d'y entrevoir dequoi prévenir toute difficulté sur les principes innés de pratique: M. Locke me paroit plus fort ici que sur les autres, mais il n'a pas laissé de s'y embarrasser un peu par-ci par-là, Je me faisois une fête de vous voir un moment à Vevay, et j'ai été capot d'être disappointed; si j'entends ce mot de votre langue, le nôtre n'en a point qui peut dire si bien la même chose. Je n'ai même vu M. Pavillard que dans l'assemblée. Si la marche de 120 mille Russes n'est pas une fable, que va devenir S. M. Prussienne? Ne croyez vous pas, Monsieur, que nous touchons à de grandes révolutions? Il y a long tems que je soupçonne un plan formé, de réduire le systême général à trois grands empires; celui des François, à l'occident du Rhin, celui d'Autriche à l'orient, et celui des Russes au nord. Il n'y en a pourtant rien dans perhaps discern how all difficulties may be solved concerning innate practical principles. Mr. Locke treats this subject better than he does the others; but in several parts he is somewhat puzzled. I rejoiced at the hopes of seeing you for a moment at Vevay, and was surprised at being disappointed. If I rightly understand this word of your language, it cannot be well translated into ours. I met with Mr. Pavillard only in the assembly. If the march of an hundred and twenty thousand Russians is not a fable, what must become of the King of Prussia? Does it not appear to you, that we are threatened with great revolutions? I have long suspected a design of reducing the general system of Europe to three great empires; that of the French on the west of the Rhine, of Austria on the east, and of Russia in the north. Yet dans l'Apocalypse. Qu'on partage la terre comme on voudra, pourvu qu'il y soit toujours permis de croire, que ce qui est, est; et que les contradictoires ne peuvent pas être vraies en même temps. Au reste ces trois empires auroient beau être grands, mesurés à nos toises, ils paroîtroient toujours bien petits, vus seulement depuis la lune, et à quelle hauteur ne s'élèvent pas par delà des yeux philosophes! J'ai l'honneur d'être, avec bien de la considération, Monsieur, &c. ALLAMAND. M. de N*** m'écrit que tout va mieux que jamais, à présent que Madame D. sa nièce est bien malade, et que voilà 200 mille hommes prêts à s'égorger pour 5 sols par jour. Il est de mauvaise humeur contre ce tout est bien. Yet we read of nothing of this kind in the Revelation. But let the world be divided as it may, provided it be lawful for us to believe that "whatever is, is;" and "that two contradictory propositions cannot both at the same time be true." Those three empires will be great only when measured on this earth; viewed but from the moon, they will be small enough; and how far do philosophical eyes soar beyond that luminary! I have the honour to be, with much consideration, yours, &c. ALLAMAND. Mr. de N**** writes to me that things go better and better, now that his niece Madame D. is extremely ill; and that 200,000 men are ready to cut one another's throats at the rate of five sous a day. He is provoked at the maxim, "all for the best." N° IV. M. le Professeur BREITINGER à M. GIBBON à Lausanne. EQUIDEM Davus sum, non October 22, 1756. dipus; dicam tamen quid de dubiis e Justino propositis locis mihi videatur. 1. JUSTINUS, libr. ii. c. 3. His igitur Asia per mille quingentos annos rectigalis fuit. Pendendi tributi finem Ninus rex Assyriorum imposuit. Adeo manifestus est calculi error, ut mirum videri possit, hanc lectionem unquam fuisse a quoquam in textum receptam; ita enim Ninus Sesostre mille quingentis annis inferior esset ætate. Orosius, qui Justinum per compendium summa cum fide expressit, hæc in hunc modum conmemorat. i. c. 14. Universum quoque Ægyptum (Scytha) populissent; Lib. Professor BREITINGER to Mr. GIBBON at Lausanne. October 22, 1756. THOUGH I am Davus, not (Edipus, I will give you my opinion concerning the difficulties in Justin, which you propose for my consideration. 1. In the third chapter of his second book he says, "That Asia was tributary fifteen centuries to the Scythians, and that Ninus put an end to those contributions." The number of years is so manifestly erroneous, that it is astonishing such a reading should ever have been admitted into the text; for it makes Ninus later than Sesostris by a period of fifteen hundred years. Orosius, who abridged Justin with the greatest fidelity, speaks to the following purpose: "The Scythians would have ravaged the populâssent; nisi paludibus impediti, repulsi fuissent. Inde continuo reversi, perdomitam infinitis cædibus Asiam vectigalem fecere: ubi per 15 annos sine pace immorati, tandem uxorum flagitatione, revocantur, denunciantium, ni redeant, sobolem se a finitimis quæsituras. Dubium ergo nullum est, quin pro MD. substituendum sit XV. Tu inquiris in causam erroris satis argutè. Sed non potest habere locum illa tua emendatio, per mille in permissa, si quidem notis arithmeticis, quod admodum probabile est, in antiquis libris numeri fuerunt expressi. 2. JUSTIN. libr. xii. c. 8. Itaque cæsis hostibus, cum gratulatione in eadem (castra) reverterunt. Frustra mihi sollicitare videris lectionem receptam: gratis enim a te assumitur quod Cuphites ne qui dem the whole of Egypt, had they not been prevented by the marshes. When they returned from that country, they made a bloody conquest of Asia, and rendered it tributary. Having remained there fifteen restless years, they at length returned home, at the earnest intreaty of their wives; who said that, unless their husbands came home to them, they would, for the sake of having children, cohabit with their neighbours." Orosius, lib. i. c. 14. There cannot be any doubt, therefore, that "fifteen hundred" has been substituted for "fifteen." You investigate very ingeniously the cause of the error; but the emendation which you propose, by changing per mille into permissa, cannot be well founded, if the number was expressed, as is most probable, by arithmetical marks in the ancient copies. 2. In Justin, lib. xii. c. 8. we read, "They (the Macedonians) returned, after beating the enemy, with congratulations, or thanksgivings, into the same camp." In this passage you seem to me needlessly to disturb the ancient reading. You assume, without proof, dem aggredi fuerint ausi. Alia te docebit fidus Justini interpres Orosius, lib. iii. cap. 19. Cumque ad Chosides ventum esset, ibi contra CC millia equitum hostium pugnam CONSERUERUNT; et cum tam ætate detriti, animo ægri, viribus lassi, difficile VICISSENT, castra ob memoriam plus solito magnifica condiderunt. Itaque non priusquam manus conseruissent, nonnisi post hostes devictos ac cæsos, in castra reverterunt. Quid quod ipse Justinus idem haud obscurè innuit, quum ait: Motus his tam justis precibus, velut in finem VICTORIE, castra fieri jussit quorum molitionibus et hostis TERRERETUR. Quod si vero statuas, Macedonum exercitum infinitis Cuphitarum copiis territum a prœlio abstinuisse, atque hoc timore perculsum reditum maturandum esse censuisse, næ ego non intelligo, quo sensu Justinus dixerit: Castra posuisse velut in finem proof, that they did not venture to attack the Cuphites. Orosius, Justin's faithful interpreter, declares the direct contrary. "When they came to the country of the Chosides, they fought with two hundred thousand of the enemy's cavalry; and, having conquered them with much difficulty, because they themselves were now worn out with years and fatigue, and sunk in spirit, they formed a camp more magnificent than usual, to commemorate their exploit." Orosius, lib. iii. c. 19. They did not, therefore, return into their camp until they had combated and conquered the enemy. Justin himself gives us to understand as much, when he says, "That Alexander, moved by such just prayers, caused, at the end of his victory, a camp to be formed, whose walls might inspire terror into the enemy." If the Macedonians, therefore, as you imagine, had been frightened at the innumerable forces of the Cuphites, and therefore returned hastily into their camp, I do not see why Justin should say, at the end of his victory, inspire |