Cæsar first made the Romans acquainted, by his expedition thither, in the year of Rome six hundred and ninety-eight. Catullus also mentions the second consulship of Pompey, which happened on that same year. He lived so late as the year seven hundred and six, since he speaks of the consulship of Vatinius. § I will not make use of Scaliger's arguments to prove that the poet witnessed Cæsar's triumphs, because I do not believe them well-founded. I will not particularly examine whether the words "paterna prima lancinata sunt bona," || best apply to the first or last victories of Cæsar, because I do not believe them to have any reference to the one or the other. We need only to read the epigram attentively, to perceive that Catullus always addresses Cæsar in the second person, "Cincede Romule, hæc videbis et feres ? Es impudicus, et vorax, et helluo;" and Mamurra in the third: "Parum expatravit? an parvum helluatus est ? Paterna prima lancinata sunt bona." The poet alludes, therefore, not to Cæsar's dissipation, but to that of Mamurra; and all the consequences deduced from his applying his words to the former, are built on a false hypothesis. T Catullus, on the other hand, did not live to see the secular games celebrated by Augustus, since he died before Tibullus. Ovid, in an elegy, written on the death of the latter, places Catullus among the poets whom his friend will meet with in the Elysian fields: ** "Si tamen a nobis aliquid nisi nomen et umbra Restat in Elysia Valle Tibullus erit. But when did Tibullus die? A little epigram of Domitius Marius informs us, that he died the same day, or at least in the same year, with Virgil:++ "Te quoque Virgilio comitem non æqua, Tibulle, Now it is well known that Virgil died the twenty-second of September, seven hundred and thirty-four. ++ Catullus then could not see the secular games, which were not celebrated till seven hundred and thirty-six. We may go farther, and affirm, that Catullus was dead before the * Tacit. in Vit. Agricol. c. 13. + Cæsar. Comm. L. iv.; Dion. Hist. L. xxxix. p. 113. Catull. Carm. cxi. § Idem, lii. || Idem, xxvii. ver. 29. Were we curious to ascertain exactly the date of this epigram, a passage of Cicero would lead us to fix it at the year 708. For, notwithstanding Bayle's reasonings, we cannot regard it in any other light than that of a satire written against Mamurra; an opinion embraced by the learned Dr. Middleton. There is no weight in the observation, that Catullus would not have ventured to write this epigram against Cæsar in the plenitude of his power. Cæsar's clemency towards his enemies is well known; and the terms in which historians speak of his lenity shown to this satirist implies that he was then possessed of power to punish him; otherwise his moderation would have been of little value. Tacitus (Annal. L. iv. c. 34,) speaks of this affair as a parallel to that of Bibalculus, who satirised Augustus when the latter was certainly invested with sovereign dominion. ** Ovid. Eleg. L. iii. 9.†† V. Tibull. Carm. L. iv. c. 15. Don. in Vit. Vir. year seven hundred and twenty-one. This is proved by a contemporary historian, the friend of Cicero and of Catullus;+ I mean Cornelius Nepos. In his life of Atticus, speaking of a certain Julius Calidius, to whom Atticus had rendered very important services, he distinguishes him, "as the most elegant poet of that age since the death of Lucretius and Catullus." The latter, therefore, was dead before Nepos wrote this passage; of which it is not difficult to fix the date. Nepos' Life of Atticus consists of twenty-two chapters; the first eighteen of which were, as he tells us, written while the subject of them still lived. The passage mentioning the death of Catullus is in the twelfth chapter; from whence it follows, that Atticus survived Catullus. But Atticus died during the consulship of Cn. Domitius and C. Socius. § Did we wish to ascertain still more accurately the precise year of Catullus' death, we should not be much mistaken in fixing it at the middle term between the years of Rome seven hundred and six, and seven hundred and twenty-one; which will give us the year seven hundred and fourteen; which very well agrees with all other particulars known concerning him. The The only argument adduced by Scaliger, that can occasion any difficulty, is, that Catullus composed a secular poem. Vossius' conjecture, that the secular games were celebrated at the commencement of the seventh century of Rome, is altogether unwarranted: that of Bayle, I fear, rests not on much better authority. beginning of that century was deformed by so many disorders, and by such a marked neglect of ancient ceremonies, that there is not any probability that such games should then have been either exhibited or expected. But it is not necessary to suppose that Catullus' poem was written for the secular games. It might have been intended merely for Diana's festival, which was celebrated yearly in the month of August, as Bentley conjectured.** This is confirmed by comparing this poem with Horace's Carmen Seculare. In the former, both the boys and girls form but one chorus, which addresses itself to Diana: tt "Dianæ sumus in fide Puellæ et pueri integri." In Horace, the boys address themselves to Apollo, and the girls to Diana: ±± ++ "Supplices audi pueros Apollo, Siderum Regina bicornis audi, This distinction had been established by the oracle who commanded the celebration of the games. §§ But I have done. This is enough for one letter. Your time is precious, and I would not offend you by carrying too far the liberty I have taken in writing to you. I have the honour to be, with much respect, yours, &c. * Sueton. L. i. c. 55; Voss. de Hist. Latin. L. i. c. 24. Cornel. Nepos, in Vit. Attici, c. 12. ¶ Sueton. L. ii. c. 37. § Idem, c. 18. EDWARD GIBBON. + Catull. Carm. i. || Idem, c. 21. ** Bentl. in Præfat. Edit. Horatian. + Catull. Carm. xxxiv. ver. 1. VII.-MR. GESNER TO MR. GIBBON. 1. You inquire who were the Pisos, of whom Horace speaks in such honourable terms in his Art of Poetry. Dacier and Sanadon would probably, most learned sir, have obtained more credit with you, had they cited the authority on which their opinion rests; independently of which, it seems no better than a guess, which a slight argument is sufficient to overturn. This authority is that of Porphyrio, an ancient writer, who treats of the names mentioned in Horace, and who here perhaps copies from some author more ancient than himself. In his corrected edition, Porphyrio says, "Horace's work, entitled the Art of Poetry, is addressed to L. Piso, who was afterwards governor of Rome; for Piso was himself a poet, and a patron of literary pursuits." But chronology, you say, does not warrant this explanation. It does; for Tacitus tells us, in his Annals, (lib. vi. c. 10,) that Piso died U. C. 785, at the age of eighty. He held his office twenty years; and therefore entered on it U. C. 765; before which period Horace must have sent to him the Art of Poetry, (which I suspect once stood at the third epistle of the second book,) because Porphyrio says, "who was afterwards governor of Rome." Let us suppose that Piso's son was born when the father was thirty years old; and that the son was sixteen when Horace addressed him, "O major juvenum;" the Art of Poetry will then have been written in the fifty-second year of Horace's age; which well agrees with Bentley's computation; a subject which I remember to have examined and approved when about the same time of life I published my edition of Horace. If we think sixteen years too young for the praises bestowed by the poet, we may add to them five, or even ten years more. But to this mode of reckoning it is objected, that Virgil was alive when Horace wrote his Art of Poetry; and as the latter died in the year of Rome seven hundred and thirtyfive, Piso, who was then but thirty years old himself, could not have a son above ten or twelve at the utmost. But some critics do not disapprove of the application of "juvenis" to a boy of ten years, and of a forward genius: Grotius and others were poets at that age; and the Roman courtiers would naturally, I think, be prodigal in using the term "juvenis," after Cicero gave so much offence by applying the term "puer" to Augustus. But I see not any convincing argument to prove that Virgil was alive when the Art of Poetry was written. For, in the passage alluded to, Horace does not contrast living poets with those that were dead, but ancient poets with the modern; and, according to the critics whom he mentions, not death alone, but the being dead a certain number of years, was necessary for the attainment of poetical fame. "Est vetus atque probus, centum qui perficit annos." See the first epistle of the second book. 2. Concerning the third ode of the third book, I formerly gave my opinion in the observations accompanying my edition, which, as 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 Alexandrians sent ambassadors to Rome, requesting the senate 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 year; 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 |