* the respectable authority of Fra-Paolo. The Examiner, who thinks that he has turned over the pages of the Theodosian code, informs his reader that it may be found, 1. vi. tit. xxiv. leg. 8.; he will be surprised to learn that this rescript could not be found in a code where it does not exist, but that it may distinctly be read in the same number, the same title, and the same book of the coDE of JUSTINIAN. He who is severe should at least be just yet I should probably have disdained this minute animadversion, unless it had served to display the general ignorance of the critic in the history of the Roman jurisprudence. If Mr. Davis had not been an absolute stranger, the most treacherous guide could not have persuaded him that a rescript of Diocletian was to be found in the Theodosian code, which was designed only to preserve the laws of Constantine and his successors. Compendiosam (says Theodosius himself) Divalium Constitutionum scientiam, ex D. Constantini temporibus roboramus." (Novell. ad calcem Cod. Theod. L. i. tit. i. leg. 1.) 66 THE PRESS. II. Few objects are below the notice of Mr. ERRORS OF Davis, and his criticism is never so formidable as when it is directed against the guilty corrector of the press, who on some occasions has shewn himself negligent of my fame and of his own. Some errors have arisen from the omission of letters; from the confusion of ciphers, which perhaps were not very distinctly marked in the original manuscript. The two of the Roman, and the eleven of *Davis, p. 230. the DIFFE RENCE OP the Arabic numerals, have been unfortunately mistaken for each other; the similar forms of a 2 and a 3, a 5 and a 6, a 3 and an 8, have improperly been transposed; Antolycus for Autolycus, Idolatria for Idololatria, Holsterius for Holstenius, had escaped my own observation, as well as the diligence of the person who was employed to revise the sheets of my History. These important errors, from the indulgence of a deluded public, have been multiplied in the numerous impressions of three different editions; and for the present I can only lament my own defects, while I deprecate the wrath of Mr. Davis, who seems ready to infer that I cannot either read or write. I sincerely admire his patient industry, which I despair of being able to imitate; but if a future edition should ever be required, I could wish to obtain on any reasonable terms, the services of so useful a corrector. III. Mr. Davis had been directed by my refeEDITIONS. rences to several passages of Optatus Milevitanus, and of the Bibliothèque Ecclésiastique of M. Dupin. He eagerly consults those places, is unsuccessful, and is happy. Sometimes the place which I have quoted does not offer any of the circumstances which I had alleged, sometimes only a few; and sometimes the same passages exhibit a sense totally adverse and repugnant to mine. These shameful misrepresentations incline Mr. Davis to suspect that I have never consulted the original, (not even of a common French book!) and he as * Davis, p. 73. Id. p. 132-136. serts serts his right to censure my presumption. These important charges form two distinct articles in the list of misrepresentations; but Mr. Davis has amused himself with adding to the slips of the pen or of the press, some complaints of his ill success, when he attempted to verify my quotations from Cyprian and from Shaw's Travels.* The success of Mr. Davis would indeed have been somewhat extraordinary, unless he had consulted the same editions, as well as the same places. I shall content myself with mentioning the editions which I have used, and with assuring him, that if he renews his search, he will not, or rather that he will, be disappointed. Mr. Gibbon's Editions. Mr. Davis's Editions. Optatus Milevitanus, by Du- Fol. Antwerp, 1702. pin, fol. Paris, 1700. Dupin. Bibliothèque Ecclési- 8vo. Paris, 1687. astique, 4to. Paris, 1690. Cypriani Opera, Edit. Fell. fol. Most probably Oxon, 1682. Shaw's Travels, 4to. London, The folio Edition. 1757. HISTORY IV. The nature of my subject had led me to JEWISH mention, not the real origin of the Jews, but their TACITUS first appearance to the eyes of other nations; and I cannot avoid transcribing the short passage in which I had introduced them. "The Jews, who under the Assyrian and Persian monarchies had languished for many ages the most despised por VOL. IV. Davis, p. 151-155. M M tion tion of their slaves, emerged from their obscurity under the successors of Alexander. And as they multiplied to a surprising degree in the east, and afterwards in the west, they soon excited the curiosity and wonder of other nations." This simple abridgment seems in its turn to have excited the wonder of Mr. Davis, whose surprise almost renders him eloquent. "What a strange assemblage," says he, "is here? It is like Milton's chaos, without bound, without dimension, where time and place are lost. In short, what does this display afford us, but a deal of boyish colouring to the prejudice of much good history?"† If I rightly understand Mr. Davis's language, he censures, as a piece of confused declamation, the passage which he has produced from my History; and if I collect the angry criticisms which he has scattered over twenty pages of controversy, I think I can discover that there is hardly a period, or even a word, in this unfortunate passage, which has obtained the approbation of the Examiner. As nothing can escape his vigilance, he censures me for including the twelve tribes of Israel under the common appellation of Jews,§ and for extending the name of ASSYRIANS to the subjects of the kings of Babylon || and again censures me, because some facts which are affirmed or insinuated in my text, do not agree with the strict and proper limits which he has assigned to those national Gibbon, p. 537. || Id. p. 2. + Davis, p. 5. deno denominations. The name of Jews has indeed been established by the sceptre of the tribe of Judah, and, in the times which precede the captivity, it is used in the more general sense with some sort of impropriety; but surely I am not peculiarly charged with a fault which has been consecrated with the consent of twenty centuries, the practice of the best writers, ancient as well as modern, (see Josephus and Prideaux, even in the titles of their respective works,) and by the usage of modern languages, of the Latin, the Greek, and if I may credit Reland, of the Hebrew itself (see Palestin; L. i. c. 6). With regard to the other word, that of Assyrians, most assuredly I will not lose myself in the labyrinth of the Asiatic monarchies before the age of Cyrus; nor indeed is any more required for my justification, than to prove that Babylon was considered as the capital and royal seat of Assyria. If Mr. Davis were a man of learning, I might be morose enough to censure his ignorance of ancient geography, and to overwhelm him under a load of quotations, which might be collected and transcribed with very little trouble: but as I must suppose that he has received a classical education, I might have expected him to have read the first book of Herodotus, where that historian describes, in the clearest and most elegant terms, the situation and greatness of Babylon: Της δε Ασσυρίης τα μεν κου και αλλα πολίσματα μεγάλα πολλά, το δε ονομαστοτατον και ισχυρότατον και ενθα σφι, Νινου αναστατου γενομένης, τα βασιληία κατέστηκες, ην ΒαBuawy. (Clio.c. 178.) I may be surprised that he should M M 2 be |