lectum, involvit, mihi non recte arridere, atque etiam a stilo Justini alienum videri. Cæterum quæ. de Orosii ætate, scopo, fide prolixe disputas, parum ad rem facere videntur. Constat inter omnes Orosium in plerisque Justinum ita presse, ne dicam superstitiose, esse secutum, ut ejus fere verbis ac sententiis passim loqui videatur: et infinitis prope in locis Justini lectionem et sententiam, quam quidem ii libri, quibus Orosius usus est, præferebant, ex Orosio probabili ratione intelligi, confirmari, ac restitui posse, dudum ostenderunt viri docti. Immo et h. 1. qui non videat, Orosium Justini narrationem ante oculos habuisse, eum ego nihil omnino cernere prope dixerim: unde enim Orosius Chosidum seu Cuphitum nomen omnibus aliis indictum, nisi ex Justino hauserit? Quod vero si ita est, quis non intelligit, Orosium apud Justinum non omissis aut intactis hostibus, sed cæsis hostibus,

in

seem conformable with Justin's style. Your prolix discussion concerning the age, design, and character of Orosius has but little connection 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 histo rian? and if that be the case, Orosius must have found in his

original,

in suis legisse libris, atque ita Justinum interpretari?

4. Verum equidem est urbem captam obsidione cingi non posse: sed an ea non possit DEFENDI a præsidiis arci impositis? hoc quæritur: arce enim obsidione liberata, et urbs, quamvis jam capta, ab omni periculo defensa liberatur. Et quoties non, qui ingeniose dicere volunt, ac ludunt in antithesis, rem supra fidem augent, ut tanto major esse videatur?

5. Quæ de Syriæ oppidis jure belli factis P. R. novissime commentus es, nodum omnino solverent, nisi parachronismo essent superstructa: fœdus enim illud cum Antiocho per legatos pacem petente initum, cujus priora verba ex Livio, lib. xxxviii. c. 37. excitas, hanc Antiochi in Ægyptum expeditionem, quam Justinus, lib. xxxi. c. 1. me

morat,

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

morat, non præcessit, sed demum aliquo temporis intervallo subsecutum est. Vide an non huc pertineat, quæ memoriæ prodita habet Livius, lib. xxxiii. c. 34. Secundum ista jam Quintius, et decem legati, legationes regum, gentium, civitatumque audicere. Primi omnium regis Antiochi vocati legati sunt: his eadem, quæ fere Romæ erant, cerba sine fide rerum jactata: nihil jam perplexe, ut ante, quum dubiæ res incolumi Philippo erant, sed aperte pronunciatum, ut excederet Asiæ urbibus, quæ aut PHILIPPI aut PTOLOMEI regum fuissent, &c. Conf. et ejusd. libri, cap. 39 et 40. Hoc esto nunc Catone contentus. Vale, et rem tuam ex voto gere.

Zurici Helvetiorum, ad d. 3. Martini Episcopi.

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 to Ptolemy." Livy, kb. xxxiii. c. 34, with which compare c. 39 and 40. Be satisfied with this authority. Farewell and prosper.

Zurich, 14th November.

N° V.

M. BREITINGER à M. GIBBON.

PRÆCLARISSIME AC NOBILISSIME VIR,

QUANQUAM ex longo jam tempore severioribus musis me totum dare, hisque sacris operari institui, immo etiam in iis acquiescere per reliquum vitæ spatium constitutum habeo; non injucundum tamen fuit subinde invitantibus amicis in amœniora hæc literarum vireta oblectandi animi gratia exspatiari: et quotiescunque intellexi esse aliquem qui ad hæc literarum studia excolenda animum adjiciat, non destiti admovere stimulos, ac fungi vice cotis, acutum reddere quæ ferrum valeat, exsors ipsa secandi. Quapropter nihil mihi obtingere potuisset aut jucundius aut magis exoptandum, quam a te avovú primum, nunc etiam aperto marte ac fronte, ad hæc literarum studia, pristinas meas delicias, deduci: et laudo hoc tuum ingenium, tuamque sagacitatem, quæ non stimulo, sed fræno potius.

opus

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

opus habere videtur; atque magnopere velim alium pro me tibi obtigisse, cui majus subactum ingenium, majorque doctrinæ copia esset, quîcum hunc callem terere posses.

Multus es in defendenda emendatione loci Justin. lib. xii. c. 8. § 17. ubi tu pro cæsis hostibus contra omnium codicum fidem ex ingenio, substituendum censes omissis hostibus; quam ego emendationem, in superioribus meis, variis inductis rationibus, oppugnaveram. Equidem non est animus denuo in hanc disputationem descendere, aut singulatim ea quæ ad diluendas meas rationes in medium abs te adlata sunt, sub incudem revocare. Strictim tantum exponam, cur ego nec receptam lectionem sollicitandam, nec propositam abs te emendationem admittendam esse censeam. Nemo est qui non fateri cogatur receptam ac codicum fide et consensu probatam lectionem, in se spectatam, bonum et apertum sensum fundere, nec a stilo Justini, nec a Latini sermonis ratione abludere.

Quod

that you were accompanied in this literary walk by a scholar of more cultivated taste, and more copious erudition, than myself.

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 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