finem VICTORIA: posuisse eadem solito magnificentiora ut hostis TERRERETUR: et cum GRATULATIONE in eo revertisse. Ubi et hoc contra Sebisii emendationem notari velim, formulam illam loquendi CUM GRATULATIONE, alterum illud, suxapioτńpia búeiv, eœsis hostiis, jam comprehendere. Adeoque illa

tua emendatio omissis hostibus et ab historiæ fide et a Justini sententia multum abludit.

3. JUSTIN. lib. xxiii. c. 8. Terræ motu portio montis abrupta Gallorum stravit exercitum, et confertissimi cunei, non sine vulneribus hostium, dissipati ruebant. Ne te offendat durior, quæ tibi videtur trajectio vocis hostium quam cum confertissimi cunei, conjungendam censes, atque intelligis de cuneis hostium, sive Gallorum, militaribus. Atque tu, re rite expensa, cognosces, nullam hic trajectionem locum habere, sed omnia naturali

ordine

inspire terror into the enemy, or that they returned to their camp with thanksgivings. It may here be remarked, in opposition to Sebisius' emendation, that the expression, cum gratulatione, if translated with " thanksgivings," will include the casis hostiis, Ta euxapisngia Over; that is, the sacrifice of thanks; so that your alteration of casis hostüs into omissis hostibus, is equally inconsistent with historical truth and the words of Justin.

3. In Justin, lib. xxiv. c. 8. we read, "Part of the mountain carried away by the earthquake overwhelmed the army of the Gauls; and its thick masses breaking in scattered pieces, fell down with great force, not without wounding the enemy." You need not be offended with the harsh transposition of the word hostium, which you think ought to, be joined with confertissimi cunei; as if that last word meant, the military cunei, or wedges, of the Gauls; whereas it really means the thick masses detached

from

ordine fluere: tantum cuncos exponas, non per cohortes hostium militares, sed per moles conglobatas a monte ac rupe avulsas, quæ non confertim sed postquam præcipiti cursu in cuneos dissiluissent, dissipate ruebant non sine vulneribus hostium, h. e. Gallorum. Ita perspecta erit ac manifesta ratio, cur illud hostium cum confertissimi cunei nec possit, nec debeat conjungi: ne scilicet perperam ad cuneos militares traheretur, adeoque ad vitandam omnem sermonis ambiguitatem.

4. JUSTIN. lib. xxviii. c. 2. Adversus Gallos urbem cos suam tueri non potuisse: captamque non ferro defendisse, sed auro redemisse. Si quidem iste locus medicam manum postularet aut admitteret, non est altera qua uterer libentius quam tua, qua pro captamque restituis Capitoliumque. Et frustra Schefferus hic scrupulos movet quasi ineptum fuerit dicere, captam urbem ferro defendi po

tuisse:

from the rock or mountain, which, breaking into smaller fragments, fell down and wounded the enemy, that is, the Gauls. There is no transposition therefore in the case; the sentence flows in the most natural order; and the confertissimi cunei ought not to be joined with hostium, lest the ambiguity of the word cunei should make it be applied to the military cunci, or wedges of

men.

4. In Justin, lib. xxviii. c. 2. we read "That the Romans could not save their city from the Gauls; and when it was taken, instead of defending it by the sword, had ransomed it with money." If this passage required, or admitted emendation, there is no correction I would adopt more willingly than yours, which, instead of captamque, substitutes Capitoliumque. Schefferus objects, without reason, that a city captam, taken, cannot properly be said defendi

tuisse: id enim, quamvis ignave, factum fuisse memorant historici Romani uno quasi convitio: in illis Orosius, lib. ii. c. 19. Patentem Galli urbem penetrant: en captam urbem Romam! Universam reliquam juventutem in arce Capitolini Montis latitantem OBSIDIONE concludunt: ubique infelices reliquias, fame, peste, desperationé, formidine tenent, subigunt, &c. Vides urbe jam capta, defensioni tamen locum superfuisse; neque profecto re dimi urbem opus fuisset, nisi jam in hostium potestate, h. e. capta fuisset. Non videris de co emendationis tuæ incommodo cogitasse, quod Capitolium solum auro fuisse redemptum affirmaret, contra historiæ fidem.

5. JUSTIN. lib. xxxi. c. 1. Legati primum a senatu Romano missi, ut Antiocho Syria regi persuaderent, ne bello invadat eas Cæle-Syriæ civitates,

quas

ferro, to be defended with the sword; for the Roman historians agree that their city, when taken, was defended, though in a cowardly manner. Orosius, among others, says, lib. xi. c. 19. "The Gauls penetrated into the open city; Rome was now taken, the rest of the youth were shut up and besieged in the citadel of the Capitoline Mount; where they were a prey to hunger, pestidence, terror, and despair." You may perceive, therefore, that though the city was taken, its defence was not entirely abandoned; and if it had not been taken, it needed not to have been ransomed. It seems not to have occurred to you, that your correction implies the Capitol only to have been ransomed, which is not historically

true.

5. In Justin, lib. xxxi. c. 1. we read, "Ambassadors were first sent by the Roman senate to persuade Antiochus, King of Syria, that he should not make war on the cities of Cœle-Syria,

quas Egyptii priore bello occuparant, quæ proinde Egyptii juris fuerunt, hoc usi sunt argumento, quod hæ civitates ad regem pupillum pertinerent, fidei suæ traditum. Atque etiam supra Justinus, lib. xxx. c. 3. memorat: Mittitur et M. Lepidus in Egyptum, qui tutorio nomine regnum pupilli administret. Altera deinde legatio, quæ supervenit, postquam Antiochus has civitates in potestatem suam jam redegerat, postulans, ut illæ in integrum restituantur, omissa pupilli persona, nunc alio prætextu utitur, nimirum quod istæ civitates jure belli facta sint populi Romani. Quid jus belli sit, quatenus ab ipso bello, sive eo quod bello partum est, distinguitur, declarabo duobus locis Livii; altero ex Quinti Flaminini ad Nabidem oratione, lib. xxxiv. c. 32. Quibus igitur amicitia violatur?

nempe

which the Egyptians had occupied, in the former war, and which were therefore subject to Egypt; using with him this argument, that these cities belonged to a young prince, their pupil, who had been committed by his father to the protection of the Romans." This same author, lib. xxx. c. iii. says, “M. Lepidus was sent into Egypt to govern that kingdom, with the title of tutor to the young king. A second embassy was sent, after Antiochus had taken possession of these cities, demanding that they should be restored; and without making any mention of the pupil king, merely on this ground, that these cities belonged to the Romans by the right of war." Justin, lib. xxxi. c. 1. What this right of war is, in contradistinction both to war itself, and to conquests made by war, appears from the two following passages, the first of which is part of Quintius Flamininus's speech to the tyrant Nabis, in Livy, lib. xxxiv. c. 32; “ By what measures is the friendship

between

nempe his duabus rebus maxime; si socios meos pro hostibus habeas: si cum hostibus te conjungas. Utrum non a te factum est? nam et Messenen uno atque eodem jure fæderis, quo et Lacedæmonem in amicitiam nostram acceptam, socius ipse sociam no bis urbem vi atque armis cepisti: et cum Philippo hoste nostro societatem.. pepigisti. Altero Flori, lib. iii. c. v. Quippe rex non jam quasi alienam, sed quia amiserat, quasi raptam, jure belli repetebat. Ut taceam illud jure belli ad utrumque, potiore tamen sensu ad jubebat restitui in integrum referri posse; statim enim subjicit, abnuenti bellum denunciatum.

6. JUSTIN. lib. xxxi.. c. 1. Igitur Senatus scripsit Flaminino, si ei videatur, sicuti Macedo

niam

between states violated? Principally by these two; when you treat with hostility our allies, and when you make alliance with our enemies. Are not you guilty of both, since you, though our ally, have seized, by arms and violence, Messené, a city as much our ally as Lacedemon itself; and since you have entered into an alliance with Philip our enemy?" The other passage is in Florus, lib. iii. c. 5. "The King (Mithridates) did not consider Asia as a country not belonging to him; but as it had been formerly taken. from him by violence, he sought to recover it by the law of war." ⚫ I need not mention that "the law of war," in Justin, may have a reference to both the circumstances by which friendship between states is violated; but principally to the attack made on the dominions of Ptolemy, an ally of the Romans, who desire him to be reinstated by Antiochus in his possessions; for the author immediately adds, that when Antiochus refused to comply, war was denounced against him.

6. In Justin, lib. xxxi. c. 1. we read, "The senate, therefore, wrote to Flamininus, that if it seemed expedient to him, as he had

delivered