the other hand, the inspiration of poets is merely a transient and voluntary illusion to which we submit ourselves. But among the Romans, who alternately believed in and laughed at their gods, but who had no faith whatever in their poets, the part of these last was very difficult to act. 5. I ought not to reckon the employment of elegiac verse as a particular fault, though heroic measure would have been well adapted to the subject of the Fasti. Elegiac verse has always tired me. The pause constantly recurs on the middle of the foot of the pentameter; and the sense must always be included in a couplet. This monotony fatigues the ear; and causes the introduction of many useless words merely for the safe of the measure. There is far more variety, liberty, and true harmony in the flow of heroic verse. NO. V. Lausanne. In consequence of reading Addison's treatise, the following remarks have occurred to me on the allegorical beings which we find on the reverses of medals. How limited is the human mind! its boldest inventions are copies. 1. All those beings are represented under the human figure. Our eyes, accustomed to behold the exercise of reason only under this shape, required such a sacrifice. Yet, by our inability of separating from the idea of the human figure the circumstances which commonly accompany it, our fancy requires also that the sex should be determined. The circumstance of sex however implies gross images, which ill correspond with the purity of the virtues, or the spirituality of metaphysical beings. After having made those two sacrifices to the mind and the eyes, a third was still required by the ear. The distinction of sex was not marked by characteristic attributes appropriated to the male and female. This method might have furnished some tolerable allegories. But the genders of their names was injudiciously chosen as the only foundation of distinction, since in all languages those genders have been determined by the caprice and ignorance of the first persons who spoke them. In Greek and Latin, most of those names are feminine. The beings whom they express are therefore, for the most part, represented by female figures. I say for the most part, for they are sometimes unfortunately masculine: and at other times we have two synonymous words of different genders; and the same being assumes the male or female form, according to the word employed as its I shall mention only the example of Gloria and Honos. In consequence of so faulty an arrangement, the character of the being is often at variance with that of its sex. True virtue is consistent; and we cannot conceive the truth, justice or humanity of a woman exercised at the expense of chastity and decency. Yet when the attributes of an allegorical being require that it should be represented naked, we see Valour, Justice, and Hope exhibited in a manner in which a modest woman would blush to appear. It is useless to tell me, these are not women, but female figures. My under name. standing perceives the difference; but the imitative arts must speak to the fancy. 2. Whatever symbols we invent, human qualities alone cannot be represented under human figures. Piety is only a pious woman; and Courage, a courageous one, &c. Much is done when the soul is purged of all passions but one, which occupies it entirely, and shows itself manifestly in air, action, demeanour, and even dress. This abstraction has been realised, though rarely; it may be conceived by the fancy, and may therefore be represented. But those symbols are always most striking which quit the region of chimeras, and give us ideas that are precise and conformable to the nature of things. One of the most interesting is that of Piety under the form of a Roman vestal. The senate carried this principle too far, when it represented the virtues under the portraits of its princes. Of human qualities, those that are fixed and permanent are marked with more force than those that are uncertain and transient. The latter are expressed alone by the air and attitude; in the representation of the former, one may add to these characteristics, the features, figure, and dress. The symbols of Virtue or Chastity may be far more distinctly characterised than those of Hope or Fear. The other abstractions which have been represented by human figures, Victory, Eternity, Abundance, &c. are recognised only by some of their perceptible effects, or by some real object whose idea is associated with their own. We should have much difficulty in inventing them, when wanted, if history and fable did not supply a number of arbitrary signs, which receive their meaning merely from convention. In the symbolic representation, the woman is merely an accessory. Eternity is very well represented by a globe and a phoenix in the thirteenth medal of the first series, a woman sitting holds them in her hand. In the fifteenth medal there is no woman, though the idea is still the same; and if we examine all the other medals, we shall find that women are there merely to make a figure, but never answer the purpose of symbols. The provinces are of a middle kind, they are never symbols of countries, but are often so of the genius and manners of their inhabitants. 3. Mr. Addison proposes an explanation of the thirty-fifth ode of the first book of Horace, in speaking of a medal which represents Security resting on a pillar.* Regumque matres barbarorum, et They feared lest fortune might overturn the pillar of their security. But fear and security are inconsistent. Besides, Horace would not probably have made use of so subtle and far-fetched an illusion without giving warning of it, at least, by some epithet. Why may not these words be applied literally to those statues and pillars which flattery erects to tyrants, and which are commonly the first victims of popular fury at the time of a revolution? I conjecture that the * Dialogues upon Medals, Dial. ii. p. 47. poet might allude to the king of the Parthians, the most powerful monarch of the east. Fortune might justly be dreaded by the murderer of his father, and of his whole family. The Romans had seen proofs of his anxiety. He had given to Augustus several of his nearest relations as hostages, whom that emperor caused to be educated at Rome. The haughty Phraates intended less to flatter the Romans by this humiliating measure, than to deprive his discontented subjects of men fit to head their revolt.* NO. VI. Florence, 5th August, 1764.-I have been reading a little work, entitled, A Critical Letter of the Chevalier Lorenzo Guazzesi Aretino, to Doctor Anthony Cocchi, Physician and Antiquary of his Catholic Majesty, respecting some Transactions in the Cisalpine Gallic War, in the Year of Rome 529: Arezzo, 1752; in 12mo. pp. 103. I find in this little work, erudition, good sense, sound criticism, with much local knowledge. Its chief fault is that of the chevalier's country, an Asiatic style, prejudicial to strength, precision, and brevity. I shall unite, under one point of view, what I have learned from him on the subject, and the additions which my own reflections have made to it. This sketch would be less imperfect, had I a Polybius at hand. 1. I cannot imagine any event that would have more endangered the greatness of Rome than the union of the Gauls and Carthaginians in the first Punic war. Both these nations were formidable to that ambitious republic; and in both the projects of vengeance would have been directed by the wisest policy. Each would have brought with it the advantages in which its ally was deficient. Carthage was powerful in wealth, shipping, and military discipline. The populousness, valour, and advantageous situation of the Gauls made the Romans always consider a Gallic war as an event big with alarm and danger. Had the allies succeeded, the difference of their views and character would have facilitated the friendly division of their conquests, and cemented their union. But the cautious and narrow policy of the Carthaginians, and the lazy insensibility natural to improvident barbarians, delivered the Romans from the danger of this alliance. The republic, I imagine, who knew how to dissemble her hatred as well as her ambition, was careful to keep on good terms with the Gauls; and, before provoking their resentment, patiently waited until they should have no other resource than in themselves. In the year of Rome 470, the Galli Senones were almost extirpated. The colonies of Castrum and Sena were sent into the country extending from the Esis to the Ufens; and the whole of their territory, the Ager Gallicus, was added to the dominions of the state. Fifty-eight years afterwards, a tribune, ambitious of popularity, obtained a law for dividing this public property among the citizens. It is difficult to perceive why this distribution of lands, * Tacit. Annal. ii. 1. which had ceased to belong to the Gauls, should at once provoke a war as fierce as it was general: all that I understand is, that the neighbouring Boii enjoyed the right of public pasturage, on paying a small quit rent called scriptura, and that the lands were perhaps subfarmed by individuals. The avarice of the new proprietors may be supposed to have expelled the feeble remnant of the Senones, which the wise moderation of government had left unmolested. The neighbourhood of the Romans would grow more formidable to the Gauls, in proportion as that frontier was fortified and peopled by a. rival and warlike colony. Whatever were the reasons, it is certain that this law spread dismay and fury through the whole of Cisalpine Gaul. These nations flew to arms, and invited into Italy numerous mercenaries from beyond the Alps. The Romans prepared for resisting the storm. By an enumeration of their forces in Italy, they found they could send into the field 700,000 foot and 70,000 horse. The consul Emilius, at the head of a numerous army, took post at Ariminum, to defend the Ager Gallicus, the object of the war; and one of the prætors was entrusted with the defence of Tuscany. Atilius, the other consul, had sailed to Sardinia, with a view of conquering the barbarians of that island. 2. It is not material to determine by what route the barbarians penetrated into Etruria, which they thought fit to render the first theatre of the war. The prætor had naturally posted himself near to Arezzo, the principal fortress of the Romans in Tuscany. If they marched by the sea side, the Gauls might have deceived his vigilance; if they pursued the road of Bologna and Valdimugello,* the general must have been too weak to resist them, and therefore felt the necessity of allowing them to ravage with impunity the rich Tuscan pastures. They got possession of an immense booty in cattle and slaves. Proud of following the footsteps of their ancestors, they advanced to Clusium, on the straight road to the capital. There they heard that the prætor, who had perhaps received a reinforc ment, pursued them by forced marches. They changed their direction, in order to meet him; and on the evening of the first day's march, the two armies were in sight of each other. Both sides fortified their camp. If we examine the road by Clusium to Arezzo in the Valdichiana, we shall find the villages of Lucignana and Sinalunga situated at a convenient distance. The Romans had occupied an excellent camp; and the barbarians, notwithstanding their impetuosity, thought it wiser to withdraw them from it by stratagem, than to dislodge them by force. They marched with their whole infantry, left their fires burning to deceive the Romans, as well as their cavalry, who might continually harass them, until they were drawn to the place to which they wished to decoy them. The prætor fell into the snare, and was punished for his credulity by a bloody defeat. He with much difficulty retired to an eminence, and defended himself till the arrival of the consul Emilius, who by forced marches had passed the Apennines. His arrival saved the prætor; and the Gauls now thought only of securing their booty, *Litera Crit. p. 37. + Id. p. 39. PP * Id. p. 54. and making their retreat along the sea coast. The narrative of Polybius is clear; and if Casaubon had taken the sense of the passage as well as Mr. Gauzzesi, the text of this great historian would no longer contain any geographical difficulties. He says of the retreat of the Gauls, Ποιησαμενοι την υποχώρησιν ὡς ἐπι πολιν Φαισυλα». If we translate the words, Fæsulas tendunt, we suppose the Gauls to perform a march almost incredible, and to make a movement altogether absurd, since it implies that the Romans pursued their .cavalry sixty miles without putting them to the rout. These difficulties are increased, when we follow the Gauls to Fæsulæ and the foot of the Apennines; and as it is impossible to understand how they can retreat to Telamon, we adopt the opinion of Cluverius, in preferring on this occasion the authority of Orosius to that of Polybius, and supposing that the last battle was fought near to Arezzo. Why should not the words &ç iπ Þaιovλar, versùs Fæsulas, be translated, in the direction of Fasulæ, according to the most natural signification and the easiest construction? The Gauls then pursued the road from Clusium to Fæsulæ, but had scarcely concealed themselves behind the chain of hills which separate the duchy of Tuscany from the district of Sienna, when they were obliged to come to an engagement. Thanks to the happy discovery of Mr. Gauzzesi, the whole plan of the campaign is unravelled.* The Romans retired to one of those hills; and by despatching couriers across the thick woods by which they were covered, communicated the news of their situation to the consul. Why did the barbarians prefer the road by the coast to that of Valdimugello, which is far shorter? Why did they not traverse the country in a right line, in order to arrive at the mouth of the Arno, and then follow the coast to the openings of the hills of Valdimagra? We are sure that Port Telamon is nearer than the mountains of Sienna to Rome. Mr. Guazzesi well explains these difficulties, by the changes which time has effected in the nature of the country, and by our ignorance whether this route was not the only one practicable for an army; by the preference given by the Gauls to the plain country, where they could avail themselves of their numerous cavalry, and by the hope of meeting with piratical vessels belonging to their own nation or the Ligurians, in which they might transport their booty without difficulty or danger. But I believe it will be necessary to penetrate into the motives by which the barbarians were actuated, before we can fairly appreciate their conduct in passing from fury to dismay; and in marching up to their enemies, merely that they might fly before them, especially after they had just tasted the sweets of victory. The Gallic army was governed by two principles extremely different. The Cisalpine nations perceived that such a war could only terminate in their own destruction or that of the Romans. They fought like men, who had their dearest interests at stake; but their allies the Gesatæ were not animated by a similar spirit. These troops were not a nation. but rather an assemblage from different nations, who had * V. especially Litera Crit. p. 41-58. |