchus, Hercules, and Romulus, who, after trampling on their human ene * Horat. de Art. Poet. ver. 59. + This explanation is the more probable, because Virgil appears in his works to value himself rather on reviving old words, than on borrowing new ones from the Greek. I doubt whether a single passage can be pointed out, in which he followed Horace's advice. Suet. L. ii. c. 34. Dion. Hist. Rom. L. lvi. p. 570. § Tacit. Annal. ii. c. 37. Horat. Carm. Secular. v. 17, &c.; Torrent. de Lege Juliâ ad Calc. Horat. p. 75, &c. ** Herod. L. ii.; Newton, Chronol. Emendat. p. 41. ++ Vid. Vitam. Horat. sine nomine autoris. |