associate with their reverence for this place, a veneration for all the adjacent country, which had any connexion with the divinity. Their worship was attached, as it were, to the soil, and the one could not be changed without abolishing the other. The temple of Jupiter Elicius, the Lupercal, the house of Romulus, always remained in their original sites. The argument drawn from the gates is not conclusive. New walls necessarily require new gates, which naturally retain the names of those which they replace, and which are demolished as useless. 4. On what principle was it necessary to preserve the relative situation of the wood of Egeria with regard to the Porta Capena? In the time of Numa this gate was not in existence; since it belonged to the walls built around the city by Servius. Tullius. 5. Of the three examples given by Vossius, the wood of Egeria was without the Porta Capena, the lake of Juturna was in the Forum, and the Clivus Virbius was at the foot of Mount Esquiline. Had these monuments changed their sites, care would have been taken to preserve their relative situation with regard to each other. But a line drawn from the centre of the Forum, and passing through each of those places, while it removed them from the city, must also have removed them from each other, instead of collecting the mall into one spot in the neighbourhood of Aricia. 6. According to Vossius, the walls of Rome advanced to the tenth milestone on the Appian way. Yet Aricia was anciently, as it is at present, sixteen miles distant from the capital. All authors agree in this point; and the greater distance assigned by Strabo has been shown to proceed from his measuring by a stadium shorter than the Olympic. I foresee that it will be answered that since the miles were counted not from the gates of Rome, but from the golden pillar, Aricia might be sixteen miles from this pillar and the Forum, and no more than six miles from the Porta Capena. The answer indeed would be good, had the distance been reckoned by a maker of itineraries; but it is not supposable that a geographer like Strabo, or a poet like Lucan, would have said that Aricia was sixteen miles from Rome, had the suburbs filled up the intermediate space, without making that remark. The distances then were always reckoned from the milestone erected by Augustus. I would ask whether the Aqua Claudia rose in the city, although its source is said to have been at the sixth and the eighth milestone on the road to Præneste? The system of Vossius requires the affirmative. Yet we find the source of this water at an estate (Prædium) belonging to Lucullus. The walls of Rome therefore never extended to that distance. This observation, which bears against the whole of Vossius's system, appears to me decisive.

What a singular character was this Vossius! He had much reading, vivacity, and invention; but his understanding had a wrong bias; he was prone to exaggeration in his opinions, and incapable

* Nardini, Roma Vetus, lib. i. cap. iv. p. 902, 903, 904.

+ Cluver. Ital. Antiq. tom. ii. p. 920; et sequent.; Strabon. Geograph. lib. v. p. 165; Mesures Itinéraires de M. d'Anville, p. 15.

Sext. Frontin. de Aquæduct. Rom. lib. i. p. 1635. iv. vol. Grævii. Thesaurus.

of resisting the temptation of a brilliant chimera. He was besides a very bad man. Some parts of his conduct betrayed a total want of probity.

4th. I read a Dissertation by Octavio Falconieri, on the Pyramid of C. Cestius, p. 1461-1482. This monument, which stood at the Porta Ostiensis, and which is now fixed in the city wall, is entirely covered with a beautiful white marble. It is 165 Roman palms high, and the sides of its base are each 130 palms long. There is a room in the middle of the pyramid twentysix palms long, eighteen broad, and nineteen high. This is properly the sepulchre. The walls were covered with a multitude of figures, some of which still remain in a very good taste. It appears from the inscription of the monument and the explanations given of it by Falconieri, that Cestius was a man of distinction in the time of Augustus, and that the paintings relate to his employment of Epulo, or manager of the sacred festivals. None of the ancients make mention of this beautiful pyramid; a reflection which creates regret for the loss of those monuments, whose beauty they highly celebrate. Falconieri's Dissertation is well written.

I read also a performance of Father Ciaconius on the Columna Rostrata of Duillius. Taking the whole inscription for original I began to draw from it many important consequences. Happily, I discovered that the original had suffered so much from the injuries of time, that it was rendered unintelligible, and that the critic had successfully restored it by his conjectures. I this day read p. 1809-1817.

5th. Although the Columna Rostrata disappointed me, I read to the end of the treatise. It contains some very ingenious restorations of the original, and excellent observations on the Latin orthography, which, as happens in all languages, gradually lost sight of etymology, and came to be regulated by pronunciation. Unhappily, the inscription on the pillar of Duillius has not the merit of originality. We see clearly by the example of maximus, written with an i, that the old spelling had been altered for the new, which prevailed from the time of Julius Cæsar.

I finished Ciaconius's Dissertation, p. 1817-1831. I read also a small Treatise by Joseph Castalio, on the temples of Peace and Janus, p. 1849-1856. It is a poor performance.

6th. I read a Dissertation of Peter Bargæus, de Eversoribus Edificiorum Urbis Romæ, p. 1869-1892. By a common prejudice we consider the northern barbarians as equally hostile to the arts and to the Romans; ascribing the ruins of the finest monuments of the city to an Alaric, a Genseric, or a Totila. Bargæus regards this opinion as totally unfounded. Alaric scarcely exercised the rights of war. Genseric was satisfied with pillaging Rome. Totila destroyed part of the walls in his fury, and repaired them when he recovered his reason. The most of the public edifices were standing in the reign of Theodoric, who was more careful to preserve them than had been the last emperors of the East. The zeal of the popes, and particularly of Gregory the Great, beheld nothing in a temple but the idol to whom it was consecrated: he

established religion on the ruin of the fine arts. This account of the matter is explained by Bargæus with much learning and argument, and is far better than his attempt to justify this conduct in the popes, which was surely more becoming the Alcoran than the Gospel. Our notions are as false as unfavourable concerning the nations which over-ran the Roman empire in the fifth century. We look on them as savages just issued from the woods to break the boundaries which divided them from the civilised world. This opinion indeed may be applicable to the people of Scandinavia, to the Scythians, and the Arabs. The Arabs were actuated by enthusiasm; the Danes by vengeance; the Scythians by ferocity, common among wandering nations of shepherds. But the inhabitants of Germany, the Goths,* Vandals, and Franks, had divested themselves of much of their barbarism before they invaded the dominions of the Roman empire. For more than a century preceding that event, numerous bodies of their countrymen had served in the Roman armies. They learned the Latin language; they adopted civilised manners; and if they were not Christians, they at least revered Christianity. The contempt which they sometimes testified for the vanquished, was not mixed with hatred. The soldier was sometimes cruel, but the general was seldom barbarous, and the legislator never. I cast but a rapid glance on objects, which would deserve to be surveyed attentively.

I read also a Dissertation of the same author on the Obelisks in Rome, p. 1905-1934. It is learned; but if superfluities were lopped off, might be reduced to six pages.

7th.-I began the work of Olaus Borrichius, de Antiquâ Facie Urbis Romæ, and read p. 1521-1546.

8th. I read Borrichius, p. 1546—1576. I finished the twentyfourth volume of the Bibliothèque Raisonnée. It contains the History of the Heavens, by the Abbé Pluche. This author, who is a bad philosopher and a superficial scholar, builds ingenious systems, which dazzle but for a moment. He draws Egyptian etymologies from the Hebrew, because he supposes that the Hebrew had much affinity with the Phoenician; and that the Phoenician was not very remote from the Egyptian! The signs of the seasons and of agriculture are changed into gods. But I would ask whether it was possible that mankind should so much mistake those signs which returned annually, bringing with them their own explication. Such an extraordinary metamorphosis must have required at least many more ages than the Abbé Pluche would be willing to allow.-The History of Charles XII. by Mr. Aderfeld. The Alexander of the North had already his Quintus Curtius. He still wanted an Arrian. Mr. Aderfeld supplies the defect rather by his accuracy than his eloquence.-Libanius's Letters, by Mr. Welf: a valuable present. We had only 250 of these letters. This learned man gives us 1600, recovered from the dust of all the libraries of Europe.-Ammonius de Differentiâ Verborum, &c. by Mr. Valkenaer: a small collection of some Greek grammarians, not without merit.-The History of King David: a learned, singular, and laughable performance.

* He decides not the famous question concerning the origin of the Goths.

9th. I read Olaus Borrichius, de Antiquâ Facie Urbis Rome, p. 1576-1600.

10th. I finished Olaus Borrichius, p. 1600-1623; and am much pleased with this little work. It is curious and learned. Borrichius examines the quarters of the city with order and perspicuity; and, regardless of minute objects, fixes on the principal monuments, which he explains in a very entertaining manner, and in an easy flow of style. His work must be useful to those who wish to form only a general, but just notion of ancient Rome; who are afraid of the large volumes of Donatus and Nardini, or who wish to digest methodically in their minds the knowledge which they have acquired from them. In one word Borrichius is an excellent abridgement of Nardini, whom he closely follows. I could have wished this learned Dane had been satisfied with this merit. without aspiring to that of an original author; yet it must be allowed that he makes some curious observations, and corrects Nardini judiciously; of which the two following are examples: 1. He proves in a very satisfactory manner, that the emperors were never honoured with the title of Divus in their life-time, and consequently that all the monuments in which this title is found, must have been raised to them after their deaths. 2. He shows in opposition to Nardini, that all the games of the goddess Flora were celebrated in her Circus; and that by mistaking a passage of Ovid, that antiquary has made two festivals of Flora out of one, which was held the last day of April, or the first of May. Borrichius was a Dane, and professor at Copenhagen. It appears from different passages of his book, that he travelled in Italy, France and England towards the year 1665; and published this little treatise about twenty years after his return home. Without his telling us that he was a Dane, we should easily perceive it, from his manner of speaking concerning the triumph of Marius on Mount Esquiline. At beholding this monument of the defeat of the Cimbri, his patriotism is inflamed, a noble indignation seizes his soul. He ascribes the victory of the Romans to the sun, the winds, and fortune; to every cause rather than the valour of Marius.

12th. An appearance of philosophy, with real ignorance; thoughts trivial or false; affectation of style; exaggeration or vulgarity of description; such is the new work intituled Amusements of Reason, which was lent to me by Mr. C****; and in which I find neither reason nor amusement. The author's preface to his translation of the Wise Man's Recreations, is impertinent in the extreme. Of what use is it to know an author's name? What has that name to do with his work? A great deal with his design, his allusions, &c., but nothing with the sentence that we ought to pass on his philosophical opinions.

13th. I this day began a very considerable task; which was to read Cluverius' Italia Antiqua, in two volumes in folio: Leyden, 1624, Elzevirs. The author did not live to see its publication; but had completely finished it before his death. His editor tells us that he had in contemplation to write an universal geography

on the same plan; and that after describing Germany, Italy, and Sicily, he meant to treat of Gaul, Greece, and all the other countries known to the ancients. Strabo comprehended the same subject in seventeen books; of which the countries described by Cluverius, in four volumes in folio, occupy nearly three. The whole design of that learned man would have extended to twenty-three volumes in folio. Had he lived a few years longer, he would perhaps have executed this vast undertaking. We should then have had an immense repertory on the subject of ancient geography, treated indeed with a degree of circumstantial minuteness, which no other countries perhaps deserve but Greece and Italy. A man of letters is desirous to know every corner of those celebrated countries, the smallest villages of which are distinguished in history or poetry. I begin to read Cluverius with the same views that I read Nardini, both to prepare me for my journey into Italy, and to assist me in my future studies. These two authors, studied with care and reflection, will serve me as a perpetual commentary; so that I shall not be a stranger in any part of Rome or Italy, to which my inquiries may lead me. I this day read Cluverius' Ital. Antiq. lib. i. cap. i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. p. 1-46. These six chapters are preparatory to his particular description. He examines in them the different names of Italy, its limits, extent, figure, Mount Apennine, which divides the country; its soil, climate, inhabitants, and languages. He every where cites his authorities in their own words, and speaks only occasionally himself, to reconcile, explain, or correct them. Mr. d'Anville accuses him too hastily of confounding the Roman mile with that of the modern Italians.* Cluverius does not confound them; he knew that of modern Italy to be the longest of the two, and has explained himself very clearly on that subject.+ This knowledge indeed was not of much use to him, since he was ignorant of the exact proportion which the one mile bore to the other.

14th. I read Cluverius, lib. i. cap. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. p. 46-90. He travels along the coast of Liguria from the Varus, which separated that district from Gaul, to the Macra, by which it was bounded on the side of Tuscany. This coast is rocky and barren; and, by denying all other advantages to its inhabitants, tended to increase their strength and courage. It is extraordinary that this enterprising people should never have thought of crossing the Apennines, in order to settle in the beautiful plain which lies between those mountains and the Po: and that they should have finally been indebted for this acquisition to a political arrangement of the Romans. I was amused by the article Pollentia. There Stilicho fought the army of the Goths. The Christian writers represent this transaction as a scandalous piece of unsuccessful treachery, from which nothing but shame accrued to the Romans. Claudian, on the contrary, a pagan poet, considers Stilicho's battle as equal to Marius's victory over the Cimbri, and extols the conqueror as a hero who avenged the cause of his country, and delivered all Italy from the tyranny of barbarians.

* D'Anville, Mésures Itineraires, p. 7, 8. † Cluverii Ital. Antiq. lib. i. cap. iii. p. 25.