r-J IB I V-** s 3> ^BNIVERS/A. ^v OS", m*m.*>i !S I O u_ I -z "- l l - , *Y\E UNIVERS//,. REMARKS ON THE EPISTLES O F CICERO to BRUTUS, AND OF BRUTUS to CICERO; In a LETTER to a FRIEND. WITH A DISSERT AT JON upon FOUR ORATIONS afcribed to M. TULLIUS CICERO: viz. 1. AD QUIRITES POST REDITUM. 2. POST REDITUM IN SENATU. 3. PRO DOMO SUA, AD PONTIFICES. 4. DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. To which are added, Some EXTRACTS out of the NOTES of Learned Men upon thofe ORATIONS j And OBSERVATIONS on them. By JER. MARKLAND, Fellow of St. Peters College, Cambridge. LONDON, Printed, and Sold by M. COOPER at the Globe in Pater-no/ler- Row. M D c c x L v. x f StacK Annex 017* CONTENT S O F T H E REMARKS upon the EPIS- TLE s 5 etc. only way of fuccefifully imitating Cicero's Epiftles. Peg- 2. g. 40e Qualifications necejfary for thisPurpofe. 3. 10. 13. No difficult Matter to have done it five or fix hundred Years ago, or in any higher Age fince the Latin Tongue has ceas'd to be fpoken. 3, II, 12, 13. Nor 'at prefent. 1 3. There were in every Age Perfonsfo qualified, IO } II,I2 Above one half of the Language and Matter of thefe Epijlles taken cut of the True Cicero. 5. The Author's Mi/lakes in the remaining part, in Lan- guage, Fa&s, and Reafoning. ibid. So that if thefe Epijlles be ejleemed genuine, // will be impojjible for us Moderns to prove any Piece^ which has for fome Centuries loin the Character cfanAn- tient, to be fpuricus. 7, 8. Latin not the Mother-Tongue of the Author of the Epijlles. 9. IVkence it follow 'j, that he livd after the Vlth Century. 10. The Firft Epijllc allowed to be genuine, from the Tefli* many of Nonius Marcellus, and its Unexcepiion- ablemfs. 15, 1 6. Lucius Clodius, the Subjeff cfit, who he was. 1 7 . The Branches of the Clodian Family, ibid. An Overfiglt of the Author of the Oration De Harufpicum Re- fponfis. j8. A The Ij H CONTENTS. The Vllth Epiftle very like Cicero' s manner, jg, 2d. An eafy matter to forge fuch an EpijUe. } ibid* ^TkeXVthfeems to have the air of Antiquity. 20. Brutus'* famous Epijlle (the XXII d ) very faulty, ibid. probably the EJJay of fame young Perfon. 21. Our Ignorance in the Hijiory of the Writings of the Ancients. 22. 7 'he Char after of the Author of the Epiftles. 23. Whence he had his Materials, ibid. His great defic /Vwy,Want of Judgment. 24. The Power of Prejudice. 24-, 25. The- Method and Defign of the Author of thefe Papers. 25, 26. Remarks on the LANGUAGE. 27 130. The Author of the Epijlles ufes perfuadere in/lead tf fuadere. 27 $y. A like Mi/Jake in the Author of the Oration pro Domo fua, in the word excogitavit for cogitavit. 30. Note. Hs writes^ in praefentibus malis prohibendis, which is an Inconfiftency : injlead of eohibendis or inhibendis. 3034- O&avius is eft, QUI expeftetPop. Romanus, etc. in- Jlcadof, A QUO : probably through forgetfulnefs. /* Jlances of the fame kind in other Moderns. 3438. REVOCARI in integrum in/feadofREsrirvi in inte- grum. Perhaps from mijlaking a Pajfage in Livy. 38 41. Idem Cicero^ fi fiexerit advetfus alias judicium fuum$ quod tanta firmitate ^-magnitudine direxit in extur- bando Antonio, unintelligible. 4 \ 44. OB ejufdem MORTEM deterritus, for ejufdem MOR- TE: and^ fuijurisac MANciPiirefpublica. 4447. Nihil TANTI ruit QJIO venderemus fidem noftram, for UT venderemus: not Latin. Several ways in which he might rightly have exprejl this fentence. 4749. Scd ita multi LABEFACTANT, neutMOVEATUR interdum extimefcam, prepojforoujjy, in/lead of, fed itamulti MOVENT, ut ne LABEFACTETUR inter- dum extimefcam. 49 52, Aetas enim, mores, liberi s EON EM efficiunt, for, averfe to public Bufinels. 52 55. Corruptum CONTENTS; iii Cdrruptum LARGITIONIBUS animum,/0r honorum largitionibus. 55 59. Liceat injudicioufly put for poffit or foleat. 59 61. In Panfae locum PETERE conftituit, in/lead of, inPan- fae AUGURIS, PONTIFICIS, &c. locum petere conftituit. 6 1 66 'The [Serb petere, abfolutely, for honores petere, very fcarce : petitio, the Subjlantive, for honorum pe- titio, very c ommon. 03 Domitius IN fua epiftola CELEBRABITUR; hard to know what is meant by it. 66 69. Cujufve ratio habebitur, for, cujufve ABSENTIS ra- tio habebitur. , 69 73*. Qui M. Antonii fectam fecuti funt, negligently tran- fcrib'd out 0/"Livy as the form of a Senatus confultum, injlead of, Qui M. Antonium fectamque ejus fecu- ti funt : and ignorantly put y injlead of, Qui cum M. Antonio fuerunt : which ^uas a Form in Cicero's time. 73 j6. Again, he puts, ad FIDEM et ad DIGNITATEM tuam pertinet, as part of a Decree of the Senate: injlead of, ad REMPUBLICAM FiDEMque tuam pertinet, which was the Style infuch Decrees. 76 78. Once more, HONOsDiisimmortalibus DECRETUseflet, . . injtead of HA SITUS efTet. 78 81. ExacJ Knowledge of any Language the lower part of CRITICISM : but absolutely necejfary in order to the higher. 82. Joan. Fred. Gronovius, his great Skill in the Latin Tongue. 83. A curious Remark of his. 83, 84. Some others of the like kind. 85 89. Authority, and prefent Ufe, the Rules 0/Ypeaking. 89. Cicero's ^uejlion, Quis fie loquitur ? ibid. Authority, unaccountable, ibid. The Antients frequently could give no Account of their own Language. An In- Jlance out o/"Gellius. 90. The Writing of True Latin a very uncertain Thing to us Moderns 91. The fame holds good in all Languages that are learnt by Books only. 92. A 2 ^Perfon iv CONTENTS. A Perfon who fucceeds another in bis Pojl, is never /aid RE PON i in ejus locum, but, fubftitui, fuffici, fubro- gari, etc. reponi is applied to Things, not to Perfons - y except in the fenfe 0/"reftoring or replacing them in theftatlon they formerly were; 93 96* Ut SOLERESJ for ut SOLEBAS, bad or ajfeRed Wrlt- i*g : 96, 97. Habui in mea FOTESTATE,y^r in mea CUSTODIA. 97 iooi QUOEXPLERI polTit eorum meritum, for exolvi, or remunerari. Sever a I ways ofexprejjing the Sentence. 100 105. Vindici quidem alienae dominationis, NON vieario, ec- quis fupplicat, etc? For, NE vindici quidem, NE- DUM vicario, nemo fupplicat, &c. This likewife ex- pr eft many different ways by the Ant tents. 105 HO. In vERissi-MOgeneredicendi, /"> in opTiMO,ivbicb was the ufual and fettled Form of Writing, no, 1 1 1 ^ He puts texdzreNeutrflfy, contrary to the Ufe oftheWordt In the Age ofClc ero. ill 114, Cicero probably the firft who wrote PLURES uno, more than one : which before, and in his time, was expre/f by PLUS (or amplius) uno. 114 116. Infideliter, not a Latin Word. 1 1 6, 1 20. Quatefeci, an unheard of Verb ^ form d contrary t& Ana- logy. 1 20 123.- Recapitulation of the foregoing Particulars ; and the Au- thor 's Reafons for proceeding to the Two following Heads, the Fa6ls> and the Argumentation in the E- pijtles. 123 129. Remarks on the FACTS, from p. 1 30 to p. 175. The Author of the Eplftles makes Cicero call Solon the- wifeft of the Seven Wife-men, agalnft the exprefs tcf- timony of the true Cicero in other places, p. 1 30 1 32 Slips of Memory In the true Cicero. 132, 133. Cicero tells Brutus, that he does not think It necejfary to fend him an account of Two Letters ivhich had been read in the Senate : And aftcnvards, in the fame E- plftle, fends him a particular Account of the Two Letters. 133 135. Another of the fume kind ob- firv'd by Mr. Tunftall. 134 Note. Brutus CONTENTS. v Brutus makes an Apology to Cicero for calling fame Per- lens Citizens, when Cicero himfelf bad called tbofe veryperfotis Citizens, and in that very Letter which Brutus is then anfwerlng. I 35^ I 3^ > - Jnconfijlently rejoices at the Death of his bejl friends, the Confuls, while he is vindicating his Humanity to C. Antonius one of his greaieji Enemies : obferv d by Mr. Tunftall. 136. The Author makes Cicero tell Brutus, that Panfa did fugere,cr runaway out of the Field of Battle. Jffiicb is Falfe, atul Impoffibleyir Cicero to have written. . Hit various Blunders and Inconfiftcncles in the ufe of the words fugere and ccdere. 138 143. He ignorantly mentions two or more Edifis^ whereas there was but one : and makes Cicero fay, that the FAME or REPORT of the Edicts of Brutus and Caf- fius cans' d him to return to Rome ; whereas Cicero h imf elf fays ^ that it was the Edict IT SELF (not the fame or report of it) which he receivd and read. H3' H4- Lepidus In his Revolt is fald to be carrying on a molt fharp war by Land and by s E A : of which iaji Cir- cumftance there is not the leaft mention or hint In Hi- pry. 145 _ I47 . The probable Caufe of the Blunder. 149, 150. that plenty of Corn is rejlored to the City upon his return. Whereas the true Cicero acquaints us, that on the day on which this Oration is fuppofed to have been fpoken^ Sept. $th, there was a very great Dearnefs and fear city^ Corn. 251. The fame thing affirmed m the Or at. Ad Quirit. poft reditum, fuppsfed to have been fpoken on the 6th of September, equally falfe. 251,252. The occafion of the Falfity. ibid. fie makes Cicero mention his Title of Imperator fix years before he obtained it. 254. did not know the dif- ference between Imperator and cum imperio. 256. Who were Imperatores. 257. He ought to have put Practori or Confuli in/had of Imperatori. 258. This looks like the Writing of a Foreigner. 259. R E M A R K S on the Orat. Ad Quirites poft re- ditum, from 260 2^4. Nothing in the true Cicero fo intricate and involved a$ thefirjl Sentence of this Oration. 260. // is little more than an Abridgment or Repetition of the. fcrmer. 261. the Sentiments, Examples^ and Expnf- JionS) the fame. Inftanccs. 261 263. But it is infc-, ricr to the Former. 264. dn injlance. ibid. Laetitiae voluptate, for Letitia et voluptate. 266. JJe fpeaks of the recovery of his fortunes on the 6th of September: When we know from the true Cicero, that be did not recover them till near a month aft er. 266., CONTENTS. xi 266, 267. he contradiffs Hlmfelf in this matter. 268, 269. Senatus perfecit, ut memoria rerum geftarum perfice- retur, unintelligible. 269, 270. Makes nobifmetipfis nos reddidiftis tofignifie, ye have reftored me for mine own fake : contrary to the. ufe of the Expreffion. 270,271. Puts efflagitati for flagitati : and feveral other com- pound Verbs inftead of Simple ones which have a quite different fignificat'ion. 271 273. Makes a mijiake of Four years, at leaft, in point of Time, in faying that Cicero defended Gabinius in a Capital Caufe before the year U. C. 695 : whereas it is notorious, that That Defence c/'Gabinjus. was not made till the year 699. 273 2/6. An Objec- tion anfwered. 274, 275. The fame mijiake made by the French Author o/"The Exil of Cicero, ob- fervd by Dr. Middleton. 276. A very obfcure Double Signification of the word mer- cede. 277. The Tricks of the Declaimers. 278. The Liberties they took in the ufe of a Figure or Term which they called a color, ibid, and in Fiction, ibid. The ill confequence of this lajl to Hiftory, exemplified by an Inflame. 279, 280. A very Impious Sentence of the Author^ who tells the Quirites, That he mall always look upon their Nit- men, or Deity, as EQUAL TO That of the Immor- tal Gods. 280282. SUPERIOREM efle CONTRA improbos, DoubtfuILz- tia. 282. The pajjage which Ammian. Marcellinus is thought to have taken frtanfbii Oration. 282 284. REMARKS on the Or at. Pro Domo fua, 284. 318. The Infcription of this Oration Jhould be, DE Domo fua, rather than PRO : and perhaps APUD Pontifices, not AD. 284, 285. Tiie true Cicero'j Oratisn De Domo (ua a very diffe- rent one from th:j. 285. Taken xii CONTENTS. He confeffes the firji Twelve chapters to be extra cauf- fam, or, not to the purpofe. 286.' Taken almojl intirely from the Orations Pro. P. Sextio and In L. Pifonem. 287. 233. An Inflance of his great weaknefs /wReafoning. 287,288. Jubeo, with the Conjunction ut following it, not an unu- fual manner of Writing in the Golden Age of the LztinTongue. 288 291, His Quibble upon the difference between interdicatur and interdi&um fit. 291 293. Tangere aliquam partem legis PRAEDA, and quo- cumque venit, unintelligible. 2 93 2 94 A Majler-piece of Blunder. 294, 295. Ferrecurationemtibi,yir ferre (legem or rogationem) DE curatione tibi mandanda, not Latin. 295, 296. Graevius'j explication of the Words^ ut in Ana Cifto- phorum flagitaret. 296. The Author makes Pompey the Great afraid of a Pow- er which was extinct. And yet, with unaccountable Stupidity, in the very word which goes before^ calls the fame Power only diftrata or divided from another Part of it. 297, 298. Confounds a Letter of Recommendation with a Letter of Thanks : and does not do jujiice to Cicero. 298 301. Pulcherrimi/rf#z quod gejjtffem^ not Latin. 301, 302 . Spoils his oivn Thought by the Omijfion of a H ord. 302, 33- Writes widely out of Charatler^ in making Cicero give the fcandaious name of FUR to App. Claudius, a man of Character and Power, andcf the Firjl Duality in Rome. 303, 304, Hominem fua virtute egentem, a man who is in want upon account of his Worth. 304. Scato the Mar- fian, taken out o/"Philipp. XII, 11. ibid. He puts quanta for quantacumque or quanta quanta : and advances a Pofition which is net True. 305, 306. Speaks of the Dedication of a Temple as a thing done in private j which was a Public Ceremony, 306,307. Reafens ' CONTENTS. xiii. fceafons why the Author ofthefe Orations feetns to have been a Provincial. 308 314. The Montani, apart of the plebs urbana, never heard of but in this Author. 308. The Scribes at Rome, no very creditable order of men. 309312. He fays that a tribunus plebis had it in his power ts compel the College of Priefts to be prefent at the Dt- dication of a Temple. 312 314. Two Injlances of inconclu/ive Rcafoning. 314- Makes a Diftinttion, unknown in the Latin Tongue y between te 6ra and dornus. 315, 316. Puts MODERATIO rei familiaris in the fenfe of MO- DUS. 316. ^/Wper viMreligionis/tfr per sPECiEMtfrobtentum. 317. REMARKS on the Orat. De Harufpicum Refponfis, 318 358. Cicero no -where gives the leaji hint thai he ever fpake er wrote an Oration upon this Subjett. 318. Afconius Pedianus the firjlwbo quotes itasCicero*s.ibicl. The reafon for which he qttctes zV, is a ftrong Argument 6f its being fpurious. 320. His Solution of diffe- rent Accounts^ by ^j * it would be certain that this could not be the Hand of Cicero or Brutus, but mufl be That of an Impojlor : and confequently, that all his Faffs which were not warranted by good Authorities, might very juftly be liable to the Sujpicion of Forgery. And the event proved as I expected it would. For in fome places he feems to deal in Fiffion, and to make Faffs of great Importance which are not elfewhere to be met with in Hiftory : in others, he makes Cicero diredtly contradict Himfelf : then he miftakes the Senfe of the Author from whom he bor- rows, and thereupon gives a Falfe account : next, he commits AnachrQnifms^ and relates things as done at one time which were done at another. Thirdly ^ of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 7 'Thirdly, in his Reafoning he feems to be as deficient, and as Unlike and Inferior to Cicero p , as in any part whatever. For fome- times he argues in fuch a loofe and wild manner, that his Proofs feem to have no relation at all to the Proposition which was to be proved : another time he retains (enim) the Rea/on, but drops the Thing of which the Reafon was to be given ; fo that the Proof of Something appears j but what That Some- thing is, you are left to feek : fometimes he throws into his Argument fome Ufelefs and Idle Word and Circumftance, the QmiJJion of which, or the Change into its Contrary , would have been equally to the purpofe. Thefe Difficulties remaining inexplicable after all the Search I could make, I thought I might reafonably conclude, that thefe Epiftles could not be the Writings of Cicero and Brutus. And indeed who could judge otherwife upon the fame Evidence ? for if Bad Latin, FalJ'e Hiftory, and Bad Reafon* ing, can be thought confident with the Cha- racters of thofe Great Men, becaufe thefe Epiftles have their Names prefixed to thorn j it will be impoffible that any Piece which has borne the Name and Infcription of an Antient Writer for fome Centuries , can now B 4 be 8 REMARKS on the EPISTLES be proved to be a Forgery, be it never fo Abfurd : fo that if the infipid and blunder- ing Exercifes and Declamations of a School- Boy written Five or Six Hundred years ago, fhould now be brought to light out of a MS of that Age, with the Title of Cicero's Orations for M. Scaurus, C. Cornelius, or any other loft Piece j they muft, upon this principle, be received as the genuine Works of the Orator. But becaufe the QuefHon in Difpute will ftill remain, and will turn upon this point, Whether what I look upon as Bad Latin, Falje Hiftory, and Bad Rea/daing, be in reality fuch -, it will be neceflary that fome Inftances of each kind mould be produced : which mail be done in the Order juft now mentioned ; to the intent that thofe who are better skilled in thefe matters, may from their own Reading and Remarks (if what is here offered appears doubtful) be induced either to confirm thefe Obfervations or to confute them, if they confirm the Truth of them, Mr. Tiunftall ought to receive the Honour due to the Difcovery, which is en- tirely His : if they confute them, I (hall have the pleafure of being freed from an Error from which as yet I am not able to difengage myfelf. For of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 9 For at prefent I confefs I am fo far from believing Cicero and Brutus to have been the Authors of thefe Epiflles, as on the contrary to be firmly perfuaded, that they were writ- ten many Centuries after their Deaths, by fome Perfon (or rather Perjom) of no great Skill in the Latin ^Tongue, and of a very weak 'Judgement^ notwithftanding his Viva- city and Ingenuity^ which in fome places I readily allow him. His Injudicioujnefs ap- pears in many Inftances, but in none more than in what concerns the Language of thefe Epiftles. for whereas he had it in his power to have executed this part of his Attempt with fuccefs, and had gone above halfway towards it by the only Way that could lead him to it, namely, by making ufe of none but Cicero's own Words and Exprejflons col- lected out of different parts of his Works ; on a fudden he leaves the direct Road and a fure Guide, to follow his own fancy, and truft to his own Style : by which means he has left us fufficient room to trace him out in his deviations, and, from his Miftakes in this kind, has enabled us to difcover, that Latin was not his Mother -T'ongue^ and that he had learnt it only from Books, (and that too with no Accuracy, and to no great Depth) io REMARKS on the EPISTLES Depth) becaufe almoft every one of his Blunders on this head appear to be fuch as could not poffibly be committed by one who fpake Latin from his Childhood, and to whom the Latin tongue was a Living-Lan- guage. Confequently, it feems evident to me, that he lived fome time after the Vlth Century, towards the end of which it is generally thought the Latin 'Tongue ceas'd to be /poken. how much lower he is to be placed, I cannot pretend to fay : but when- foever he lived, he feems to have been one of thofe Writers whofe Pieces, as Petrarch informs us, p. 396. were in his time to be found in great abundance, bearing the Ti- tles of the Works of Cicero : under which Name thefe very Letters impofed upon Pe- trarch himfelf. If now it mould be asked, Who, from the end of the vi th Century to the middle of the xiv th , that is to the time of Petrarch, was able to write fuch Letters as thefe, and at What Time : I anfwer, Any Body, at Any Time, might do it, provided he had, ift, a competent Skill in Latin ; that is, enough to enable him to read and underftand Cicero, no difficult Author : 2dly, a Good Judge- ment : and 3dly, Indujlry. Thefe are no extraordinary ^CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. n extraordinary and unufual Qualifications ; and there could never fail of being feveral Perfons fo qualified in moil Countries of Chriftendom (but efpecially in Italy y and at Rome) even during thofe Dark Ages. The frft of thefe Qualifications we are certain fubfifted in every ^ge in the Courts of the Popes, and of all or moft of the Chriftian Princes, and in many Religions Houfes, and elfewhere ; as might eafily be made appear from the Records and Remains of each Age : and the two others are always Common to every Age and every Country. So that in reality there is no fuch Difficulty in this matter as perhaps is generally fuppofed. The Chief thing is Good Judgement : this would lay a conflant check upon the Imi- tator, and would never permit him to de- part from the Language of Cicero : it would likewife guard him from Fiction, and would hinder him from introducing any Circum- ftances in his Faffs and Hijtory which were Falfe or Uncertain and not well attefted : and laftly, it would direct him in his Rea- foning, and would not fuffer him to argue k>ofely and at random, by ^giving Reafons which are No Reafons and/prove nothing. Now where lies the Difficulty in this, if Language ja REMARKS on the EPISTLES Language for all neceflary occaiions (and fuch is in Cicero) may be had, if you will be at the pains of feeking for itj and Good Judgement prefides over the Ufe of it, and over every other part of your Work ? Let us fuppofe our Countrymen, Bede in the vm th Century, or Joannes Sarisburienfis in the xi I th , with thefe Qualifications y and with thefe Rules before them, had fet about fuch an undertaking : the confequence would certainly have been fuch Epiftles as We at this time, if the Original forged MSS mould now be produced, could not have denied to be the genuine Writings of Cicero j or y at leaft, whatever Sufpicions we might have had, could not have proved them to be fpurious : becaufe there would be nothing to which we could object, for, it might very juilly be faid, The MSS are undoubtedly Antient, and carry the Title of Cicero's Epiftles to Brutus : the Language is entirely and in every Word Ciceronian : every Circumflance in the Hiflory is true ; and the Reafoning is ftrictly juft : what more could you have from Cicero Himfelf ? This would have been the cafe in Letters of the ordinary kind and upon common Subjects, forged in thofe Ages by men thus qualified : but then, if to the of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 13 the Three above-mentioned Qualifications of fome Skill in Cicero's Language, a Good Judgement, and Indujtry, you add a Fourth, Ingenuity j nothing would feem wanting to compleat the Character of ^perfett Imitator of Cicero in the Epijlolary kind : and then you would have a Sett not only of Sound and Judicious, but alfo of Elegant and En- tertaining Letters, formed and compiled out of Tully himfelf. Now view this mat- ter on the other fide, and in proportion as any of the Three former Qualifications were wanting, you would find him either Bar- barons or Negligent in his Language, Falfe or Uncertain in his accounts of Fafts, or In- conclufive in his Arguments, and in thofe refpecls like the Writer of thefe Letters : for as to the Fourth, Ingenuity, our Author is often far from being deficient. After having kid thus much concerning the nc- difficulty of fuch an undertaking, it may be thought but a fmall Compliment to the Learned and Ingenious Gentlemen who are engaged in this Controverfy, if I profefs my felf fully fatisfied, That had they intended it, and thought it worth the pains, either of them would have been able to have given the World a Sett of Epiflies, in the Cha- racters 14 REMARKS on the EPISTLES rafters of Cicero and Brutus, equal to thefe on every account, and in many refpects much fiiperior, and lefs liable to Objections. If it be further enquired, To what End any man (hould forge fuch Letters ? it may be anfwered, To the fame End that any other Forgery was ever made ; there being in the cafe of thefe Letters nothing Jingular and particular, and which has not happened a Thoufand times before : fo that the Que- ftion will become general, To what End any Forgeries were ever made ? an anfwer to which would lead us too far from the prefent Purpofe and Subject : only it may be worth while to obferve, that there fcarce ever was any Eminent Writer, in any kind 3 who has not fuffered from this fort of Mi- micry : of which moft of the great Au- thors of Antiquity, whofe Works are flill extant, are a manifeft Proof : for there are few of them who after their Deaths, and fometimes before, had not Fictitious Pieces affign'd to them, and published under their Names : and in many of them We to this day find feveral fuch fpurious Tracts in the Body of their Works, and frequently read them as the genuine productions of the Au- thors themfelves. It of CICERO to BRUTUS, fc. 15 It may ftill be faid perhaps, That thefe Epi flies were extant in the time of Plutarch, and that he quotes or alludes to fome pafiages of them, which are ft ill found here. To this it may be replyed, That the Epiftles which patted between Cicero and Brutus were un- doubtedly extant in Plutarch's time : but that Plutarch ever faw thefe very Epiftles, will be a moft difficult point to prove : on the other hand, it will be an eafy matter to {how that the Writer of thefe Epiftles had feen Plutarch ; which in effect comes to the fame thing as if Plutarch had feen thefe Epiftles : only there is this material differ- ence in the circumftances, that Plutarch took his teftimonies from the Original Let" ten themfelves j but our Author took his from Plutarch, who, I do not doubt, had been many hundred years in his Grave before thefe Epiftles were ever thought of. The teftimony of Nonius Marcellus the Antient Grammarian, who quotes the Firft Epiftle of this Collection out of the Ninth Book of Cicero's Letters to Brutus (as it is now reftored from MSS by Mr. ^unjtall, Obfervat. p. 65.) feems to me fo ftrong a Proof of That Epiftle's being genuine, that I do not fee how it can be eluded but by proving, 16 REMARKS on the EPISTLES proving, that Nonius actually was imposd upon (for that he might be y does not leem fufficientj by kjpurious Piece : now this I fhould think cannot be proved unlefs either from the Language, or from the Matter and Contents of the Epiftle ; both which ap- pear to be unexceptionable. Nor am I in the leaft afraid of making this Conceffion, that the Firft Epiftle is genuine : for even the Defenders of thefe Letters allow that One fpurious one, the Epiftle to O5lar^- nomen of Lucius : for whereas there were Two Branches of the Claudii or Clodii, namely, the Pulchrl or Nerones^ and the Marcelli ; the former Patricians, the latter Plebeians ; the Patrician Branch had, for fome time before this, by general confent, difclaimed and difufed the fraenomen o Lu- cius, becaufe there had been Two Lucius Claudius Pitlcbers who were notorious Vil- C lains, i8 REMARKS on the EPISTLES lains, and a fcandal to their Family, as Sue- tonius in Tiber, c. i. relates : A limilar In- fiance to which, in the prasnomen of Mar- cus in the Manlian Family, is recorded by Livy vi, 20. and Cicero Philipp. i, 13. So that whenever we meet with a Lucius of the Claudian Family, about thefe times, we may conclude that he was a Marcellus, and a Plebeian : whence likewife we may ga- ther, that the Lucius Clodius y pharmacopeia circumforancus, - who is mentioned in the Orat. pro A. Cluent. c. 14," was a Freedntan, or the Descendant of a Freedman, of fome or other of the Plebeian Branch of the Clodii : for as to Sex. Chdius Phormio, mentioned in the Orat. pro A. Caecina c. 10. tho* he was of the fame Condition with the former, yet it is uncertain to which of the Two Branches he was obliged for his Liberty. Had the Author of the Oration De Harufpicum Re- Jponfis known this little piece of Hiftory con- cerning the prasnomen of Lucius in the Claudian Family, he would not have intro- duc'd, as he does cap. vi, a Lucius Clau- dius with the Title of Rex Sacrorum, which Office he himfelf affirms, Orat. pro Domo C. 14. (if that Oration was written by the fame hand with the other) to have belonged to of CICERO to BRUTUS, &c. 19 to the Patricians. But this is a Miftake into which tho' Cicero could not fall, yet a Declaimed eafily might; and it is a pardon- able one in companion of many others which are to be found in that Oration* The fame Judgement with the i ft I ihould make no doubt to pafs upon the vii th Epiftlpj which begins} Multos tibi commendavi y etc. were it fupported by the Authority of Nonius, or any other Ancient Writer. For it is very like Cicero s Hand, nor can I find any Thing material to object to it. The only Scruple is in the Phrafe aliquid autfori- tatis qfliimere, by which he feems to mean, to take or obtain fome Commifjion or Command: whereas Cacjar De Bell. Gall, ii, 4. and Vegetius )e Re milit. i, 8. make ufe of the fame Expredion in a bad fenfe, to lignify an GJuming and taking upon one's felf too much j thro' Arrogance : which Cicero in Brut. c. 53. calls potential ajjumcre: and fufcipere au5iontatem^ in Verr. V, 58. But I fhould not think this alone a fufficient reafon for rejecting the Epiille as a Forgery, notwith- ftanding the Bad Compan}Mt is fallen into : becaufe it is well known that there are very many Expreffions in the Latin Tongue which in different Situations have a different Senfe, Ca If 20 , REMARKS on the EPISTLES If it be a Forgery, it feems to be the bcft executed of any of them : tho' at the fame time it mu ft be allowed that there would be no difficulty in Forging fuch a Letter as this, to one who was accuftomed to Cicero, in whofe Recommendatory Epiftles, almoft every Sentence of this may be found. There are likewife two or three more of thefe Epiftles, to which, tho' I am very well fatisfied, for my own Part, that they are not genuine ; yet I can find but little that can be objected in order fully and effectually to convince an- other, to whom perhaps they may not ap- pear in the fame Light. Of all of them, except the firft and vii th , the xv th , which begins, Scribis mihr mirari Ciccronem, etc. feems to me to bid the faireft for Antiquity. For tho' there are fome objections to the Language of it, and more to the Matter and Contents - y yet I think it comes nearer to the Style and Manner of the Age of the De- claimerSj which fucceeded that of Cicero, than any other of them : tho' in reality, the Miftakes are fuch as could fcarce have been made by one of that Age. For as to Brutus 's other famous Epiftle, the twenty fecond, which begins, Particulam Utter arum tuarum, etc. there are fo many and fuch ftrong Ob- jections of CICERO to BRuTus,'fc. 21 jedions to it, that I think it mufl needs be the Performance of one who had but a very moderate Knowledge of the Latin Tongue, and as fmall a (hare of found Judgement : tho' it muft be confefl that the Sentiments are Great and Generous, and worthy of an Antient Roman. It feems to have been the EfTay of fome lively, high-fpirited, inge- nious young Man. But allowing \hejirjl to be (as I verily be- lieve it is) and fuppofing thefeventb to beg^- nuine; a Queftion will arife, How came they hither ? To this no fatisfaclory Anfwer can poffibly be given, becaufe we are ignorant of the Hiftory and Fate of the Books of Cicero's Epiftles to Brutus after that the Collection had been once broken and dif- iblved. That they were thus broken and difperfed, is evident from Fact. For Five of them are ft ill extant, and are got out of their proper volumes into the EpiJJolae Fa- miliar es, Lib. xiii. Epiil. 10, n, 12, 13, 14. Can any Body in our Age inform us by what Accident, by whom, and at what time thofe Five Epiftles were brought thither? if he can, his Anfwer may perhaps help us to a folution of the Queftion before us. but Jf it cannot be done, we muft reft contented C 3 under 22 REMARKS on the EPISTLES under our Ignorance in this as well as in a thoufand other Circumftances of the like kind relating to the Works of the Antients, and of Cicero himfelf. It is poiTible that the Forger of thefe Letters might in fome Mafiu- fcript or other pick up this ftragling genuine Epiftle concerning Lucius Clodius, and might place it as a Frontifpiece to his own Work, being willing tofet out right, what- ever might befall him afterwards. This, I fay, is po/Jible: and that is all I would J J i *x/ choofe to fay of it. However, thofe who are curious will perhaps obferve further, that whereas all the other twenty two Letters are fuppofed to have been written within the compafs of four Months, April, May, June, and July, in the Year U. C. 710; thisjir/t was in all probability written fome time in the Year 709. which looks as if it was brought hither from fome other place, and as if the Architect thro' Inadvertency had plac'd his Houfe at too great a Diflance from the Porch which he found ready built to his Hand, for if this was not the Cafe, how happened it, that in this active Seafon, there mould be a Chafm of at leafl four Months, and perhaps many more, between the frft and the fecond of thefe Epiftles, and of CICERO to BRUTUS, Gfc. 23 and afterwards the Correfpondence carried on regularly and at proper Dif lances through- out all the reft of them, as they are dif- pofed by the laft learned Editor ? As to the Character of the Author of the Letters, (fuppofmg all of them to have come from the fame Hand) he feems to have been a Perfon of quick Parts and Ingenuity^ and of a (hare of Learning not very common in the Age in which he lived. He certainly had read part of Plutarch in the Original, which in thofe times was no vulgar attain- o ment for an Inhabitant of the Wejlern Parts. He quotes Plaittus y takes an Incident out of Corn. Nepos, another out of Suetonius, and from fome Expreffions one might very pro- bably conjecture that he had read Liiy y and Tacitus. There is likewife a palTage Epifl. xxi. p. 152. concerning Larentia, which feems to be taken out of Varro De Ling. Lat. lib. V. p. m. 48. The Pieces of 'Cicero to which he is chiefly obliged, are Three : firft, the Orations^ and in thefe the Philippics principally, fecondly, the Epijlolae ad Fa- miliar es -, and herein efpecially the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Books, thirdly, the Epiftolae ad Atticum. Out of all thefe he has borrowed pretty largely ; fometimes o- C 4 penly 24 REMARKS on the EPISTLES penly and without difguife, almoft Word for Word: at other times covertly, and with fome change of Words ; which change he has fometimes managed in fuch a manner as thereby to violate the Latin and the Scnfe. Thefe three Pieces cxcepted, I do not find that he often borrows out of the reft of Cicero's Works; fome of which it feems probable that he had either never read, or h&& forgotten ; as will appear from a manifeft Contraction to Cicero in a matter of Fact. His great deficiency lay in the Article of 'Judgement, had he been Mafcer of this, it (joined to his other Qualifications) would have enabled him to perfonate Cicero fo art- fully, that he could never have been found out by us at this Diftance of Time. It will perhaps be difficult to produce a ftronger Inftance, (for I think there is as ftrong an one in fome other Pieces which have hitherto been univerfally received as written by Cicero] of the Power of Prejudice ', and what a Biafs a great Name is able to lay upon '^Judgment of Mankind, than thefe Letters afford us. For the Title of Cicero's Epiftles, and the beauty of his Language^ which was fo confpicuous, and fo plentifully Jntermix'd in thefe Letters., did fo power- fully of CICERO to BRUTUS, Gfc. 25 fully fix the Attention of Men otherwife remarkable for their great Learning and Saga- city, as to make them (tho' they could not help having fome Sujpicions and Mifgivings) overlook Barbarifms and Blunders which I am perfuaded would have appeared to them upon the firft reading had this Work been published in the Name of any of their Con- temporaries. And fo again on Brutus 's part : his Noble and Generous Sentiments,, which in thefe Letters are frequently very well con- ceiv'd, attracted all their Regards, and took them off from his Language and his Reafi- ning. had they attended to thefe, they would certainly have concluded, that bad Latin and falfe Argumentation are much ftronger Proofs ott\\efpurioujhefs of Brutus' s Epiflles, than Brave and Great Sentiments are of their being genuine : becaufe Men in any Age may poffiby Think as ftrongly as Brutus did; but it is almoft impojible that Brutus mould write bad Latin^ and very improbable that he mould argue fo 'weakly as he does in thefe Letters. But it is time to enter upon the Examina- tion of them : which I (hall undertake in the Order abovementioned, firft, the Language : fecondly, the Faffs : thirdly, the Reafoning and 2.6 REMARKS on the EPISTLES, etc. and Sentiments. From the firft of thefe I propofe to make it appear, That thefe E- piftles could not POSSIBLY be the Writings of Cicero and Brutus : From the Second and Third, that (fetting afide the Language for a while) there are fo many Miflakes under thefe two Heads, as to make it next to an JmpoJJibility ^ according to the common Judge- ment of Mankind, that thofe great Men could be the Authors of them. This I mall do as the Examples under each Head may happen to occurr to me, without any regard to the order and feries of the Epiftles themfelves, or to any other confideration than Truth and Perfpicuity. I follow the Edition of Dr. Middleton, (Lond. 1743. 8 V0 . in Latin and Englijh) which 1 fuppofe is in the Hands of more Readers than any one other Edition, REMARKS REMARKS A NG U AG E O F T H E EPISTLES, etc. SECT. I. IN the fixth Epiftle p. 42. Brutus writes thus concerning C. Antijlius Fetus: HutC PERSUADERE COEPIMUS, Ut impcrator in caftris remaneret^ remque publi- cam defenderet : jlatuit eundumfibi, qiioniam exercitum dimijiffet. He certainly meant Juadere coepimus ; but did not know, or had forgot, the difference between fuadere and perfuadere ; that Juadere eft FACIENTIS; perjuadere, PERFICIENTIS, as the Ancients tell us. The former is to exhort or ad- vt/e : the latter, to perfuade, that is, to ejf'eft or accompli/Jo that which you pro- pofed in exhorting or ad*uifing. So Cicero Philippic, ii, 1 1. An C. Trebonio PERSUASI? cut 28 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE ad ne s u A D E R E quidem aiifus effem . A uo tor ad Herennium iii, 3. Aut ft SUADE- BIMUS quidpiam facile id quod velimu* exemplo allato PERSUADERE pofftmus. Se- neca Epift. Ixxi. SUADEO adhuc mihiifta-, nondum PERSUADEO. Apuleius Met. iv. p. 71. Cumque nulli nojlrum^ fpontale parri- cidium SUADENS, PERSUADERE pojjet, etc. and lib. vii. p. 135. eique SUASISSE, ac denique PERSUASISSE. I need not tranfcribe any more Inftances. So then perfuadere coepimus^ is, /BEGAN my advice prohi- buiflet, as it is in our Letter- Writer, inprae- fentibus malis prohibendis -, and you will have the Pirates got into Sicily, and at the fame time kept off at a great diftance from it. Livy xxii, 42. Dii prope ipfi eo die ma- gis dijiulere quam prohibuere IMMINEN- T-EM pejlem Romanis. he is fpeaking of the Battle of Cannae, fee .what follows, immi- nent em peftem, the impending or approaching cala- of the EPISTLES) &c. 33 calamity, not praejentem : for when it is praefens malum or peftis, it is upon us t and we are in if; and a Latin Writer would not then advife us prohibere, (for it would be too late) butdepellere, orabjicere, orexu- ere, or fomething to the purpofe of throw- ing it off 'and getting out of it. fo that praejen- tia mala prohi here is to keep at a diflance evils that cannot now be kept at a dijlance. Had he written in praefentibus malts inhibendis, (which word, or cohibendisjt is not impoffible he might mean) in retraining theprejent evils-* inftead of prohibendis ; there would have been nothing blameable in this fentence : or had he added latins ferpere after prohibendis, fo as to make it, in hindering the prefent evils from (preading farther, the Senfe and the Latin would have been good, but as it ftands at pre- fent, it is an Error of Ignorance in the Lan- guage in which he wrote. He feems to have been partly drawn into this miftake by the w&dfutura, which he thought would ap- pear more elegant if it had its Oppofite. tho indeed had he left out praefentibus, ftill it would not have been good Senfe : to effect which, the fentence muft have been changed and put into fome other Form, as sny one may perceive who (hail think it' D worth '34 REMARKS .* the LANGUAGE worth while toconlider it. for all evils that are (prohibendd) to be kept off] are of courfe and in the nature of the thing future ones, fo that you cannot rightly fay in prohibendis mails , FUTURA QjJoQjJE explores-, becaufe fat futurity of them is already implied in in the word prohibendis. He might more juftly have faid, in keeping off ONE KIND of evils, take care that ANOTHER does not fteal upon you before you are aware. In the fame Epiftle p. 174. O&avius is eft, qui quidde nobisjudicaturusftt, expeffet popu- lus Romanus? If you will follow the Lan- guage and Conftruction of this fentence, you may fay of it what Pjeudolus does mPlatttus, Haec qiiidempol, credo, nifi Sibylla leger it, Intcrpretari alium poteff'e neminem. For you can get no further than the foul" firfl words, OcJavius is eft, qui Go on if you can. the Relative qui is left deftitute, and finds nothing to reft upon, and yet the fentence of the fame kind, which follows iaft after, is rightly formed : Ego vero, ut ijluc r ever tar, is Jum ojJi non modo non SUPPLICEM, fed etiam coerceam pojlulan- tcs ut fibi /iipplicetur. This is as it mould l:c, ego is Jum qui fufplicem ; and as the other of the EPISTLES, Gff. 35 Other ought to have been, Off'avius is eft qui dicat, or faciat, or any other Verb, what the Author pleas'd, provided it were fome Verb or other. The cafe feems to have been this : As the latter part of the Sentence now (lands, he ought to have written, Otfavius is eft, A QJJO, quid de nobis judicature Jit, EXPECTET populu-s Romanics, but when he wrote the firft part of it, Otfavius is eft, qui he intended to have drawn it up in a different Form, and to have added a Verb which fhould anfwer to qut, as is always done in this form of ex- preffion, by all writers, and in Cicero per- haps fifty times : but his Memory feems to have fail'd him before he got. to the end of the Sentence : fo that he has left the former part of it, as he Originally deiign'd it, with qui ; and the latter, as if he had written in the former part a quo. But is it poffible, you may lay, that a perfon's Memory mould be fo very Unfaithful as to forfake him in the compafs of one fhort Sentence ? It is very poilible, where a man either writes ' ha/lily i or where the Language in which he writes is not his Mother Tongue, and the Ideas rife in the Mind only at fecbnd-hand, and .do not neeeffarily go along with the >' * La-ngaage e-' 36 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE Language : for, I believe, you will find no errors of this kind in any Antient Writer, to whom the bare reading it over would at firfl fight have discovered the fault. Now to mow how ealily the Moderns may fall into fuch miftakes, I will give you an Inftance or two. The firft fhall be in an Acquain- tance of yours, who a few years ago pub- limed fome Annotations upon Max. T'yrius: ;in which you have thefe words p. 667. col. i. " Vox enim JCO^TJ, fola, non fignirkare " puto montis jugum vel verticem." This is exactly a parallel cafe, the Author fet out with the intent of writing, non fgnificat, puto y montis jugum &c. but before he had written half a dozen words, he had forgot the Vox and Jbla \ and wrote Jignificare puto as if Vocem and Jblam had gone before. An .other Inftance mall be in a Man of much greater Knowledge and Ufe of the Latin Tongue than either the Writer of thefe Epi- flles, or the Annotator upon Max. tyrim : I mean the late learned Mr. Eurman of Ley- den j who in his Note upon thofe words of Quintilian (Infiitut. viii. 6. p. 742. col i.) centaurum Chirona, obferves that in one of Vojfiuss MSS, inftead of Cbirona, it is hoc under which word he does not dc-'.ht but of the EPISTLES, &c. 37 but the true reading is conceal'd. this he ex- prefles thus: "nullus vero dubito, QJJIN " in ilia voce hoc cona LATE RE aliam ap- " pellationem, quaeconflituatmetalepfim." He intended at firft to have written, nul- lus dubito QJJIN LATEAT alia appellate. but, his Pen going on, and his Thoughts ftraying, he forgot that he had put quin- t and fo ended the fentence as he would have done had the word quin been away ; or as if in (lead of nullus dubito quin he had writ- ten opinor or ptito. I mention this without the leaft Malignity towards the Memory and Reputation of that Excellent and Ufeful Scholar ; and with no other view than to {how, how eafy it is for us, who are Foreig- ners to the Ancient Language of Rome, to fall into mistakes of this kind j which mif- takes, it is probable, we mould have avoid- ed, had we written in the Tongue of the Countries in which we were born and lived. Nor fliouW I have thought it worth while to mention fuch a flip of Memory in any Mo- dern Writer of Latin, or in the Author of thefe Letters, had he publifhed this Epiftle in his own Name, and not endeavoured to pafs it upon us as the Writing of Brutus. If it be faid, that the pafTage which I have D 3 been 38 REMARKS en. the LANGUAGE been fpeaking of ought to be corre&edj an4 read A QUO expeffef, inftead of QJJI cx- peclet : It may be anfwered, That this is beg- ging the Queftion in Difpute, and proving one uncertainty by another. Let the Epiftle, which. is now fujpefted to be a Forgery, be firft proved to be the genuine Work of Bru- tus, by confuting all the Rea{bns and Ob- jections that can be brought againft it; and then no Difficulty will be made in admitting the Correction, in the mean time, the pre- fent Reading of all the Copies as far as we know, is an Argument on the other fide of the Queftion, and greatly ftrengthens the Proof that this Epiftle is not the writing of Brutus. And the fame may with great appearance of Truth be faid of feveral other paflages in thefe Letters, which learned Men have altered contrary to all the Copies ; and which, in all probability, are not the miftakes of Tranfcribers, but of the Author him- felf. The words which immediately go before the paffage I have been fpeaking of ^(Epift, xxii. p. 174) are thefe: DC Caefare vero f quod fieri potuit ac dcbuit, tranfaffium ejl ; neque jam REVOCARI in integrum potcft. Ore would imagine that this expreflion re- vocari of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 39 in integrum was borrowed from Livv ; but that through failure of Memory one word was put in inftead of another, revocari inftead of rejlitui : as it frequently happens to us when we remember the Senfe and perhaps fome of the Words of any paf- iage in an antient Writer, and either fup- ply the reft of ourfelves, or endeavour to put together thofe which we do remember : in which laft cafe, if we have but little fkill in the Language, it is great odds but we are led into fome fuch Miftake as feems to have befallen our Author here. The place of Ltvy is Lib. xxxi. 3 2. in the Speech of Damocritus the Praetor of the Aetoliam : celerem enim paenitentiam, fed eandem jeram atque inutllem (d\xit)Jequz ; quum praecipi- tata raptirn con/ilia neque REVOCARI, neque IN INTEGRUM REST iTUi poffint. Whe- ther our Author took the expreffion from this Place, and confounded revocari in in- tegrum with rejlitui in 'integrum^ I cannot fay : but, whence foever it came hither, I believe we may fafely affirm that rewcari in integrum is not to be found in any good Latin Writer, notwithftanding that rejlitui and rewcari may be ufed indifferently upon other occafions; See/-W. Maxi^msiv. i. 4, P 4 extern. 40 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE extern, compared with V. i. g. and V. 2. 6. He might better have put the contrary to in integrum, namely, in irritum; as in Marcus Seneca Controverf. iv. 26. placet mihi in irritum revocari quae gejla Jimt. Rejlituere in integrum is a very common expreffion, borrowed originally from the Civil Law. it fignifies, T'o rejlore a Perfon or Thing into the condition in which it for- merly was : id enim eft INTEGRUM quod ita effet ut futffet, as it is defined in the Auftor de Bell. Alexandrino, c. 35. I need not tranfcribe Inftances of a Phrafe fo ob- vious : but, if any body is defirous to fee fome of them, he may look into (befides thofe mentioned by Faber in his Thejaurus) Cicero Orat. pro Cluentio c. 36. pro L. Flacco c. 32. Philippic, ii. 23. Caejar Bell. Civ. iii. i. Aucior. De Bell. Alexandrine c. 70. Lucius Seneca Confol. ad Marciam c. 22. De Benef. iii. 14. Epift. xlviii, Ixvi, and xcviii. Suetonius in Jul. c. 16. 'Jufan xxxi, i. In the lower Age of the Latin Tongue I find it changed into reddere in in- tegrum in Lampridius in Alexandro c. 7. and in Fiavius Vopifcus in Aureliano c. 17. and in Caro c. 2. tho' Lampridius in Com- modo c. 6. retains the antient Latin Form, a? does of the EPISTLES, &c. 41 does a lower Writer, Ammianus Marcellinus, four times ; and Macrobius Saturn, vii. 5. Philoxenus has retain'd it in his Gloffary : In integrum rejlituet : i\q dxiyttav '&m < K. l a Par this imperitet ? not Ib much becaufe thefe two words are joined together, as becaufe I do not find that Cicero ever ufes the Verb cxturbare, in the Senie here required, with- out an Ablative Cafe, according to which, if this Author had imitated Cicero, he would have written In exturbando e civitate Antonio, or fomething to that effect. See the Orat. pro P. Quinciio c. 15, and 31. pro Mu- racna c. 22. pro Sulla c. 25. pro P. Sexfio c. 30. Hence it was that, Ad Attic, viii. j 6. itaque quaero, quifmt illi optimates, qui me 44 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE me exturbent, cum ip/i domi maneant ; in- ftead of cum, Viftonus read, exturbent Cu- mis, ipfi etc. But there was no need of this, for the word domo is to be repeated from the latter part of the Sentence : which is very ufual, and better than if it had been exprefs'd : qui me [ e domo ] exturbent y cum ipfi domi maneant. And fo it is to be under- ftood in the Orat. pro A. Cluentio c. 5. ieffum genialem in eadem domo Jibi or- nari et fterni^ expuhd atque exturbatd [ ex domo] filid jubet. I know that the Author of the Oration pro Domo fua ufes the word exturbare abfolutely, c. 42. where Cicero is fpeaking of his own Expulfion by Clodius : cum indemnatum exturbares, privilegiis ty- rannicis irrogatis. but the true Cicero never writes in that manner, concerning Place. Again, in the fame Epiffcle, p. 168. ne- que magis irritatus cfjet Antonius regno Caefaris, quam OB ejufdem MORTEM de- ter r it us. He mould have faid, quam ejuf- dem MORTE deterritus: not ob mortem, and fo this fame Brutus writes Epift. vi. nulla RE deterreri a propojito potejl : and Epift. xv, p. i oo. nulla erit tarn bona conditio fer- viendi oji A deterrear. So Cicero de Fin. V. 1 8. verberibus deterreri. Livyn. 54. dam- nations of the EPISTLES, &c. 45 natione^ periculo deterriti . x. 30. non deter ri- tus iniquitate loci. Hirtius Bell. Gall.viii. 44. exemplo Jupplicii deterreri. Seneca Ep. Ixxvi. nulla re deterreri. Corn. Nepos Dion. c. 8. religion? non deterritus. Nor can I ever find it other wife in any Author. The expreffion at the bottom of the fame page, ut effet fui juris ac MANCIPII reJpubUca, feems to be very low and improper. What Antient Au- thor ever writes in this manner ? He meant what b Hirtius Bell. Gall, viii, 52. and Pliny Nat. Hift. vi, 26. exprefs much bet- b The whole Paflage of Hirtius is this : Nam C- Curio, tribunus plebis^ quum Caefaris caujfam dignita- temque defendendam fufcepijjet^ faepe erat fenatui pol- 'UcituS) fi quern timer armorum Caefaris laederet^ et quo- mam Pompeii dominatio^ atque arma, non minimum terrorem F O R O inferrent j difcederet uterque ab ar- miSy exercitufque dimitterent : fore eo paflo liber am et fui juris civitatem. It feems ftrange that the great Power and Arms of Pompey fliould be faid to occafion terror to the forum only, one might have expedted that he would have faid, to the whole State; as Caefar does, concerning this very Matter, Bell. Civ. i. 9. met us eciviTATE tollatur : and a little higher, omnem Italiam metu liberare. The word foro does not there- fore exprefs enough ; becaufe, tho' Pompey might free the forum from the terror of his Power and Arms y yet it would not follow that therefore the Civitas or State would be libera et fui juris. The place is faulty, and I think ought to be read thus : non minimum terra- ter 46 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE ter, LIBER AM et Jui juris civitatem. So animus sui JURIS ^ARBITRII, in Seneca rem PO. RO. inferrent, that is, populo Romano: for that in Manuscripts is frequently the manner of exprefiing thofe two words ; and when once the Points were omitted by any Tranfcriber, it was natural for the next, inftead of P O R O, which he could make nothing of, to write F O R O. And in fact this has been the occafion of fevefal miftakes of the fame kind: So in Caefar Bell. Civ. i. 9. inftead of populi Romani benefaiunii in almoft all the Manufcripts and antient Editions it is PRO beneficio\ which was, P. RO. beneficium : but when the Stops after P and R O were dropt, the two words became one, namely the Pre- pofition pro ; and that requiring an Ablative Cafe, it was neceffary that benefclum fhould be changed into beneficio. of which laft fort of depravations there are very many in Caefar. Again, in Cicero in Verr. iii. 12. affeclae iftius nona PATftEW traditi t fed a meretricula commendati^ inftead of Patre^ which is quite impertinent, Francius's Manufcript has populo Romano? which in all probability is Cicero's Hand. See Graeviits. Here too P O R O or P R O not being underftood, feems to have given occafion to the inter- polated word P A T R E. Once more, in a fragment of Cicero's fecond Oration for C. Cornelius p. 974. T. vi. ed. Graev. nullo inter ceffore comparato 9 prodcrit. inftead of the laft word Manutius reads populo R. dedit. His Note is this: lfrferiV ] Conjecturam, et fimuJ ' hiftoriam fecutus, repofui, populo R. dedit: mu- '' tatione fere nulla, curri, ut opinor, ita icnptum " fuerk in antique libro, P. Ro. dedit. quod imperiti- " poftea depravarunt, u ejufmodi mults. " ConfoL of the EPISTLES, &c. 47 Confol. ad Polyb. c. 27. Cicero in Verr. ii, 7. sui JURIS SENTENTIAE^. ,/- yy xxiv, 37. W ^#2 mitterent legatos, cujus JURIS clique ARBiTRii ejfet. xxv, 7. Afor- <://.$, /W#rc JURISTS POTESTATIS SUAE effe, dixit. xxxviii, 47. nondum in JURE ac DITIONE veftra Graecia atque AJia erat. Spar ti anus in Adrian, c. 18. Ji fuae AUC- TORITATIS effent. Vulcatius Gallic anw in Avid. CaJ/io c. 7. Si POT EST AT is fuaey^- iffet. From this Variety of expreffion you fee, that there was no want of a proper phrafe, could our Author have been content- ed to write like other people. Seneca de Be- nef. V, 19. applies the expreffion to ajlave : et qui agrum meutn colit^ non ilium , Jed me demereri *uult. idem de fervo dicam : MEI MANCIPII res ejl y mibi /'ervatur. he is MY PROPERTY. Once more, in the fame Epiftle, p. 170, Sed nibil TA.NTifuit, Qj; o vender emus fi- dem nojlram et libcrtatem. This I prefume is not Latin, it ought to have been TANTI fuit UT vender emus. For tho' quo is often ufed for ut y yet I believe it never is, nor can be, where tanti goes before. Cicero ad Attic, xi, 1 6. Sed ego non adducor, quemquam bo- num ullam jahttem put are mi hi TA.NTI 48 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE fuifle, UT ab eo peter em. xii, 5. nihil tamen TANTI, u T a te abeffem y fuit. Tibullus ii. 7. 24. Non ego fum TANTI plore t u T ilia femeL Pliny Epift. viii. 9. Nulla enim jludia TAN- TI funt^ UT officium amicitiae defer atur. Examples are every where to be met with, and not one, I believe, of the other kind. Had he left out tatiti, the paflage would have been right as it now flands : or had he written t ant urn; as in Marcus Seneca Suafor. i. nihil tantum eft, quod ego Alex- andrl periculo petam. Cicero Fam. xii, 8. Nihil eft tantum, quod ncn Pop. Romanus a teperfici atque obt inert pofje judicet. Or, nitllarestantafuit UT, or QJJA vender emus. So Cicero pro S. Rofcio c. xi. nulla res tan- ta exiftat judices y u T pojjit vim mihi majo- rem adhibere metus quam Jides. Ad Attic. iv, 2. Nulla ejje poteft (occupatio) tanta, UT interrumpat iter amort s noftri et officii. and fo De Fin. iii, 13. Terence Heauton. iv, 3; Nulla mihi res pofthac poteft intervenire tanta, Qu A E mihi aegritudinem adferat. Cicero in Verr. i, 18. ne nunc quidem recor- daris, nullum ejje tantum malum, QJJOD mm. of the EPISTLES, &d 49 non tibi pro fceleribus tuts jamdiu debcatur^ See in Verr. iii, 24. pro Cn. Plancio c. 32. Auctor. ad Herennium iv, 42. Here are Four ways of being in the right, with very little variation j and our Author choofes to be in the wrong in a Fifth. Epift. xix. p. 132. Sed it a multi LABE- FACTANT, &/, ne MOVEATUR, interdum extimeJcam.Thdt is, but there are Jo many 'who MAKE HIMTQTTER, that Iqmjometimes afraid left he flwuld be MOVED. Which is as if you fhould fay of a bad Writer, That he makes Miftakes not only in every LINE, but even in every PAGE. He ought rather to have tranfpofed the words, and to have written, Jed it a multi MOVE NT, ut y ne L AB E F ACT ET u R interdum extimefcam, for movere is much lefs than labejafiare. a perfon who puihes another from him with his hand, tho' ever fo gently, does MOVERE ilium: but if he does it ib violently as to caufe the other to ftagger^ and to be near falling down, he does LA- BE FACT ARE (i. e. facer e labare) ilium. and therefore movere always goes before labefaffiare or labare in the order of Nature. Cicero De Fin. iii, 22. quid non fie aliud ex alio netfitur, tit non y fi ullam (1. imam) lit- E teram 50 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE teram moveris, labent omnia? which he repeats Lib. iv, 19. Et ais y Ji una Utter a commota fit, fore y tota lit labet dijciplina. He expreffes all the three Degrees (woven , labejaffari) concidere or mere) in the Orat. pro Leg- ManiL c. 7. H ace fides atque haec 'ratio pecuniar urn , quae Romae, quac in for o uerjatur, implicit a eft cum illis pecuniis A- fiaticis, et cohaeret. ruere ilia non poffunt^ utbaecnoneodemLAEEFACTATA MOTU CONCIDANT. and Liny xxxv, 20. Saxum ingens, five imbribm^ five MOTU terrae leviore quam ut alioqui jentiretur^ L ABE- FACT A T u M , in vicum Jugarium ex Capi- tolio P ROC i BIT, et multcs opprejjit. The firft ftep is motus, which does labefaftafe the things fpoken of ; the confequence of which is concidunt and procidit. but Cicero was fo great a Pedant, and unlike our Au- thor in thefe matters, that you would never have prevail'd upon him to change the or- der, and to write, ut haec non eddem labe- fadlione mota concidant ; or, ut haec non eodem labefacJata cafii moveantur. Columellaj tho' an excellent writer, was not perhaps . fo great a Critic in the Latin Tongue as . Cicero was : yet he knew enough of it to fay, of the EPISTLES, &c. $i lay, ne vento Jure it Ins MOTUS LABEFAC- TETUR, aut explantetur tener pampinus, De Re Ruft. iv, 29. and fo did Tacitus, Annal. iv, 13. faftaque^ aucJore eo, fena- tus confulta, ut civitati Clbyraticae apud AJiam, Aegirenfi apud Achalam, MOTU terrae LABEFACTIS, fubveniretur remijjione tributi in triennium. Ovid puts the two laft parts only, Met. ii, 402. nequid LABEFACTUM viri&us ignis CORRUAT, explorat. and in like manner Met. viii, 774. and Faftor. ii, 59. and Cicero De Fin. iii, 21. LABEFACTARE atque PERVERTERE. Our author, inflead of m moveatur, (hould have written, ne funditus evertatur : as in Verr. iii, 18. LABEFACTARAT enim ve- hement er aratores jam j'uperior annus : prox- imus verbj FUNDITUS EVERTERAT. or, ne demoveatur et depellatur de loco, as pro Caecina c. 17. which Cicero elfewhere of- ten exprefTes limply by movere loco : others by Jlatu or de ftatu mover e. Bat does not Virgil Georg. ii, 264. write, E/LABEFACTA MovENS robuftusjugera fo/or? E 2 He 52 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE He does, and confirms the Truth of what I have been faying, for this was fo contrary to the natural Order of Writing, that Servius thought it worth while to advertife the Rea- der, that Virgil here writes Poetically and Figuratively. Hypallage: MOVENS et LA- BEFACIENS. If Virgil had written in the Ordinary manner, there would have been no need of Servius's Note. Epift. xv. p. 96. Aetas enim^ mores , liberL s E G N E M effichmt. If Brutus wrote * **/ in this manner, it (hows the Truth of what Cicero fays concerning him, Ad Attic, vi, 3. that Brutus does not in the leaft confider WHAT he writes, nor To WHOM. For here in a Friendly Letter to Atticus^ without any provocation, and at the fame time that he fays y nee mehercule te, Attice^ reprchendo y and below p. 100. declares, that he loves him ; he is ahifing him to his face : and that too in a Circumftance which did not at all belong to the Character of Atticus^ who was the furtheft of any Man in the World from the fufpicion of being fegnis. Our Author undoubtedly meant by that Word> averfe to public k Bufinefs^ not caring to con- cern himfelf in State- Affairs, otii quietifque cupidus, as Veil, Pajercuhts. (i, 7.) exprefles it, ef the EPISTLES, Gfc. 53 it ; a lover of that otium honeftum which Cicero (Ad Attic, i, 17.) lays Atticus's in- clinations always led him to, who non INERTIA, fed judicio, jugit reipnblicae procurationem., as Corn. Nepos relates of him in his Life, c. i l 5 : one of thofe who, remoti ajludiis ambit ionis, otium ac tranquillitatem vitaefecuti/imt, proMuraenac. 27. But this Writer did not know that fegnis, when ap- ply 'd to the Mind, as here it rnuft be, (for if he meant it vfjlownefs of Body, the pro- pofition &Jalfe- t and not to the piirpofe] is a Fit ions Character, and fignifies a Slothful Perfon, one who thro* Lazinefs and a bla- meable Indolence, or unreafonable Fear, or, at lead, through a natural Incapacity and and want of Parts, is deficient in his Duty. The Antients would have taught him this, had he read them with any Attention. 6V- fero pro P. Sextio c, 23. ne, Jiqua vos ali- quando necejjitas ad rempublicam contra im- probos ernes defendendam vocabit, SEG- NIORES fois, et recordatione mei casus, a confiliis fortioribus rejugiatis. Livy xxii, 12. where he is fpeaking of Minucius and his reviling Fabius the Cunclator, becaufe he would not come to a Battle with An- nibali primo inter paucos, delude propalam E 3 in 54 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE in vulgus, pro cunftatore SEGNEM, et cau* to timidum, adfingem vicina virtutibus vi- TIA, compsllabat. Cap. 44. quum Varro jpeciojiim timidis ^^SEGNIBUS ducibus exem- plum Fabii objiceret. xxiv, i $.fortifljmus quif- que pugnator effe defierat : s E G N I B u s ac ti- midis tradita pugna crat. Tibullus i, i. Non ego laudari euro, mea Delia : tecum Dummodo Jim, quaefo SEGNIS inerfque wcer. See Seneca de Ira i, 13. Pliny Nat. Hift. iii, 5. Tacitus Annal. xvi, 25. SEGNES et pavidos fupremis fins jecretum circumdare : ajpiceret populus virum morti obvium etc. Hift. ii, 82. IpfeVefpafianusadire^ hortari^ bonos laudc, SEGNES exempk, incitarejae- pius quam coercere -, v i T i A magis amicorum r quam virtutes, dijjimulans. Quintilian In- ftit. i, 3 . fpeaking of the Parts and Difpo- Jitions of Youth: PR OB us autem ab Ufa SEGNI et jacente plurimum abcnt. If therefore our Author took fegnis in a Good or Indifferent Senfe, he miftook the figni- jfication of the Word ; but if he took it in a Bad one, what he fays is Falfe, and Inju- rious to the Chara&er of Atticus. Inftead ofjegpem he might have put cautum. The \vord llberi is frequently ufed when only one Child of the EPISTLES, Gf bis Jerrent? See likewife Ad Attic, vii, 6, 7. and viii, 3. and Philippic, ii, 10. in all which places you have the fame Ex- preffion. Caefar Bell. Civ. i, 9. cujus AB- SENT is rationem haberi proximis comitiis populus jujjiffet . cap. 32. latum ab decern tri* bunis plebis ut jui ratio A BSE NT is ha- bcretur, ipfo conjule Pompeio. and fo Lib. iii, 82. See Suetonius in Jul. c. 2^. Epitome Li-vian. Lib. cvii. From thefe Inftances (and many more might be brought) it is evi- dent, that whenever mention is made of the Qualification of a perfon who is abj'ent^ to fland for public Offices, his abjence muft be expreft, cujujve ABSENTIS ratio habe- bitur : otherwife he will be fuppofed of courfe to bs prefent ; as in Liiy xxv, 2. F 4 Suetonius 72 REMARK? on the LANGUAGE Suetonius Jul. c. 18. Vol. Maximus iv, i: 14. where he is fpeaking of Cato Uticenfis ; Cypriacam pecuniam maxima cum diligentia et janttitate IN URBEM devexerat. cujus minijlerii gratia fanatus relationem interponi jubebat, ut Praeforiis comitiis extra ordmem ratio ejus haberetur. Cato was then at Rome, had he been abfent> the Form would have been, ut ratio ejus ABSENT is habere- tur. Thefe things being fo evident and fo obvious, one might be inclined to think that this could not be the miftake of the Author himfelf, but that the omiiTion of the word abj'entis is to be imputed to the Tranfcribers : efpecially as He himfelf a lit- tle lower feems to allude to, or quote, the ve- ry words of the foregoing Law : Sed quam- visliceat ABSENT is rationem haberi, tamen omnia Junt praefentibus faciliora. Beildes, the word PETIT which our Author here ufes to fignifie one who /lies upon the J'pot^ does not imply any fuch thing unlefs abfen- tis be oppofed in the other part of the Sen- tence: as in this paffage of Livy viii, 22. tribunatumque plebei proximis comitiis abfens PETENTIBUS praefertur. Where pet en- tibus is, to thofe who Jited upon tbejpot, thofe who flood Candidates in per fin : which it could of the EPISTLES, &c. 71 could not have fignified, had not abjeiu gone before it. whence Cicero Famil. xvi, j 2. fpeaking ofCaefar, fays, with the fame Oppofition, and the addition of the word prae/ens : neque fe jam velle, ABSENTED, rationem haberijui :/?PRAESENTEM trims nundinis PETITURUM. according to which, our Author might have written, %ui PRAESENS petit, cujufve ABSENT is ratio habebitur* But then if by qui petit he means one ivho DOEsfae in per Jon y he had much better have omitted thefe two words, as making againft, or, at leaft, not to his purpofe, which was to fpeak of one who DOES NOT fue inperfon. He might have avoided thele objections had he written thus : IJlud etiam in kge Julia, (quae eft De Sacer- dotiisprvxitna) bisverbis, CUJUSVE ABSEN- Tis RATIOHABEBITUR, aperte indicat poffe rationem haberi filii mei . But, I believe, Learned Men may fpare themfelves any further trouble in fearching after this Lex Julia De Sacerdotiis. The Compofition difcovers the Author of it, and mows that it is to be found no where but in thefe E- piflles. If our Author is fo Unfkilfull in matters that are common and obvious, we ought not 74 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE not toexpect that he fhould be more knowing and accurate in thofe which require a more diligent obfervation. Accordingly Epifl. ix. p. 58. he writes thus : Hoftes autem omnes judicati qui M. Antonii feclam fecuti funt. itaqnf id Senatus confultum, etc. The Form of a Senatus confultum upon this occafion would not have been, qui M. Antonii Jeff am fecuti funt ; but, qui M. Antonium fecJam- que ejus fecuti funt : which, whether it were more full and comprehensive than the other, or not, was however the Antient Form. Liiy, from whom our Cicero feems to have tranfcribed it with his ufual Neg- ligence and Inaccuracy, has preferved it in feveral places, Lib. xlii, 31. SENATUS CONSULT UM indefaftum eft, ut confutes in- ter fe provincias Italiam et Macedoniam compararentfortirenturve. cui Macedonia ob- venij/et, ut is regem PERSE A, QJJIQJJE E- jus SECTAM SECUTI ESSENT, hello per- fequeretur. Lib. xxxvi, i. PAT RES roga- tionem ad populum Jerri jufferunt, Vellent juberentne cum ANTIOCHO rege, QJJIQJJE EJUS SECTAM SECUTI ESSENT, bellum iniri. To the fame Form he alludes Lib. viii, 1 9. Ingredicnti Jines Senatus Fundano- rum occur r it. negant fe pro VITRUVIQ, SE- of the EPISTLES, &c. 75 SECTAMQJJE EJUS sECUTis, precatum venij'e, Jed pro populo Fundano. and Lib. xxix, 27. where Scipio in his Prayer for the good Succefs of the Expedition againft Carthage, inftead of, qui me, meamque fcc- tam jequuntur, modeftly puts, qui POPULI ROM AN I, MEAMQJJE SECT AM SEQJJUN- TUR. Tacitus too feems to have had the fame Formula in view Annal. vi, 22. quippe SAPIENTISSIMOS 'veterum, QJJIQJLJE SEC- TAM EORUM aemulantur, diverjos reperies. Our Author you fee had fome faint Notion of the Antient Form made ufe of upon this Occafion, and remembred that in his read- ing he had met with fometbing like it: which was enough for him. Had he imi- tated Cicero, he would have written, Hojles autem omnes judicati, 0411 CUM M. AN- TONIO FUERUNT. which laft in Cicero's time was the Form of a Senatus confultum, as you may fee in Philippic, viii, at the end. So that our Author here has committed two Miftakes. the firft of Negligence, in imper- fectly tranfcribing from Liiy the Form of a Senatus confitltum : and the feconl of Igno- rance, in not knowing that in Cicero's time that other Form was antiquated, and not in life. See another Philipp. V, 1 1 . Us, qui in j6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE in exercttu Antonii funt. and a third FamiL 2di, I o. Lepidus hoftis a Senatu judicatus eft, ceterique qui una cum illo a rep. dejecerunt. And this again is the cafe Epift. x. p. 64. Equidem fa fentio : ft manum habet y Ji caf- tra^ Ji ubi conjljlat ufpiam Dolabella ; ad fi- dem et ad dignitatem tuam pertinere, eum perfequi. From the Sentence immediate- ly going before this it appears, that by a De- cree of the Senate it was left to Brutus 's dif- cretion to at as he faw moft conducive to the Service of the Republic : nihil honorifi- centius potuit facer e Senatus, quam ut tuum efjet judicium, quid maxime conducere rei- publicae tibi videretur. Now the Form of a Senatus confultum to this purpofe, was, That the Perfon mention'd in it, Brutus fuppofe, Jkould aft> uti E REPUBLIC A FIDEQJJE SUA videretur. in which there were two Parts, or Parties concern'd ; firft, the Republic , the Advantage of which was in the firjt place to be confulted: and, fecondly, the Perfon to whom the Com- million was given, who was hereby directed to a& with that Honour or Faith and Fide- lity which is due from a Citizen to his Country. But this Writer, even where he ought to urge his Argument from the Words of of the EPISTLES, &c. 77 of the Decree of the Senate, drops the chief thing, the rejpublica, or public good, and confines the Reafon of his opinion or advice to the Fides and Dignitas of Brutus ; as if the other part, the Republic, were not at all concerned in the Matter. A more fkilfull and judicious imitator of Antiquity would have faid, not, ad FID EM et ad DIGNITATEM tiiam pcrtincre ; but, ad REMPUBLICAM FiDEMQjJE tuam perti- nere. for this, as I faid before, was the Style of the Senatus conjulta upon thefe Oc- cafions. Cicero Philip, iii. at the end : Senatui placere, Uti C. Panfa, A. Hirtius, confutes dejignati de his rebus ad hunc ordinem refer ant, it a uti E REPUBLIC A FIDEQJJE SUA cenfuerint. To this Form he alludes Ad Attic, ix, 1 1 . in the Epiftle to Caefar: fed, ut arbitror, AD TUAM FIDEM et AD REMPUBLICAM pertinet, me < confervari. Li neca Epift. ix. "Jujlln xi, 2. dux, in, locum, ejus SUB&TITUITUR. and fb xlii, 2. iS#f- /jO/w Tiber, c. iv. pontijtx. in IOCUQ^ F-.^Q^ pipnis. SUBSTITUTES. In like mannsc SUCCEDKRE in ejus locum, Liny xj^ \i-. m.eorumjpcum SUBDITOS, Cicero in Verr. i, 5. CODPTARE in patf.is/w; locun?, Sup- ton. in Ner. c. 2. S.UEFECTIS in, loca, eo- rum wow regibus, Jtfffifi xi, 10. xxxix, 4,. r^ in locum fraris CONS-T,ITUT^), Fhruz iii, 16. SUBHOGARE conatus eft in ejus lo- cum C. Gracchum. Cicero in Verr, V, 28. ^ to;o nefarius in eoruin locum 4 ^ww do-* mymjuamdepiratis abduxerqt-^ suB^T r i,T.u.-t E.RE et S.UPPON..ERE coepif civcs. RgmanQSj Perhaps our Author here miftook one word, for another (which is no new tiling with him) and put rep.oni. in (lead of jitpponi : \yhich in fome refpects would be as if we mould fay in Englifi, to PROCEED another in-his poft> inftead of, to. SUCCEED him.: tfro-' I know that the : word Jupponsre in the laft quoted paflage of Cicero, isjhere.ufed. in_a fenfe : which would, noi.be .proper here. But g6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE: But why could not this Author write as others do, qui je in ejus locum SUBSTITUI pateretur ? for furely, if he knew any thing of Latin, he could not be ignorant of this expreffion. We might like wife beg of him to give an inftance of any other Author who writes as He does Epift. V. p. 36. Labeo vero no- Jler nee Jignum tuum in epijlola, nee diem ap- pojitum^ nee te fcripfijje ad tuos y ut SOLE- RES: inftead of, ut SOLEBAS. for fuppo- fing that the Latinity of it can be defended j yet in this, and many other expreffions^ there is a fettled way of writing, from which no body but this Author, as far as I can find, ever deviates. Cicero De Fin. iii, 2. ueni in ejus villam, ut cos (libros) ipfe y ut SOLE BAM, promerem. De Oratore i, 9. 3um Scaevola comiter, ut SOLEBAT, cae- fera, inquit^ affentior Craflb. In Catilin. ii, 13. qui jam non procul, ut quondam SO- LE BANT, ab extero hojle y etc. See prd Cluent. c. 59. Philippic, ii, 13. OwWMet. ii, 4.48. Pliny Epift. i, 3. F/orusm y 3. Ca- pitolinus in Macrin. c. 3. fci/citante prccon- fule de ft at it, ut SOLEBAT, publico. Now let him {hew me one Author, befides Him- felf, who writes ut SOLE RES, when the expreffion of the EPISTLES, &c. 97 Expreflion is Abfolute^ as it is here, and in all the Inftances juft now quoted and re- ferr'd to. which Exception I mention left any body (hould be deceived by a PafTage in De Oratore i, 24. quod neque it a amplec- teretur artcm^ ut/V SOLE RENT qui omnem vim dicendi in arte ponerent j neque rurfum etc. and another in De Offic. iii, 22. cum illis fie agere ut cum colonis nojtris SOLERE- MUS. For the reafbn is very different, as may eafily be feen hence, That this place of the Epiftle I am now fpeaking of, and all the Examples I produc'd, are indepen- dent, and may be placed in a Parenthefis, or omitted if you pleafe, without any de- triment to the Senfe. but the fame cannot be done in thefe two lafl Inftances, becaufe they are connected with, and depend upon other parts of the Sentence : confequently, they have a different Conftrudion and Re- lation : and I prefume that ut Jolebant and ut folebamus would have been as improper Latin in thofe two places, as utfoleres is in this. Epiftle xi h p. 72.- Brutus is fpeaking of C. dintonius> concerning whom he fays, habuique in mea POT ESTATE quoad helium fuit ; and I had him in my POWER as long H as 98 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE as the war continued. From which words Two things are to be collected : Firft, That at the writing of this Letter, May 15 th , C. Antonlus was NOT in the power of Brutus: and Secondly, That the war was now at at end. Thefe are both Falfe. but the laft perhaps is excufable in Brutus 3 becaufe, as Dr Middleton hath obferved, he might conclude from M. Antonys de- feat at Modena, and Flight out of Italy ; that it was fo j tho' it prov'd afterwards that he was miftaken. But how fhall we cxcufe the Firft, That C. Antonius was not in the power of Brutus > May 15 th . A.U.C. 710? for it is univerfally agreed upon by the Hiftorians, that he was in the power of Brutus not only at That time, but all his life afterwards, and was at laft put to death by him, feveral Months after the 1 5 th of May, feeing Plutarch (in Brut. p. 996.) relates, that Brutus put him to death as a Sacrifice or Expiation to the Manes of his Kinfman D. Brutus and his Friend Cicero ; which laft was not killed till the Decem- ber of That Year. From a nearer view how the Cafe flood between Brutus and C. An- tonius we may come at fome Light in this matter. It was thus : After Brutus had made of the EPISTLES, &c. 99 made him prifoner of War, he had him in his own Cuflody t and treated him with great Civility and Refpedt, till Antony be- gan to play tricks with Brutus's Soldiers, and to excite them to Sedition and a Re- volt, then Brutus found it neceflary to a- bate fome degrees of his Indulgence to- Xvards him : but ftill he ufed him better than he defer ved, and kept him with him e tho' like a Prifoner at large. Hitherto Brutus had him in his own cuflody. But afterwards having occalion to go into the Upper Macedo- nia, he did not think it proper to \2keAntony with him, but left him at Apollonia y com- mitting him to the Care of C Clodius. Henceforward he was out of the Cuflody of Brutus ; but ftill in his Power as much * as he was the day that Brutus took him Prifoner. We need not go any further in the account of this matter from Hiftory ; for the Diftindlion I juft now mentioned will mow what our Author meant, and his Ignorance in Latin, or his Inaccuracy, or Overlight. He meant, habuique in mea CUSTODIA quoad helium fuit : and I had him in my own CUSTODY (or keeping) while the War continued. The difference be- tween in Jita cujtodia and in Jua poteftate, H 2 which ioo REMARKS on the LANGUAGE which our Author has here confounded, is fo obvious, that it is unneceffary to prove it by inftances from Antient Writers. He who keeps any thing at his own houfe, has it both infua cujlodia and in fua pot eft ate. he who has it in other hands fo as that he can call it in whenever he pleafes, has it in fua poteftate, but not in fua cujlodia. in either cafe, he is equally Mate of it. and Ib was Brutus of C. Antonius : as is plain from the Event. Epift. xxii. p. 174. it's, qiti malum illud exciderint, cujus ijlae reliquiae jitnt, nihilj quo EXPLERI pojjit eorum meritum, tributurum unquam populum Romanum, Jl omnia fimul conge fler int. There can be no ./ O ^L/ doubt of what the Author intended by EXPLERI pojjit eorum meritum: namely, their merit or goodfervice can be REWARD- ED or REQJJITED. But the Meaning looks one way and the words another, for explere meritum, or (which is the fame thing) beneficium, is not to requite merit or good fervice, but to Jill it up y or compleat that which before was deficient^ and want- ed fomething to be added to it, in order to make it perfect, for this is the fignification of explere j viz. to fulfill, fill up, or com- pleat of the EPISTLES, G?r. 101 pleat any thing that was imperjeft : as in Seneca Here. Fur. $ 500. DEEST una numero Dana is : EXPLEBO nefas. So cupiditates explere, Cicero De Fin. i, 16. to fulfill one's defires, or to gratify one's ap- petites - 3 viz. by adding or giving them fome- thing which they had not, and which they wanted, fpem explere, Livy xxxv, 44. wluptatem explere, Terence Hecyr. i, i. jusjurandum explore, to fulfill an Oath, M. Seneca Controv. i, 6. by accompUJhing and perjefting what was wanting to be per- formed. J 'ujt l in has a feemingly unufaal fignification of this word (as of feveral others) where he is fpeaking of the Athe- nians recalling and conferring honours upon Alclbiades after his Baniihment and Dif- grace, Lib. V, c. 4. EXPLENT contumelias honoribus, detrijnenta mitneribus, exjecra- tiones precibus : that is, penfcint^ they re- compenfe or make amends jor, as appears from the Senfe ; for it is fomewhat difficult to account for the reafon of it from the Word, he calls it corrigere lib. xxxv. 2. * a Cicero Philipp. ix, 4. farcire : nulla duUtatw rc~. linquetur, quin honore mortui^ quam vivo iniuriam fe~ cimus, farciamus. whence perhaps the paffage of ju-> Jlin may be explained. H 3 It 102 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE It is more intelligible Lib. ix, 2. where Atbeas King of Scythia anfwers to the Ambafladors of Philip of Macedonia : nullas Jibi opes efle quibus tantum re gem EX PLE- AT : wherewith to SATISFIED great a King, tfrebell. Polliom Gallien. c. i. qui privatis poj/et fortunis public a EXPLERE dijpendia. Incerti Panegyr. Conftantin. c. 32. mijjum ejufdem tyranni (Maxentii) ad permulcendam AJricam caput j ut quam maxime vivus afflixerat. laceratus EXPLE- t/ ' RET. where expleret is oppofed to afflixe- rat. This laft inftance is odd enough i which is not to be wondred at in a Writer of that low Age a . All thefe Inftances feem to agree in the notion of jilling up by the addition of fomething that was wanting to compleat or fatisfie the thing fpokcn of. now this will ill fuit with the intention of our Author, who cannot here mean, that the merit of Brutus and his Companions in killing Caefar was deficient, and wanted fomething to make it compleat : for on the * It is to be underftood as if it had been written lactratione or morte expleret : and the reafon is the fame with that of Cicero pro P. Sulla c. 32. Te ip- fumjam, Torquate, expletum efle bujus miferiis par erat. to bejatisfied or contented. contrary, of the EPISTLES, &c. 103 contrary, he would fay, that it was ib per f eft and full, that, if the Roman people 'were to heap upon them all they could be/low, they could never fujficiently REWARD THIS piece of SERVICE to the State. This ftrange life of the word expleri may be ac- counted for thus : He might remember that explere libidinem, tram, cupiditatem, defiderium, animum, odium, etc. are fre- quently to be met with in the fenfe of fatiare or fatisfacere, to fatisfie one's lufl> dejire, anger, longing, etc. in which ex- preffions the Pajjwns and Appetites or De- Jires are confidered as Animals that are_ hungry and crave, and want to be filled ; and when they are filled, are \hznfatisfied. Hence he feems to have concluded, that as explere iram or dejiderium, fignifie fa- tiare, to fatisfie one's anger or longing ; fo explere meritum eorum may fignifie to /a-? tisfie their merit : not confidering that the Things, and the Reafons of them, are of a quite different Nature ; and that the Merit of Brutus and his Friends cannot by any Metaphor, confidently with the Senfe of the place and the Author's meaning and intention, be faid to crave (as the PaJ/ions and Appetites may) and want to be filed or H 4 Jatisfed, 104 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE fatisfied. There is the fame fentiment in a paflage parallel to this in another Epiftle of Brutes, Ep. xviii. p. 122. nihil ego poffum in jbroris meae liberis facere, quo po/Jit EXPLERI voluntas mea aut officium. Here expleri, to be fatisfied, happens to be right, becaufe the nature of the words vo- luntas and officium. and the fenfe of the *x/ * place ? will admit of that fignification. but the former pafTage I am perfuaded is not Latin in the fenfe which Brutus deiign'd to exprefs. Inftead of expleri he might have written exjbfoi, out of Livy ii, 29. or remunerari c. 12. of the fame Book. Cicero exprefTes it by meritam gratiam per- Jolvere, Orat. pro Cn. Plancio c. 33. and meritam gratiam referre, Pe Orat. iii, 4. Caejar Bell. Gall, v, 27. Caefari pro ejus. mentis gratiam referre. Plautus Amphitr. merito referre gratias : and Captiv. V, i ; 15. beneficium merito munerare : and $ 20, benefaffih pretium reddere. JLiiy xxxix, 1 3 . referre meriti gratiam. Seneca Epift. cviii. pro fatiis reddere ofrae pretium 3 out of Ennius. Tacitus Hift. iv, 3. bene- ficio vicem ex/ofoere. tfrebellius Pollio in Claud, c. 7. vicem reddere mentis. Any pf thefe might have fatisfied our Author, had of the EPISTLES, &c. 105 had he been contented to follow the An- tients, and not to affect Singularity and Quaintnefs ; in which he always fuccceds as he deferves, and the event proves fuit- able to the attempt. If it be faid that meritum may here fignifie merces, (fee Pri- caeus upon Apulelm Met. viii. p. 468.) it muft be prov'd by Inflances that it was fo ufed in the time of Brutus. In the foregoing Remark we have feen that our Author, by miftaking the figni- fication of a word, leads us into a bad and falfe Senfe : in the following one we (hall fee that by a miftake of the fame kind he has thought fit to lead us into no Senfe at all. The pafTage is in the fame Epiflle, p. 1 6 6. Vindici quidem alienae domina- tionis, NON vicarw, ecquis Jupplicat, ut op- time mentis de republica liccat efje fafois ? It is impofilble to give a Verfion of the Context as it now ilands, fo as to make any fenfe of it. but it is no difficult matter to perceive where the miftake of the Wri- ter lies; namely, in the word NON, which he unfkillfully puts inftead of nan modo, or nedum^ much le/s. To give him his due, the Sentiment, had he been enough Ma- fter of the Latin Tongue to have expreft it io6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE it as he ought and intended, would have been a good one. The underftanding it depends upon a paflage at the top of the fame page, where Brutus objects to Cicero very warmly, (and, by the by, in the Lan- guage of an Accufer to a Criminal, and as Cicero treats Verres, M. Antony > and Ca- tiline, rather than in That of an Inferior to his Superior j aude negare, deny it, if you dare) that he had written to Otfavius in a mean and fuppliant manner, T'hat he would allow thofe Citizens to live in Safety, of whom honeft Men, and the people of Rome, bad a good opinion : meaning Brutus and his Accomplices, then, after fome reflec- tions upon this part of Cicero's Letter to Q&avius, he adds, alluding to Cicero 's own words, Vindici quidem alienae dominati- cnis, NON MODO (or nedum) vicario, ec- quis fupplicat, etc. that is, " If Otfavifs ut jcis, fidelem. Si tardavero> is, if I tarry longer than I intend, (fee the foregoing part of the Letter) and anfwers to St. Paul's lav /fya- $uou t i Tim. iii, 15. which the Antient Latin Vulgate in like manner renders fi tardavero. fo again 2 Pet. iii, 9. 'Ou QoaSiujsi Kw^*- 7?? iffrty/iX/*^ which he tranflates, Non TARDAT Dominus promiffi : i. e. nan M. Us tardus eft quod ad promijjum attlnet, 'ivtw rjf 69ray/sA/rtf * Tlw Lord is not Jlack (as fo 9 or) concerning his promife : as it is very well render'd in our Englijh Tranflation. From thefe places of the Latin Pulgate it is likely our Author took his ufe of the Verb tardare\ as did perhaps Philoxenus in his Gloffary : tardat> fyaSuuti. Here then, in all probability, is an Inftance of a Word not ufed in that manner and Signi- fication in the time of Cicero, which how- I ever H4 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE ever I look upon only as a Secondary Argu- ment againft the genuinenefs of thefe Epi- flles, becaufe I believe it will be found that moft of the Inftances I have already mentioned are fuch as never were, nor in- deed could be, in Ufe in any Age of the Latin Tongue, in the manner this Author applies them. Give me leave to add, as a matter of Curiofity rather than of Objection, the fol- lowing Remark. In the xv th Epiftle he writes thus: quod et PL u RES occidit uno, etc. and fo does Cicero, as to the word plures, De Legg. ii, 15. Jiquidem ilia fe- ver a Lacedaemcn nervos juffit, quod p LU- RES quam feptem haberet, in tfimothei fi- dibus deml. and in Orator, cap. 64. quod p L u R E s habeat fyllabas quam tres. Thefe expreffions are, I believe, the only Inftances of their kind in all Antiquity from the time of Ennius to that of Livy, between whom and Cicero there were feveral years, in which great Innovations were made in the Latin Tongue, for before Cicero, and in his time, whenever they had occafion to exprefs a Numeral after the Comparative more, as in this place, be hath kiWd MORE than ONE ; they did not of the EPISTLES, &c. 115 not write p L u R E s occidit uno^ but PLUS (or amplius) occidit uno, or quam unum, or plus unum^ by an Ellipfis of the Conjunction quam. the full expreffion would have been, occidit plus hominum uno ho- mine, or quam unum hominem, etc. Ex- amples of this are to be found in Ennius, Plautus^ CafOj (quoted by Varro De R. R. ii, 3. by Gcllius vii, 3. by Pliny N. H. xvii, 1 8.) Tfrenct, Scipio Aemilianus (in Macrobius Saturnal. ii, 10.) Caffius Hcmina (in Gellius xvii, 21.) Valerius Antias (in Livy xxxviii, 23.) Varro , Hirtius, Auftor. De Bell. Africano, and in Cicero in very many places ; and not once otherwife in the abovementioned, or any other, as far as I can find, or in Cicero himfelf, except in thefe two places. It feems as if he was the firfl who made this alteration in the Latin Phrafe. Lroy followed him in it : but, as if he were fenfible that it was an Innovation and an Expreffion upon trial^ he ufes it very fparingly. for, if I am right in my account, it is to be found only Four times in Livy '> whereas the other manner, byp/tis, is ufed by him above Eighty times. But the ex- preffion had the good fortune to pleafe. for after Livy, in Tiberius's time and after- I 2 wards n6 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE wards, it was brought into more common Ufe by Veil. Paterculus, Ajcon. Pedianus y Columella, Lucius Seneca, 'Tacitus, Sueto- nius, Gellius, Cen/brinus, Sotinits, and Fefl. Pompeius. tho' even then, moil of thefe whom I have mentioned do more frequent- ly ufe plus or amplius than plures-, and many whom I have not mentioned, as the Auttor ad Herennium, Petronius Arbiter, ^ Curtius, Pliny the younger, Quintilian, and Frontinus, never ufe the Plural before the Numeral y but always plus or amplius. But to return from this digreffion. Epift. viii. p. 5*2. nee me minus pu- tarim reprehendcndum,fiinutiliter aliquidje- natui fuaferim, quam Ji INFIDELITER. Several Learned men who have been very curious in their Searches into the Latin Tongue, have declared again ft the Lati- nity of the word infideliter j for which they fay the True Expreffion is malajide, as is obferved by Ger. Joan. VoJJlus, De Vitiis Sermonis, Lib. iv. cap. 33. p. 782. who adds however, that tc he will not " greatly contend concerning it, becaufe " Cicero ufes the fimple word fide liter, and < therefore Hen. Stepbanus acknowledgeth ** the compound, infdcliter, as Latin, in " his of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 117 11 his Expojlulatio de Latinitate fujpefta " cap. vi." Qlaus Borrichius, who with great Skill and Accuracy examined the a- bovementioned Treatife of Voffius, in his Cogitationes de variis Linguae Latinae ae- tatibus^ etc. p. 30. retains infideliter in the Catalogue of vitiofa vocabula : nor does Scioppius, Animadverf. in Voffium De Vi- tiis Serm. quoted by Borrichius p. 209, etc. prove it by any Inftance to be Latin : and CelJarhis in Cur. Pojlerior. places it in the chapter De Latinitate Barbara aut Incerta, cap. x. p. 359. If the Remark of thefe Learned men be true, it decides at once againil the genuinenejs of this Epiftle. but, which is very ftrange, it feems as if all of them had overlook'd the word infideliter in this paiTage : for they neither mention it, nor bring any other Inftance of the word. What therefore they would have deter- mined concerning it, had they remembred this place, no body can fay. but thus much we may fafely fay, that this word affords juft grounds of Sufpicion j becaufe if Ci- cero had ever ufed it, tho' once only, it would, in all probability, have been men- tioned at lead, by fome or other of the Antients. In the mean time nothing can 1 3 te n8 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE be more Infirm than the Argument of" Voffius and Stephanus, if they allow infi- deliter to be a good Latin word, pnly from Analogy^ and becaufe Cicero makes ufe of fdeliter. They cannot be better confuted than from that very page of Vojjius^ who there obferves, that " inenodabi liter is a " Barbarous .word, and yet inenodabile is ng queftion is, whether they actually were fuch ; which cannot now be proved by us unlefs from Examples fetch'd out of Antient Writers : in default of which, all fuch Words are to be look'd upon as Barbarous^ and to be avoided as fuch by thofe who propofe to write like the Antients. I fpeak of Language only, for as to Modern Wri- ters of Latin who regard nothing but the Matter and Perjpicuity in their Works, infideliter^ inexplicabiliter> inhojpitalitcr^ or any other Barbarous Words form'd from Analogy, may perhaps ferve their purpoie as well as the moft Claffical ones. But this was not Cicero's manner: and there- fore it ought to have been avoided by one whofe purpofe was to write Epiftles in the Name and Manner of Cicero. Excellent is the judgment of Borrichius in this matter, p. 213. " Ego minus peccaturos exifti- 11 mabo, qui hie religioni propiores a fola " non pendent Analogia, fed credunt, " quod Au&oribus bonis ufurpatum vident. " Prudenter jam olim Prifcianus : Etfi " regula Jic concedat dicer e y tamen nifi in " ufu inveniamus auttorum, non debemus " imitari. Periere, fateor, fcriptores plu- tc rimi 3 fed quaenam cum ipfis perierint 14 " vocabula, 120 REMARKS on /& LANGUAGE " vocabula, ignoramus omnes. Qiiin ;nv f ' mo, fi Analogiae indulgendum liberalius, < c et defo&wa brevi forent pauca, et cali- ** ganti barbariei feneftra aperiretur paten- ** tiffima. quis enim non futis doctum fe " putaret, ad novas ex Similitudine voces * c confingendas ? Horatii iftud, licuit fem- <{ perque lice bit ; et ^uintiliani^ quando de- " Jiit licere y intelligendum de lingua adhuc ole- facio or olfacio, calefacio or calfacio, (ac- cording to which it is very well that he did not make it quatfacio) labefacio, tremefa- cio, (in which two the o is changed into e) languefacio, liquefacio, arefacio, pinguefa- cio, candejacio, tumefacio, etc. which are formed from paveo, ferueo, ftupeo, frigeo, etc. and which, Thirdly, it is to be ob- ferved, are Neuters^ not T'ranpti'ves^ as quatio is. but we never find parefacio, ca- pefacio^ fugefacio^ jacefacio, or any thing like them, from the Tr an/it ives, pario^ ca- pio, fugio, jacio. not but that f fraaptv / oet are fometimes compounded with facto ; as moneo, doceo, terreo : but then they have a Prepofition fet before them : fo that you will not meet with monefacio, docefacio, or terrefacw ; but commonefacio or admonefa- cio^ condoccfacio < y perterrefacio. But this is Grammatical and Pedantic, and below the Genius of a Writer who pundet opes, Latiumque beabii divlte lingua. Certain it is, that neither Cicero, nor any Writer before him, or in his time, or after him, as far as I can yet find, have made ufe of this word, nor is it mentioned by any 122 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE any of the Antients, Grammarians or others, as an <*5ra teyoptvov, or word only once to be found, which it is almoft im- poffible {hould have efcaped their notice, if Cicero had ever made ufe of it. Per- haps the Sound of the word patefacio might lead him into this miftake. unlefs he chofe to coin a New Word pro libltu ; as did an antient Commentator upon the Canon- Law, (whom I have feen quoted, but have forgotten his Name) who reproving the Clergy of his time for riding upon flately Horfes, ufes this Argument : Servator no- fter I'emcl tantum ASINAVIT : nunquam equitavit, neque PALFREDAVIT, neque DROMEDARIAVIT. For if equito figni- fies to ride upon an hor/e, why may not afino and palfredo and dromedario fignifie to ride upon an afs, palfrey., or dromedary ? I {hould be glad to fee what account any one who thinks thefe Letters to be the ge- nuine Writing of Cicero and Brutus, will give of this Verb quate facto : with which Word I (hall conclude this Head of the Language of our Author ; being perfuaded that this Single Inftance would be fuffi- cient to ruin the Credit of a much better perform- of the EPISTLES, &c. 123 performance than thefe Epiflles appear to be. I mall now pafs on to the Second Part, after having premifed, that whoever in Vin- dication of thefe Epiftles, (hall think it worth while to take notice of thefe Objec- tions which I have made to the Lan- guage of them, will be obliged (if he will anfwer them to any purpofe) to prove by diredt and clear Inftances out of Cicero or other good and approved Writers, That REVOCARE in integrum, inilead of RE- STITUERE, is a Latin expreffion : That prohibere PRAESENTIA mala, and coepi- mus per juader e> are any where ufed, or can be, confidently with the nature of Lan- guage and Senfe : That nibil TANTI/W// QJJO vender emus fidem^ inftead of UT ven- deremus y is Latin : That it a multi L ABE- FACT ANT nt ne MOVEATUR inter dum extimefcam, is not prepofterous in a Profe- Writer : That^/V, when applied to the mind, may be ufed without the fignifica- tion of Reproach : That in the expreffion corruptus largitionibus ^ the laft word can be taken in a good fenfe, for Honours : That petere ever fignifies to be a Candidate for a particular Poll or Office, without any men- tion 124 REMARKS on the FACTS tion or hint of *That Particular : That fujufue ratio habebitur^ is the fame as cu- jujve ABSENTIS ratio habebitur : That DECRETUsf/? hcnos diis immor tali bus, may be put for HABITUS eft honos Diis immor- talibus : That REPONERE aliquem in ali- cujus locum can be faid of a Per/on, inftead of fubftituere^ jufficere^ (ubrogare : That ut SOLERES is good Writing, inftead of ut SOLEBAS: That non may be put for non modo or nedum ; and quidem without ?ie, in the mafiner it is done by this Writer : That EXPLERE meritum fignifies to REWARD merit : That quatefeci is a Latin word. If all thefe, and feveral others which I have already mentioned, can be defended by proper Examples out of the beft Wri- ters of Antiquity, (for without fuch Ex- amples, the bare Opinions and Reafonings of all the Learned Men in the World are no manner of Defence to a Piece againft which there lie fuch Strong and Juft Ob- jections and Arguments) I would then beg leave to propofe another Sett of the fame kind out of thefe Epiflles, to be accounted for and explained in the like manner ; be- ing of opinion that he who can do this truly of the EPISTLES, &c. 125 truly and effectually, will deferve very well of the Latin Tongue, and at the fame time will {how great Skill in that Lan- guage, and if any body thinks that fome of thefe here taken notice of, are inconfi- derable, and fuch as may eafily be excufed in any Writer ; he mould be told (and it cannot be too often repeated) that in a Modern Writer of Latin it is reafonable and we ought to overlook an hundred Miftakes of this kind, provided we fuffi- ciently underftand what it is that he intends to exprefs : re enim intelleSla^ in verborum ufufaciles effe debctnus, is Cicero's own Pre- cept, but in an Antient (as this Author pretends to be) the caie is much otherwife. for we cannot fuppofe or imagine that a True Antient Roman Writer, efpecially Cicero or Brutus, could be ignorant in the Language in which he wrote and which he jpake every day of his life : and that it would be as impoffible for either of them to write deliberately, nihil tanti/#/V QJJO venderemus fidem nojlram^ inftead of UT venderemus, as it would be to have written QJUORUM venderemus. And this little In- ftance of Bad Latin (if it be fuch, as I fhall believe it to be till I fee reafon to the contrary 126 REMARKS on the LANGUAGE contrary) feems to be as certain a Proof of the Forgery of thefe Letters, as coepimus perfuadere, prohtbcre praefentla mala, qua- tefeci y or any of the above-mentioned which have a more glaring appearance of Igno- rance in the Latin Tongue. And if this be the cafe in All, or Several, or Any of the Inftances I have objected to, I imagine it may be allowed that I have proved my Ftrft Point, That Cicero and Brutus could not POSSIBLY be the Authors of thefe Let- ters. But if fo, what need is there, you will fay, of giving Me or your felf any further trouble ? My reafon for it is this : Becaufe, tho' I am fatisfied, for my own part, that there cannot be ftronger Arguments againft the genulnenefs of thefe Epiftles than the Inftances in the "Language which have been already brought ; yet I am aware that it may be faid, That all Arguments from Language are now very uncertain, becaufe we know fo little of the Latin Tongue, of its Nature, Extent, or the Liberties which may, or may not, be taken in its Com- pofitions, as having comparatively fo few Remains of the Antient Authors who wrote in That Language, and no body now Remarks on the FACTS, etc. 127 now Alive who can pretend to inform ns what is, or what is not, allowable in it : tfhat nothing is more common than for Men of Letters to pronounce concerning "Latin Expreflions as Faulty, which have been proved afterwards from undoubted Authorities to be otherwife : 'That even in thefe Epiftles, Men of very great Learn- ing have fometimes done the fame thing, when as it were eafy to (how that the Mif- take lay in Themfelves, not in the Writer of the Epiftles : That, at the beft, Argu- ments of this kind are fuitable to the Judg- ments of a Few only, and Thofe too Men of Reading and Leifure j and even They ought to have time allowed them to con- fider and fearch whether thefe things be fo, not to take the bare Word of every Ob- jector : tfhat therefore Arguments of a dif- ferent kind lye more level to all apprehen- fions and capacities : as for Inflance, If a Writer mould take upon him the Name of Cicero, and in his Writings mould fre- quently contradict Cicero and all Hiftory in Matters of Fact ; and in a Short Work fhould often contradift even Himfelftoo, ana forget in one part what he had faid a little before in another: Further, If the 5 fame 128 REMARKS on the FACTS fame Writer fhould aflame the Characters of Cicero and Brutus, two Perfons who are univerfally allowed to have been Men of the ftrongeft Parts, cleared Reafon, and foundeft Judgment ; and under thofe Cha- racters mould introduce Cicero and Brutus trifling in their Correfpondence, and rea- Jonlng weakly and incoherently : if thofe points could be proved, fuch Arguments would be more convincing to the Genera- lity of Readers, becaufe, in the former cafe, Cicero would be reprefented as carelefs and indolent even to Stupidity j in the lat- ter, Cicero and Brutus as not having com- mon Senfe and Under/landing : both which reprefentations would be very contrary to the notions which all Mankind have juftly formed of thofe two Great Men, of whofe Language and Style they are not perhaps fo competent Judges. Let us therefore fet afide the Language for a while, and try our Author upon thefe Two Indictments, Firft, his Fatts, under which we will place his FalfeJIijlory, and his Forgetting y and Contradicting Himfelf, which is relating the fame Fact different ways: and, Secondly, his Reajoning and Sentiments. A$ to the Firjft of thefe, I am already of the EPISTLES, &c. 129 already in a great meafure happily prevent- ed by an excellent Piece lately publifhed by my Learned Friend Mr. Tun/lall, \0b- fervatiom on the prefent Collection of Epiftles between Cicero and M. Brutus, etc. Lon- don. 1744. 8 ] who in a multitude of In- ftances has fliewn the Ignorance and Blun- ders of the Sophifl upon this head fo effec- tually, as that, in my opinion, his Argu- ments can never be fairly anfwered. All therefore that can be added upon this ar- ticle, is no more than afium agere ; which, notwithstanding that the old Proverb for- bids it, I (hall Venture to do, fo far as to produce Two or Three Examples of the fame kind, which I do not find mentioned in the aforefaid Piece : and I will anfwer for it, that thofe who come after us both, will find feveral more of the fame fort, if they (hall think it worth their while to look for them* REMARKS [ '3 I REMARKS ON THE FACTS SECT. II. EP i ST. xxi. p. 146. Cicero writes thus: neque jolum ut SOLONIS diSlum ufur- pem, qui ^sApiENTissiMusy^// EX SEP- TEM, et legum jcriptor folus exfeptem^ic. If the true Cicero wrote this, he muft have flrangely forgot himfelf. for in his Treatife De Legibus (which probably was written towards the end of the year U. C. 709, as this Letter is fuppofed to have been written in July the next year : See Dr. Chapman's DifTert. de Aetat. Libb. Cic. De LegibuS) p. 32.) Lib. ii, u. he fays : THALES (not Solon) qui SAPIENTISSIMUS INTER SEFTEMfutf. And again, Aca- demic, ii, 37. princefs THALES, units e jeptem> REMARKS on the FACTS, &c. 131 ^ cuifex reliquos CONCESSISSE PRI- MA$({c.f6rtes)Jerunf 3 ex aqua dixit con- Jlare omnia : c Tba/es ) one of the Seven Wife men, to whom it is faid the other Six yielded the precedency in Wifdom, was thefirftwho held that Water is the Firfl principle of all things. The Contradiction is fo manifeftj that One of the Two Cicero's muft here be under a great miftake. The truth is, this Author ought to have read all the Works of the Real Cicero more carefully, or at leaft to have confined his Pen and Imagi- nation to thofe parts of him which he had read, before he attempted to write Letters for him. but as he has now managed this matter, he has made good the Remark of Latfantius upon another occafion, Injlitut. Lib. ii, 8. nee enim ab ullo poterit Cicero quam a Cicerone vehementius refutari. Solon was without doubt a very Wife man, and a Writer of Laws : both which circum- flances are mentioned together in the Orat. pro Sex. Rofcio Amerino^ c. 25. pruden- tiffima civitas Athenienjium, dum ea rerum potita cftjuifle traditur. ejus porro civitatis SAPIENT ISSIMUM SoLONEM dicitnt fuijje^ eitm, qui LEGES, quibus hodie quoque utun- K 2 fur, 132 REMARKS on the FACTS tur y SCRIPSER1T. Gellius xvii, 21. sc*~ LONEM ergo accepimus, UNUM ex illonobili' numero Sapientum, LEGES SCRIPSISSE A- thenienfium, ^arquinio Prifco Romae reg- nante, anno regni ejus tricefimo tertio. but whence our Author took his information that Solon was the Wifefl of the Seven, unlefs he miftook it from the paffage of the Oration juft now quoted, I have not yet found. It is very plain that he did not take it from Cice- ro, who de Fin. iii, 22. gives Solon the bare title of units efeptem Sapicntibus, and So- lonisfapientis, De Senect. c. 20. Dr. Bent-- ley in his Pref. to the Differt. upon the Epift. ofPhalaris, etc. p. 77. ed. Lond. 1699. perhaps from this paffage of this Epiftle^ calls Solon the ivifeft of the famous Seven. I will not pretend to affirm that the fame is not to be found in fome other Antient Greek or Latin Writer, but be that as it will, it does not excufe the Contradiction in Cicero. It may be faid perhaps, tfhat a miftake of this kind is no new thing in Cicero : for in another of his pieces he had put Eupolis (De clar. Orator, c. 9. and 15.) in- ftead of jfriftophanes ^ which he afterwards found out, and defired Attic us (Epift. xir. 6.) of the EPISTLES, &c. 133 /) to order his Scribes to correct in his Copies : See likewife another Ad Attic, xiii, 42. which he there acknowledges: And in the fecond book De Gloria, as is obferved by Gellius xv, 6. he had put Ajax inftead -of Heffor. T'hat fuch a failure of Memory might more eafily happen in Different Works, written at fome diftance of Time from each other. Be it fo : tho' I believe Cicero would not think himfelf much obliged to any body who mould defend him in this manner, but what (hall we fay to the following Inftance of Forgetfiilnefs in 0;z?and the fame Letter, written, it may be fcppofed, at one Sitting, and in the Spac% of an Hour or two ? I mean the V tlx Epiiue : which he begins with acquainting Brutus, " That on the 13 th of April (ID. uod ca::ls in degypto : fabit et FUGIT. fake of the EPISTLES, &c. 139 fake of fhowing his Erudition, he ufes Brutus in a manner very Uncivil and Dif- obliging, and very unlike Cicero, for he would infmuate, that Brutus did in reality run away, however he might cover his Flight under the fpecious name of ivith- dr awing : which latter is much lefs than the former, becatife he who doesfagere, does of courfe at the fame time cedere, ex- cedere, or difcedere -, but not vice verfa. agreeably to which known Diftinclion, the true Cicero fays, Philippic. V, 1 1 . ut pri- mum poft DISCESSUM latronis (Antonii), *uel potius dcjperatam FUG AM, liber e JenatuS haberi potuit, femper fagitavi ut convocare- mur. and fo again ad Attic, viii, 3. This being fo, it is worth while to obferve the Inconfiftency of this Writer, for he who in the xxi Epiftle fbows that he knew the difference between cedere andfagere, and who is there fo cautious of giving offence to Brutus by ufing this latter word, does in another Letter to him without any fcruple or apology make ufe of the very fame word, Epift. xix. p. 130. Incitavifti ' vcro tu me, Brute i Veliae. quamquam enim dolebam in earn me urbem ire quam tu FUGERES qui earn fiberwpfles j (quod mihi quoque quondam acciderat 140 REMARKS on the FACTS acciderat etc.) pcrrexi tamen etc. Here then Brutus did fugcre. But this is not all that is obfervable in this paffage. he is not fatisfied with contradicting Himfelf, but he is willing to make the moil of it, and to do it in Doubtful Latin too. for by earn urbem QJJAM tu fugeres, he mult mean, that city F R o M (or o u T OF) wh ich you fed, or were forced to fee, as is evi- dent from the parallel which follows, quod MI HI QJJOQJLJE quondam acciderat, 'which tbing had formerly befallen ME TOO j name- ly, when I was expel? d or banifjed by C/odius's means, but this ought not in this place to have been expreft by cam urbem QJJAM tu fugeres, but, earn urbem EX QJI A tu fugeres, for the fake of perfpi- cuity, and becaufe there is frequently a wide difference of Senfe between the two Expreffions. for F u G E R E u R B EM may fig- nine to AVOID the city, by an adl of Choice ; which was not Cicero's cafe. So Horace Epift. ii, 2. Scriptorum chorus omnis amat nemtts, et FUGIT URBES : and Cicero Ad Attic, xii, 27. circiter Ka- Jendas adfuturus videtur. vellejn tardius : vahie of the EPISTLES, Gfc. oalde enlm URBEM FUGIO mult as ob cau- Jas. See too Proper tins ii, 23: 52. but to fee FROM (or OUT OF) the city, upon CGmpulfion or neceffity, is clearly, fugere EX (or AB) z/r^ ; which fenfe is required here, becaufe this, as every body knows, was the cafe of Cicero, concerning whom Corn. Nepos in Attic, c. 4. fays, cut EX PATRIA FUGIENTI, HS. ducenta et quinquaginta mlllia (Atticus) donaverat : and the cafe of Antony ', Pliilipp. iii, I. EX urbe FUGIT Antonius. Tufculan. Difput. i, 3 5. concern- ing Pompey : non EX Italia FUGISSET, Ovid Pontic. i, 5: 84. Famaque cum domino FUGIT ABUrbey&0. In like manner fugere proelium is to avoid fighting or coming to a battle > as in Sil. Ita- I'cus ix, 175. FUGE PROELIA, Varro. but fugere EX proelio is to run away out of the battle ',asCtcero Fam.xiv. DeDivinat. ii, 37. and Suetonius in Othon. c. x. fugere EX acie. So then after all, and notwithfland- ing the Stoical Diftindion between fugere and cedere, Cicero, we fee, affirms that Bru- tus did fugere. No, but that is not certain yet. for again in the abovementioned Epift. xxi. p. 148. lie fays, fpeaking of the fame thing : 142 REMARKS on the FACTS thing : Vos (Brutus and Caffius), fortajft fapientius, EXCESSISTIS urbe ea quam libe- raratis : which is the very fenfe and defign of the above mention'd pafiage in the xix th Epiftle, eamurbem quam tu FUGERES qui earn liberaviffes. What can bs done with fuch a Proteus, or in what bands can you hold him, who in one place inilfts upon the distinction between cedere and jitgere^ and foon after fhows that he did not know any difference between them ? Cicero him- felf indeed often calls his own banijbment by the name of difceflus. but then he only does it when it is to the purpofe of fetting off his Love to his Country by reprefenting that matter as a thing voluntarily under- taken in order to prevent greater mifchiefs to the Republic, for at other times he ipeaks of it as a matter of violence and com- fulfion, as it certainly was : me patria ex- pulerat, as he fays of Clodius, Orat. pro Mikne c. 32. and he calls ilfuga^ Ad At- tic, iii, 3. See de Divinat. i, 28. But our Author has not yet done puzzling, and contradi&ing himfelf upon this head, for iii the fame xxi Epiftle, p. 148. Cicero writes thus concerning himfelf : Jtaque cum tcneri urbcm a parricidh viderem, nee te in ea of the EPISTLES, &c. 143 fa nee CaJJium tuto ejje pojje j mibi quoque ipfi ejj'e EXCEDENDUM putavi. This is very true : for Cicero is fpeaking of his in- tended Voyage into Greece in the Summer of the year in which Cae/'ar was killed, A. U. 709. which he calls profeffio, Phi- lippic, i, i. and cap. 2. a mente DISCESSI ut adejjem Kakndis yanuariis. whence it is plain that it was a voluntary undertaking. But Epift. xix. p. 130. fpeaking of this very Voyage , he fays, Hacc ego multo ante pro- fpiciem, FUGIEBAM EX Italia, turn cum me veftrorum ediftorum Jama revocavif. Here he undoes all again : for had he been banifoedy or compelled to go out of Italy, he could not have expreft it more ftrongly than by fugiebam ex Italia, not to mention Two other inftances of Negligence in this Sentence, in the words FAMA and veftro- rum EDICTORUM. for, Firft, it was but One edict, publifhed jointly in the names of Brutus and Coffins (in like manner as their Letter to Antony, Ad Famil. xi, 3.) at that time Praeton. Cicero Philip, i, 3. nee multo poft, E D i c T UM Bruti affertur et Caffii : and again ad Attic, xvi, 7. giving the fame account : Haec afferebant, E DI- CTUM Bruti et Caffii. but this Author, \ know- 144 REMARKS on the FACTS knowing perhaps that both Brutus and CaJJius were at that time Praetors, thought that there muft of courfe be at leaft Iwo Edicts. Nor, Secondly, was it t\\zfame or report of the Edict, which contributed to the bringing back of Cicero, but the Edict it Je/f, which he received, and read there, and thought it a very reafonable one. Philippic, i, 3. quoted before: nee multo poft, edictum Bruti AFFERTUR et CAS- sii : QJTOD quidem mihi plenum aequi- tatis videbatur. Thefe miftakes, how- ever fmall they may feem, are fuch as Cicero himfelf could not have made. But to proceed. Seneca in his Nat. ^uaejl. vii, 16. has a fevere reflection upon Hiftoriam in general, in which this Letter- Writer may perhaps be concerned, as he is a relater of Hiftorical matters : Quidam (hiftorici) creduli, fays he, am dam NEGLI- GE N T E s : funt quibuf'dam MENDACIUM 9brepit, quibufdam placet. We have feen Two or Three inftances of our Author's Negligence : let us examine whether he Hands clear of the other part of Seneca's Charge. In the xvii th Epiftle, p. 118. he gives this account of Lepidus : repente non folum recepit reHquias bojliitm, Jed bdlurn acerri- of the EPISTLES, &c. 145 acerrimum terra MARique gerit : on a Judden he hath not only received the broken remains of our Enemies, but is carrying on a mojl vigorous war by Land and by SEA. Cicero Famil. xii, 10. was contented to fay, Bellum quidem, cum haec fcribebam, fane MAGNUM erat y feeler e et levitate Lepidi. but this Writer ieems to have thought that it could not be a great War unlefs it was carried on by Sea as well as Land: and therefore he has improved upon Cicero, and converted Lepidus's Legionary Soldiers into Sailors *. May we be permitted to alk him * Such another improvement up'on Cicero has been made by a near Relation of this Writer, viz. the Author of the Oration Poft redltum in Senatu cap. 7. The true Cicero in the Orat; pro P. Sextia c; 8. ac- quaints us, that L. Pifo, who was his enemy, and Conful in the year in which he was banimed^ was at the fame time Duumvir in the Colony of Capua : Capua, in qua ipfe (Pifo) turn, Imaginis ornandae caitfa, duumviratum gerebat : and in the Orat; in Pifon. c. Xi. he fneers at him Upon the account of this paultry Duumvirate^ and calls him in mockery Campaxum confulem^ the Campanian Conful^ or Conful cf Capua. The Author of the abovementioned Ora- tion, pcj} reditum in Senatu^ rerhembred this laft circumftance, and took it in earneft ; and according- ly, inflead of Duumvir^ he very innocently intro- k duees 146 REMARKS on tie FACTS him concerning this Sea-War of Lepidus, as Cicero does Ferres Lib. V, 2. concerning his Fugitives : ubi ? quando ? qua ex par- te ? cum aut navibus ant ratibus conarentur accedere ? nos enim nihil unquam prorfus au- divimus. Produce out of Cicero, Plutarch, Appian, Dio, or any other unfufpeded Greek or Roman Writer, any one lefli- mony, or the leaft Hint, tho' never fo re- mote and obfcure, of a fingle Ship or Barque employ'd by Lepidus's order in any Sea- Action during the Time here fpoken of; and I will not difpute the Truth of the Fad:. But there does not appear in the Hiftorians the leaft mention or trace of any engagement by Sea, or of any Prepa- duces Pifo as a&ually Conful of Capua at the fame time that he was Conful of Rome^ cap. vii. Capnaene te putabas, in qua urbe domlcillum quondam fuperbiae fuit, confulem ejje, ficut eras eo tempore j an Ro- ?nac, in qua civitate omnes ante vos conjulcs Jenaiui pa- rucrunt ? A Conful of Capua at that time, is near as great an abfurdity in Hiflory, as a King at Rome ; and the one would have been almoft aflbon born by the Roman people as the other, as this Declaimer might have known from Cicero's Orations againft Rullus, De Leg Agrar. i, 6. and ii, 34, 35. Sc e t oo Livy xxiii, 6. The Learned Hotioman was fo puzzled with this paflage, that he confcfies he could not tell what to make of it. rations v. ( or 4) ^w e*ff 'iraA/ai/ putting in i$iuy, and omitting Vetteius Paterculus alludes, in all of the EPISTLES, fcfc. 153 all probability, to this very action of Fetus, Lib. ii, 62. where he is fpeaking of Brutus and CaJJius : pecunias etiam, quae ex tranf- marinis P ROV i N c 1 1 s ROM AM a QU^AESTO- R i B u s depQrtabantur^a VOLENTIBUS accepe- rant. He fays a Quaefloribus^ in the Plural^ becaufe Fetus the ^uaejlor affifled Brutus with money, and P. Lentulus the ^uaeftor affifted CaJfiuS) as appears from Lentulufs Letter to Cicero, Famil. xii, 14. But that which determines this matter at once #- gainft our Author, is the Decree of the Senate upon the Authority whereof Brutus received this money from Fetus; part of which Decree runs thus, as it was pro- pofed by Cicero himfclf Philipp. x. at the end: PECUNiAque ad rem militarem, Ji qua opus fit, quae PUBLIC A Jit et exigi poffit, utatur^ extgat, fcil. Brutus : and if he (Brutus)y^<7// want money for thejervice of the war, let him have power to make ufe of and colleft all fuch moneys as are PUB- LICK and may be collected. Our Author therefore is guilty of a great Miflake when he fays that Fetus gave Brutus this Sum ex su A pecunia : a Miftake which I prefume Brutus himjelf would not have made, had he been the Author of this Letter. Give me 154 REMARKS on the FACTS me leave to add, that this <^^x.iviylg or Praetor, whofe Name Plutarch does not mention, and to whom Brutus w,as much more obliged than to Fetus, was (Marcus) Apuleius; as we learn from Appian Bell. Civ. iii. p. 921. and iv. p. 1013. where he tells us, that (befides the Ships which Plu~ tarch mentions) Brutus received of him what Soldiers he (Apuleius) had, andfixteen tfhoujand Ikfenft, which had been collected out of the Taxes of AJia. And hence is to- be explained a paflage in Philippic, x, 1 1. nam de M. Apuleio feparatim cenjeo refe- rendum : cui teftis eft per lift eras Brutus, eum PRiwciPEMfutffe ad conatum exerci- tus comparandi. Now both Plutarch and Appian agree, that thefe Soldiers and Mo- ney were given by Apuleius to Brutus at hisjirft fetting out and openly entring into the Civil War. So that Apuleius might juftly be faid to have been PRINCE PS ad conatum exercitus comparandi, whether you takeprincepsasihejir/tm order ofTVw^who contributed Soldiers and Money towards rai- fmg an Army for Brutus, which I think is the true Interpretation ; or as the chief Mover and Promoter of it : for without Apuleius's Money Brutus could not have made his Levies, of the EPISTLES, &c. 155 Levies, nor paid his Soldiers, whence An- tony objected this to Hirtius and young Caefhr, in his Letter, Philipp. xiii, 16. Apuleiana pecunia Brutum fubornajiis. to which Cicero anfwers fmartly, nee enimfme pecunia exercitum alere, nee Jine exercitu fratrem tuum caper e potuifjet. It is likely that our Author did not know, or had not obferved, thefe particulars concerning Apu- leius : otherwife, he would have been as fond of him perhaps as he feems to be of Fetus, but his Name was not mentioned in Plutarch, nor the Particulars of his Merit in Cicero, hence this Silence con- cerning him in thefe Epiftles. The Ex- preffion, feipfum obtulit, may be added (if any body thinks thefe Letters to be of fuffi- cient Antiquity and Authority) to thofe of the like kind which Learned Men have noted upon 2 Cor. viii. 5. iatvTxs tfoxgr, they gave themjehes : from which place of St. Paul this perhaps might be copied, tho* indeed there is Something like it in Seneca. de Benef. i. 5, and in Livy xxii, 32. in the Speech of the Neapolitans : and in De- mofthenes De Corona. Under the Article of Vetus we might afk this Author, whence it happens that he 156 REMARKS on the FACTS he introduces Vetus^ who at- that time feems to have been of no higher rank than Quaeftor^ as going to 'Rome to be a Candi - date for the Praetor/hip? For during the Free State ', and often afterwards, the ufual Order in thefe Honours was, Quaeftor^ Aedile, or Tribune of the Commonalty if the Perfon was of a Plebeian Family j and then Praetor, and tho' this order was fometimes interrupted, as in the cafe of M. Valerius Corvus who was made Conful (the next Degree above the Praetorjhip] before he had born any other Magiftracy ; and in like manner the Elder Scipio Afri- canus, and Pompey the Great ; and P. Sul- picius Galba before he had been in any Curule Magiftracy : yet thefe were Extra- ordinary Favours, granted upon the ac- count of Extraordinary Merit, but it does not appear from Authentic Hiftory that Vetus had any fuch Plea : nor had he yet been "at Rome after his ^uaejlorjhip to re- commend himfelf to the knowledge and favour of the People, and to beg their Connivance and Concurrence with him in this Unufual Step : and Dio Lib. xlvii. mentioning him a little before this time, calls him, C. Antiftius QJJIDAM, one C. Antiftius ; of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 157 Antiftius ; which is a manner of fpeaking concerning an obfcure perfon and one who is not much known. Cicero himfelf was forc'd to go through the Office of Aedile before he arriv'd at the Praetorjhip : and he obferves (De Offic. ii, 17.) that Mamer- cus, for Jkipping over the Aedilejhip^ met with a Repulje 'when he flood for the Conful- foip. So in Liiy xxxii, 7. the Tribunes objedled to T". ^uintius Flamininus, a Can- didate for the Conjuljhip after he had been ^uaejlor only, that he had not pafs'd thro' the intermediate Offices of Aedile and Praetor j and would have fet him afide upon that account, had not the Senate in- terpos'd. Ferres indeed was made Praetor without palling thro' the Aedilefhip. but look into cap. 39. Lib. i. in Verr. and you will find whence this happened : emta apertijjime praetura. where fee more to this purpofe. Now tho' I do not deny that what is here related of Vetus might o poffibly be true, and I know that other Instances may be brought ; yet as we know no reafon from Hiftory why he mould be exempted from the Ordinary Forms j and as this Author may be juftly upon feveral other accounts j it is. not 158 REMARKS on the FACTS not impoffible but that here too he may have been guilty of an Overfight. The Letter of P. Lentulus to Cicero, Famil. xii, 14. which I mentioned jutt now, puts me in mind of a paflage Epift. iii. p. 1 8. Atque in bac content lone ipfa, quum maxime res ageretur, a. d. V. id. A- pril. Htterae mi hi in Senatu redditae funt a Lentulo noftro, dc Caffio, de Legionibus, de Syria, etc. In the midfi of this conten- tion, and in the very heat of the debate , on the ninth of April, a Letter 'was delivered to me in the Senate from our friend Lentu- lus, giving an account of Caffius, the Le- gions, and Syria, etc. P. Lentulus's ge- nuine Letter, Famil. xii, 14. makes fre- quent mention of Caffius, his Army, and Syria, but it is unfortunately dated, not in February or March, (fo as that Cicero might be fuppofed to receive it on the ninth of April) but iv. Kal. Jim. on the Twen- ty-ninth of May, from Perga in Pamphylta. Here our Author would be fairly caught, (and indeed I believe this to be the cafe) might it not be objected, That Lentulus might write another Letter to Cicero, tho' it be not now extant, concerning CaJJius, the Legions, and Syria j which Letter might of the EPISTLES, &c. 159 might be written fome time in March, (not before, becaufe about the beginning of March Caffius feems to have taken poffcf- iion of Syria and the Legions there : fee his Letter to Cicero, Famil. xii, 1 1 . dated on the vii th of March} and receiv'd by Ci- cero on the ix th of dpril, as this iii d Epiflle affirms. To this I anfwer : That it feems very probable from a pafTage in Lentu/us's genuine epiftle, that he wrote no other Letter to Cicero concerning CaJJius, the Legions, etc. nor indeed upon any other account, neither in March, nor for Two Months at lead before. The pafTage is this, at the end of the Epiflle : Filium tuum, ad Brutum cum veni, was the Jirjl which he wrote to Cicero after the time of his meeting with Brutus in the Winter : and confequently, that he did not in March fend Cicero an account of Cqffim\ taking poffeffion of Syria and the Legions y in a Letter which Cicero received on the ninth of the EPISTLES, &c. 161 ninth of April. In reality, this Author often runs himfelf into inch improbable and dubious Circum fiances, as to leave himfelf no room to efcape but by a bare Pojpbility. Of which kind alfo is That in this fame iii d Epiftle : Lepidi tut neceflarii, qui fecun- dum FR ATREM affines habet quos ODERIT proximoSy levitatem et inconftantiam^ ani- mitmque SEMPER inimicum reipublicae, jam Credo tibi ex tuorum litter h eJJ'e perjpetfum. He mould have fuid vos affines, viz. Bru- tus and Caffius : which word Dr. Middle- ton hath rightly exprefl in his Verfion. without vos the Senfe is too general, and reaches further than the Author intended it mould, or at lead, than it ought to do ; becaufe Lepidus might have, and without doubt had, many AFFINES whom he did not hate. So in another place fpeaking of the fame Lepidus, Epift. xxiii. p. 182. e& in quo (bello) incolumh imperator, honori- bus ampliffimis fortuni/que maximis, con- juge, liberis, VOBIS affinibus ornatus, etc. which defcription of Lepidus is form'd out of Philippic, xiii, 4. By vos affines, you ivho are related to him by marriage (for that is the fignification of affinis) he means M chiefly 162 REMARKS on the FACTS chiefly Brutus and Caffius. for Lepidus married one of Brutus's Sifters, and CaJJius another, Junta tfertia ; concerning whom fee 'Tacitus at the end of the 3 d Annal. Hence Cicero writing to Cajfius y calls Le- pidus , AFFINIS tuus, in the Epiftle from whence our Author took this whole Paf- fage, Famil. xii, 8. Scelus AFFINIS tui 9 Lepidi, fummamque levitatem et inconftan- tiam, ex affils, quae ad te mitti certofcio^ cognoffe te arbitror. You fee how he en- deavours to difguife the Theft, by putting ex tuorum litteris inflead of Cicero's ex affis; and credo ejje perfpe&um inflead of his cognoffe te arbitror. But the new Sen- tence which he adds out of his own Stock, animumque SEMPER INIMICUM reipub- llcae^ is directly contrary to what Cicero himfelf fays of Lepidus in another place, Philipp. V, 14. Atque etlam M. Lepido pro ejus egregiis in remp. mentis decernendos honor es quam ampliffimos cenfeo. SEMPER ille populum Romanum LI BE RUM vo/uif, etc. that is, SEMPER AMicusfutfretpub- licae -, the fame who here is SEMPER INI- MICUS. I know what regard is to be had to thefe Occafional Characters of Men which are fometimes given by Cicero in his Ora- tions -, of the EPISTLES, fc. 163 tioris ; concerning which he Himfelf fays, Orat. pro A. Cluentio c. 50. errat vebemen- ter Ji quis in Orationibus noftris, quas in judiciis habuimus y aufforitates noftras con- Jignatas fe habere arbitratur. omnes enim illae Or at tones, cauffarum, et temporum Jitnf, etc. but then I know too, that Cicero could not have had fo little regard to Com- mon Senfe, as to have drawn Two fuch Inconfiftent and Contradictory Characters of One Man as never were rue, nor can be, of any One Man in the- World. For it is impojjible in Nature, that the fame Perfon^ of whom it is faici on the Firfl of January (when the V th Philippic was fpo- ken) SEMPER pop. Horn. LIBERUM (effe) voluzf, mould on the xi th of April follow- ing, (about which time this Letter is fup- pofed to have been written) or indeed at any other time, be faid to have had ani~ mum SEMPER INIMICUM re'ipiiblicae^ let him have chang'd his Principles or Prac- tice ever fo much in the mean time, for if the Laft fentence were true, the Firfl could not be fo j and vice verja : as >um- ////tftf juftly obferves, Lib. xii, i. cogitare optima Jimul ac deter rima non magis ejl mi us animi, quam ejufdem bomiris bonum effe ac M 2 malum. 164 REMARKS on the FACTS malum. Either of the two contrary Pro- pofitions may be true j but it is imporfible that both of them mould be fo in a Matter of Fat. If Cicero had publimed a Piece in which he had faid that Scipio Nafica, or any other Perfon, *was ALWAYS amofl EXCEL- LENT Citizen-, and four Months after had publimed another, in which he mould fay, that the fame Scipio Nafica was ALWAYS a moft PERNICIOUS Citizen j we might juftly look upon him as a very Idle and Frivo- lous, or rather a Mifchievous Writer, not worthy to be regarded in any thing he faid, tho' he mould in a *Tbird piece declare that he did not intend that the Firft Cha- racter of Nafica mould be look'd upon as True. Into fuch an Abfurdity hath this Author fallen by putting in unneceflarily the word femper here, and overlooking it In That pafllige of the v th Philippic : which is the more mameful in him, becaufe the Philippics arc one of his chief Magazines from whence he draws the Materials and Supplies of his Forgeries. But I have ftray'd from my main purpofe of quoting this paiTage of the iii d Epiflle j which was, to take notice (as Mr. Tunftall has done before me, Epift. p, 230.) of the Figure of the EPISTLES, Cfr. 165 rfioreay, or Anticipation of 'Time, which this Author frequently makes ufe of ; but remarkably here, where in a Let- ter written on the xi th of April he men- tions Marcus Lepiduis Hatred of his Bro- ther Paulus as a thing well known at that time, whenas the Cauje of this Hatred was not in Being, that we know of, till the 3 th of y une, when Paulus was the Firft who in the Senate voted Marcus to be an Enemy to his Country ; and the Effeff of it did not appear till the 27 th of November, when Marcus being of the Triumvirate, fet Paulus down (or juffered him to be let down, M. Seneca Suafor. vi.) the Firft in the Catalogue of the pro/cribed. This is writing backwards, cacumen radlcis loco po- ms. And indeed if this Author at his firft fetting out had advertifed his Reader, that in thefe Epiftles he intended frequently to write as if he began this Year (U. C. 710.) on the loft day of December, and ended it on the fir ft of January ; we mould have been much better able to account for fe- veral difficulties of this prepofterous and /'- verted kind, than we are at prefent from the ordinary way of reckoning. It cannot Indeed be denied that there might po/Kbly O L *U * M 3 be i66 REMARKS on the FACTS be a remarkable Hatred between the Two Brothers at the fuppofed time of the wri- ting of this Letter : and if there were no reafon to call in queftion the Author's Credit, or if the Fad: were confirmed by any other writer of undoubted Authority, the thing would be admitted without any fcruple. but fince both thefe Circumftances are wanting here, it may reafonably be fufpe&ed, that the Author of this Epiflle, knowing that Marcus Lepidus did, Jbme time or other, hate his Brother Paulus, might catch at the Faff, without confider- ing the rfime. Which I take to be the cafe Epift. xv. p. 96. Sed redeo addccronem. Quid infer Salvidienum et eum inter eft ? ^uid autem amplius ille decerneret ? Our Modern Bru- tus by his manner of expreffing himfelf in this place, quid autem amplius ille DECER- NERET, has betray M his Ignorance either in the Language of Antiquity, or in the hifrory of Sahidienus. for decernere (i. e. decernendum cenfere) is a word which is properly ufed concerning the Senate, or a Senator, but it unluckily happens that Sal- mdienus was not a Senator (and confe- .quently had nothing to do with decreeing) 4 till of the EPISTLES, &c. 167 till a confiderable time after the Death of Brutus, the fuppofed Writer of this Let- ter, for Dio Lib. xlvii. ipeaking of Salvi- dienus, fays, that Caejar raifed him to Jo great honour, as that he was Conful De- iign'd before he had been a Senator *. now this Defignation happened tijbree years, at Jeaft, after the date of this Letter, and Tivo years after the true Brutus was dead, but that he muft mean the word decerne- ret in the fenfe of Senatorial decreeing, is evident, becaufe he is comparing Sahidie- nus to Cicero in the very matter of decree- ing, which, as I faid before, belonged to Senators : and thefe words, quid autem am- plius ille DECERNERET, anfwer and are oppofed to thofe above which relate to Ci- cero as a Senator, immo triumphus et Jli- pendium DECERNITUR (fcil. a Cicerone), et omnibus DECRETIS ornatur : which too is a curious piece of Latin : tho' indeed the MSS vary there. The truth is this : The Sophift knew (for it was impoffible s Xylander's Verfion (for I have not the Greek Text by me) is this, p. 378. ed Francofurt. 1592. eumque (Salvidienum) Caefar ad id dignitath evexe- rat, ut conful, quum Senator numquam fuijftt, defig- naretur, M 4 that 168 REMARKS on the FACTS that Brutus fhould know it) that Sahidie* nus was, forne time or other, defign'd or created Con/ul by Offavianus ; and, as fuch, had a right to decree or vofe in the Senate, but at what time^ whether before or after the Death of the perfon whom he introduces as fpeaking of Sahidienus y let Pedants and Chronologers look to that. If it be faid, that in the abovementioned pafTage after the word decerneret we are ito fupply from the fenfe, fi pofiet ; ct what < more would Salvidienus decree, if it f ( werg i n fa s power : " I anfwer, that he mutt be an exceeding Bad Writer who gives the deicription of a perfon by a word which plainly and openly denotes him to be a Senator ; and then leaves it to us to underfland fomething from which we are to gather that he was not a Senator. Seneca De Clement, i, 9. juft mentions this Sahidienus, but upon no other account than his being put to death by OffavianUs. in Appian. Bell. Civ. lib. V. p. 1127. ed. Toll, you have an account of his crime. Marcus Seneca Suafor. ii. tells a Story of one 'Thufcus, a Declaimer of his Age, whom he calls fatuum bijloricum^ an hir florical blockhead, from this abfurd con- found- of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 169 founding of Times. This tfkujcus was to declaim upon the noted Theme, Whether the 300 Spartans at the Streights of Ther- mopylae, mould retire, or wait for Xerxes. His Side of the Queilion was to exhort them to flay, and he gives this reafon for it : Expcffemus, fi nibil aliud, hoc ejfetfuri, ne infokns Bar barns dicat, Veni, Vidi, Vici: Let us tarry : for if we gain nothing elfe, there will be at leafl this advantage in our Stay, that the infolent Barbarian will not have it in his power to Jay, Veni, Vidi, Vici. The whole Audience knew that this was the expreffion of Julius Caefar upon his defeat of Pbarnaces King of Pon- tus, feveral hundred years ajter the time of Xerxes. I will mention but one more Inftance, and then refer the Reader to the above- mentioned Piece of Mr. ^imftall, where he will meet with full fatistaction upon this Head. Epiftle x. p. 64. Cicero is fig- nifying to Brutus his defire, that his Son > young Cicero ', who was now abroad, and fuppos'd to be with Brutus, might be e- lecled into the College of Priejls at Rome. this, he tells Brutus, he imagines may be done., becaufe there is a precedent for it: Caius 170 REMARKS on the FACTS Caius enim Marius, cum in Cappadocia eflet, kge Domitia faffus eft Augur : for C. Marius 'was made Augur by the Domi- tian law, while he was in Cappadocia. In the firft place, the Circumftance of Ma- riuss being made Augur in his abfence in Cappadocia^ has of itfelf very much the look of a Fiction of our Author, becaufe it does not appear from any Authentic Wri- ter that Marius was fo made : and, fe- condiy, Manutius mows from a paffage of Cicero (ad Attic, ii, 5.) that it was not the ufual Method, in the Augurate, to elect a perfon who was abjent : which is a good Argument till an Inftance can be brought to the Contrary. But, thirdly, the Fic- tion feems to be more clearly evinced by what he adds, lege Domitia, by the Domi- tian Law. For this Law was made A.U.C. 650. in which year Marius was Conful the fhird time. Veil. Pater culus ii, 12. fpeak- ing of Marius : 'Turn multiplicati conjulatus ejus. tertius in apparatu belli conjumptus : quo anno, Cn. Domitius *rib. pleb. legem tulit, ut facer dotes , quos ante a collegae fuffi- ciebant) populus crearet. But it appears from an Antient Roman Infcription, cited by Sigonius in his Fafti Confulares p. 231. that of the EPISTLES, &c. 171 that Marius was Augur before his Second Confulfhip, A. U. C. 649. at which time, for ought we know to the contrary, he might have been Augur fome years, con- fequently, he could not be made by the Domitian Law. Part of the Infcrip- tion, as far as relates to our purpofe, is this: C. Marius Pr. Tr. pi. ^ AUGUR Tr. Mil. ex. for tern bellum cum lugurtha regc Numid. vet procof. geffit : eum cepit, et triumphant in Jovis aedem SECUNDO CON- SUL A T u ante cur rum fuum ducijuffit. This might feem decifive againft Marius's being .created Augur by virtue of the Domitian Law: efpecially in Giappadocia, v/hitl^r'it does not appear that he went till after his Sixth Confulfhip : and it is very impro- bable that he mould not be created Augur before that time, not to mention, that at the time of Marius's going into Cappadocia, he was out of favour with the Electors in- to the Augurate, the People ; who, con- trary to his mod earneft endeavours, were determined to recall Metellus from that Banimment of which Marius had been the Caufe 5 to avoid the fight of whom, was one great reafon of his undertaking that yoyage. See Plutarch in Mar. p. 423. and Epitotn. 172 REMARKS on the FACTS Epitom. Lilian, lib. Ixix. But this Author knew from Plutarch that Marius was, ibme' time or other, in Cappadoda : and when he had got him at fuch a diftance from home, he thought he might fafely do what he pleas'd with him. But if none of thefe Objections were of any weight, there is, Fourthly, another circumftance which would make it very improbable that Cicero was the writer of this Epiftle. for it is not likely that Cicero^ in order to prove the Legality of an abfent perfon's being elected into a minor Priefthood, mould inftance in the Augur at e^ one of the high- eft Dignities, and in^Marius, an inftance of three/core years ftanding, when, as Mr. Tun/tall has obferved (Epift. ad C. Middkton, p. 244. and Obfervat. p, 335.) out of Veil. Paterculus ii, 43. there was a precedent adapted precifely to his purpofe, and in his own knowledge and memory, viz. "Julius Cae/ar y who was actually e- lected minor priefl in his abjence : con- cerning the time of which fee Mr. WeJJe- ling Obfervat. ii, 18. Nothing can be more unlike to Cicero than fuch an im- proper allegation. But what could a poor Author do in this cafe ? He had not feen Veil tf the EPISTLES, &c. 173 Veil. Pater culus, the Copies of whom, at the time thefe Letters were written, in all probability were very fcarce j nor could he meet with in Hiftory an inftance to his purpofe : and being determined within himfelf to make young Cicero, then abjent, a Candidate for a Priefthood, and having refolved that it mould be fo j if he could notfwd^Lfrscedfnf, nothing remain'd but to make one, right or wrong, and in fpite of Hiftory, Cuicom, Probability, or Poffi- bility, to create Marius, in Cappadoc'ut^ an Augur , by the Domitian Law. and if you provoke him, fince his hand is in, lie will in the Sentence next to this which I an> fpeaking of, make a New Law of his own, namely, the LEX JULIA de Sacerdotiis : concerning the Words of which Law, Qui petit, cujufue ratio habebitur^ I have al- ready fpoken, p. 56, 57, &c. Let us now fum up the main part of our Evidence upon this Second Head, The true Cicero in two places calls Shales the t mjtft of the Seven Wife men : this Cicero. gives that Title to Solon. He tells Brutus^ that he does not think it necdTary to fend him an account of Tiw Letters which were read in the Senate, becaufe he believes his 174 REMARKS on the FACTS his other Friends had already done it : and neverthelefs, in the fame Epiftle, he gives Brutus a particular account of the Iwo Letters. Brutus is appreheniive that Ci- - cero will blame him for giving the name of Citizens to certain perfons: whenas Cicero himfelf, in the very Letter which Brutus is then anfwering, had given the fame name to thofe very Perfons. Brutus exprefles his great joy at the circumftances of his Friends Deci- mus Brutus and the Two Confuls at the Battle otModena : whenas the Two Confuls were kilfd. Cicero in thefe Epiftles fays that Pan fa didfagere, or run away, at the Bat- tle of Modena : the true Cicero, and all Hiftory, fay that he was carried out of the field upon the account of his Wounds. He fays that Lepidus, after his junction with Antony^ was carrying on a moji foarp war by Land and BY SEA : of which laft cir- cumftance there is not the lea ft probabi- lity, nor any mention or hint in Antient Hiftory. Brutus fays, that Antijlius Fetus had fupply'd him with about Sixteen Thou- fand pounds of his (Vetuss) OWN money : whereas it appears from Plutarch, out of whom very probably this account was ta- ken, that it was the PUBLIC money. Cicero of the EPISTLES, &c. 175 Cicero tells Brutus that Lepidus had ani- mum SEMPER INIMICUM reipublicac : the true Cicero fays of Lepidus, in an Ora- tion ipoken but a little more than three Months before the date of this Letter, SEMPER ille (Lepidus] populum Romanian LIBERUM voluit j that 1S, SEMPER AMI- cus Juit reipublicae. Brutus fpeaks of Sahidienus as a Senator : whereas Sa/vi- dienus was not in the Senate till two years after the death of Brutus. Our Author fays that Marius was made Augur in his abfence by the Domitian Law : whereas it feems to appear, that a perfon could not be made Augur in his abjence ; and, that Marius was Augur before the Domitian Law was made. REMARKS [ 176 ] REMARKS O N T H E RE AS O NING O F T H E EPISTLES. SECT. III. WE are now come to the Third Head which was propos'd, viz* our Au- thor's Rea fining and Sentiments : which, in order to a fuccefsful imitation of Cicero, is a matter of much greater delicacy than either of the Two former. For a perfon of an ordinary Capacity, if he has Indujlry and Patience, may furnifti himfelf out of Cicero with Language for the occaiions of forged Epiftles : and if he has common judgment and underftanding, he may and will take care, for the fake of his own Character and Reputation, not to a/Tert any thing as Fatt and Hiflory y which may either be proved to be Falje, or may juftly be REMARKS 0/z^ REASON ING, &c. i\j be doubted of whether it be True. But to Think and to Reajon Ingenioufly and Ju~ dicioufly upon Points of fome Difficulty; to bring forward every thing that may be of fervice to the Caufe, and to keep back every thing that may hurt it 3 to be able to invent, and to introduce into your Subject a Thoufand unexpected and furprizing Thoughts and Incidents either of the lively or of the grave and folid kind, which may either entertain or inftrutt the Reader, and keep him intent and eager to go on ; and to di/pofe all this with fo much Art as that there (hall be no Abfurdity, Contradiction, Inconfequence, or Inconnexion, nor a fin- gle Word that is Idle and does not make to the Purpofe : All this is perhaps no more than a part of what is requiiite to one who would imitate Cicero's perform- ances of the Higher kind, in fuch a man- ner as defer vedly to make his own Wri- tings pafs upon the World for thofe of Cicero, that is, in fhort, he ought to have a very great {hare of that Ingenuity and Good Judgment in Writing which Cicero was fo plentifully pofleft of. But Ingenuity is a wild Gift of Nature, and born with us : whence it frequently appears in Cbil- N dren 178 REMARKS on the REASONING dren and others without any pains of their own, who are Ingenious as it were by chance, and becaufe they cannot help it. but the Good Judgment I am fpeaking of, which has the direction of 'Thinking and "Reckoning juftly and accurately, is the ef- fect and confequence of much Writing and much Elotting-out ; frequent Compa- rifon of our Works with the Bcft Models - y and flridt Qbjervation and Confederation ; which are feldom the attainments of Young Perfons, fuch as I mould judge, from his Performances, our Author to have been. Even Cicero himfelf, in his Younger years, was forc'd to fubmit to the Common Con- dition ; and accordingly has left upon re- cord Two remarkable Inftances of Imma- turity of Judgment. Since I have men- tioned the thing, it may not be amifs to produce the pafTages. The Firft is in his Oration pro P. Quintio cap. xv. Etenim mors honefta Jhepe vitam quoque turpem ex- crnat : vita turpis m morti quidem honejlae locum relitiqurt. For oftentimes an honou- rable Death Jets off even a Jcandalous UJe : but a Jcandalous Life does not leave roomjor even an honourable Death. The latter part flatly contradicts and deftroys what he had advanc'd of the EPISTLES, &c. 179 advanc'd in the former, and yet there is fcarce any thing, tho' ever fo Abfurd, in the Writings of the Antients, which has not found thofe who will defend it, efpe- cially if others have gone before them in finding fault with it. of which number is this paffage. But Graevius with better Judgment allows, that it is a mere Sophi- ftical Round, and Jingle of Words : in all probability an Ovcrfight of the young Au- thor himfelf. The other Inftance is the celebrated one concerning the Punifhment of Parricides, which was received with fo much Applaufe when it was fpoken by Cicero, in the Firft Public Caufe in which he appear'd, pro Sex. Rojcio ^merino cap. xxvi. Etenim quid tarn commune, quam Jpi- ritus vivis, terra mortuis, mare fiuftuanti^ bus, lifus ejetfis ? Ita (parricidae) vivitnf, dum poffimf, ut due ere animam de cock non queant : ita moriuntur, ut eorum ojja ter- fam non tangant : ita jatfantur fiucJibus, ut nunquam abluantur : ita pojlremo ejici-^ untur, ut ne ad jaxa quidem conquiefcanf. For what is fo common, as Breath to thi Living ; the Earth to the Dead ; the Sea to thofe Marce TulliJ to give his opinion again, (as he fays he had already done) and to vote or decree upon the Cafe of C. Anto- nius. what part fhall he now take ? if That of Brutus and Clemency, what be- comes of non relinquam meam ? if That of Severity, which was his own opinion, what becomes of tuam fententiam def en- dam ? In truth, this is exactly what Sene- ca fays, De Benef. vi, 6. jubes me eodem tempore AMARE ^/ODISSEJ QJJERI et GRA.TIAS AGERE : quod natura non re- cipit. and I believe Cicero never had a more difficult Caufe to manage than he would {lave found this to be, had Brutus taken him of //^EPISTLES, &c. 183 him at his word : for fimul flare Jbrbere que haudjacik eft, ir Plant us may be credited. What he meant feems to have been this : I will defend your opinion [in public], but [in my private judgement] will not depart from my own. but he has unfortunately omitted the very words which mould have fav'd him from the Abfurdity. The hint of the Sentence was perhaps taken from this Ad Attic, vii, 6. Dices, ^uid tit igitur Jenfurus es ? Cicero anfwers, Non idem quod diffurus. SENT i AM enim omnia facicnda ne armis decertetur : DIG AM idem quod Pompeius. But this Blunder might almoft be forgiven for the fake of the beautiful paiTage which follows it : Ciceronem me um, mi Brute, ve- lim quam plurimum tecum habeas. Vir- tutis dijciplinam meliore?n reperiet nul- lam, quam contcmplationcm atque imitatio- nem tui. which is very well imitated from Famil. i, 7. at the end of the Epiftle : Lcn- t ulum noftrum, ' eximia Jpe Jummae virtutis adolejlentem, cum ceteris artibus, quibus Jluduljli femper ipft, turn in primis imita- tione tmfac erudias. null a enim erit hac praeftantior difciplina. The expreffion yirtutis dijciplinam is ufed by Cicero De N 4 Offic, 184 REMARKS on ^REASONING Offic. ii, 2. and quoted out of him by Lac* tantim Inftit. iii, 13. The above mention'd p..flage brings to my mind another relating to the fame fub- ject, Epift. xiv. p. 90. where Cicero fays to Brutu.s : illam diftinSlionem tuam nullo pacto probo. fcribis enim^ Acrius prohiben- da bella civilia efle, quam in fuperatos IRACUNDIAM exercendam . Vehementer a te, Brute, dijjentio. nee clementiae tuae con- cedo : Jed falutaris feveritas vmcit inanem fpeciem clementiae. Brufus's opinion, we fee, was a very Rational one, tc That we ought " to be more diligent beforehand in pre- < venting Civil Wars, than afterwards in. " exerting iracundia (revenge) upon thofe petrare DEBEO. The Firft Reafon is, Be- caufe of their private Friendship : which is a very good one. The Second, Becaufe, fetting afide private Friendihip, Cicero is a Perfon of Confular Dignity. What Cicero's Confular Dignity has to do with the De- fence of a fnafor*k Children, it is difficult to apprehend. The Argument feems to me to be of the fame validity as if he had faid, Becaufe, fetting afide private Friend- fhip, you are about fix ty three years old, and were born atArpinum. If indeed it be of any weight on either fide, I (hould think it makes of the EPISTLES, Gfr. 189 makes againji Brutus, rather than for him : becaufe, it might be faid by an Adverfary with fome mow of Reafon, That Cicero ', as being a Perfon of Confular Dignity, and of fuch Eminence and Confequence in the Republic, ought not to patronize the Chil- dren of a Traitor to the State, were it only on account of the Bad Example. Certain- ly if the Argument be of any force, it reaches all the Perfons who at that time were of Confular Dignity, as much as it does Cicero ; becaufe private Friend/hip is here thrown out of the queftion by Brutus's own pofition, remotd necejfitudine privatd : and then, there remains nothing but the Confular Dignity ; which was common to many others as well as Cicero. If the paf- fage be diflinguimed thus, vel a Con/ulari y tali viro (remota necejfitudine private) im- petrare debeo ; and by tali viro be under- flood Lepidus, fo as to make Brutus give this Reafon, That he ought to obtain this from Cicero, a perfon of Confular Dignity, for Lcpidus (tall viro) who likewife is a perfon of the fame Dignity ; flill it will be very bad and inaccurate Writing, and lia- ble to many objections. Epift. r po REMARKS on the REASONING Epift. xvii. p. 1 1 8. there is another paf- fage relating to Lepidus's Children, con- cerning whom Cicero fays : Nee verb meju- git quam s i T acerbum, par entium feeler a filt- er um poems lui. Sed hoc PRAECLARE legibus comparatum ejl y ut caritas liberorum amid- ores parentes reipublicae redderet. If it really I s hard or cruel that Children (hould fuffer for the Crimes of their Parents, can it juftly be faid that this is PRAECLARE legibus comparatum, WISELY contrivd by the Laws ? One would rather think that it (hould have been, quam VIDEATUR acer- bum, how hard it SEEMS to be. at lead our Author mould have faid fo, becaufe in an- other place, Epift. xxi. p. 156. I find him making this Diftinction, and vindicating the Laws, in this very matter, not only from the reality of Cruelty, but even from the femblance of it : in qua (fententia) vi- DETUR illud ejje crudele, quod ad liberos, qui nihil meruerunty poena pervenit . Sed id et antiquum e/t, et omnium dvitafum : Ji- quidem etiam T'hemiftoclis liberi eguerunt* He has nothing for it but to fay that there is no Difference between ejje and widen. The celebrated xv th Epiftle, (p. 94*) which contains Brutus's complaint to At- 2 ticus of the EPISTLES, &c. 191 ticus concerning Cicero's Political Conduct, fets out unfortunately : Omnia feciffe Cice- ronem OPTIMO ANIMO fcio : I know that Cicero has done every thing with the BEST INTENTION, the Reafon follows : quid enim mihi exploratius etc. that is, Becaufe I cannot be better ajfur'dof any thing than I am of his difpofition towards the Republic. Say you fo ? whence comes it then, that below (p. 100.) Cicero is charg'd with a defign of fetting up Young CaeJ'ar for Lord and Mafter of the Republic in the room of Antony ? Quid enim nojlrd^ viflum ejje Antonium, fi viffus eft ut alii vacaret quod ille obtinuit ? Is this confident with Cicero's optimus animus towards the Republic ? Or this, p. 96. to the fame purpofe : quod hoc mihi prodeft, Ji merces Antonii oppreji pofci- tur in Antonii locum fuccej/io ? * A Tyranny and a Free-State are not more inconfiflent with * The next Sentence is this : et fi vindex ijlius mali, auflcr exftitit alterius^ fundameniwn et radices babituri alttores, fi patiamur ? Which is fomewhat like to this Epift. xi. p. 72. Nunc, Cicero, nunc hoc agendum eft, ne fruftra opprtjjum ejje Arionium gaviji Jimus ; neu femper priml atjufque mali excidendt cauja Jit, ut aliud (malum) rcnafcatur illo pejits. I fuppofe he would huve fuid majus inftead of tjus. for malum PEJUS 192 REMARKS on the REASONING? with each other than Cicero'* beft intentions are with thefe Sentiments, and fome others in this Epiftle : particularly this, p. 98. et dum (Cicero) habeat a quibus impetret quae velif, et a quibus colatur ac laudetur^ fervi- tutem, honor ificam modo^ non afpernatur. Think again, Brutus, whether it be pojfi- bk y that Cicero could have the beft inten- tions to Freedom^ and at the fame time no Objection to Slavery. Epift. xxiii. p. 182. Haec enim (pecunia) folvi poteft j et ejl rei familiaris jaffiura tole- rabilis : reipublicae quod Jpoponderis quern- admodum fohes, nifi is dependi FACILE pa- titur pro quo Jpoponderis ? The latter part PEJUS is malum MAGIS MALUM. and tho' it be found in Seneca's Medea^ yet probably it is faulty there, becaufe that Author in feveral other places has majus malum. After the word excldendi^ Dr Mid- dleton inferts ratio. I fhould rather choofe to fupply the word omijjto : if it be not an overfight of the Au- thor himfelf; which is not impoflible. Be that as it will, the fenfe of the former pafTage, et ft vindex iftius mali etc. feems to be borrowed from Plutarch^ Compar. of Demojlb. and Cic. p. 888. where he fays, sy^aipE % B^BTO?, lyKahw etc. Brutus in bis writings, (probably his Epijlles) accufed Cicero of having nurid up a greater and more grievous Tyranny than That which They (Brutus and his accomplices) had put an end ts, Of of the EPISTLES, Gfc. 193 of the fentence is partly borrowed from Epift. ad Famil. i, 9. niji cum Marco fra- tre diligent er egeris, DEPENDENDUM tibi eft quod mihi PRO ILLO SPOPONDERIS. There is fcarce any One expreffion more frequently to be met with in Cicero than facile pati. he ufes it perhaps the beft part of an hundred times in different places in his Works ; but more efpecially in his Epiftles. It fignifies, readily or willingly to confcnt to, or, to acquiefce in, any thing. I will produce only Two Inftances, which may illuftrate the expreffion. Ad Attic, xvi, 1 6. in the fecond Epiftle to Plancus : id tu ws obtinuifje non modb FACILE patiare, fed ftiam GAUDEAS. And xiii, 33. audire me FACILE paffus fam: fieri autem, MO- LEST E FERO. The firft Inftance deter- mines the Extent of the Phrafe, and fhows it to-be lefs than gaudere : the latter (hows its Oppoiite, which is molejle ferre, or mo- lejle pati, as in the Orat. pro S. Rofcio c. x. and elfewhere. Let us now fee what our Author makes of it : For Money, fays he, may be paid ; and the lofs of it is no great matter : but bow can you pay what youjland cngagd for to the Republic , unle/s be, for pu arc engagd, WILLINGLY fufer O it J94 REMARKS on the REASONING it to be paid ? Yes, you may ; if he fuffer it to be paid UNWILLINGLY, and there- fore difficile or difficulter would have done as well here v&jacile. For what is it to the purpofe, whether it be paid facile or dijjicul- ter, willingly or unwillingly, readily or with reluffance, provided it be but paid? He might as well have faid, " Unlefs he, for whom c you are engaged, fiiffer it to be paid before ut one Propolition inftead of another, te- cumque adducas^ inftead of, et ipfe venias. The feeming occaiion of which Blunder is ridiculous enough. He knew that if Bru- tus brought young Cicero WITH HIM, Brufusmuft needs comehimfelf: and there- fore, fmce the Tubing was the fame, it was all one how it was Expreft, whether by et ipfe not Valerius from Cicero. For there was time enough for the Forgery of this Oration between Val. Maximum and Ajco~ nius Pcdianus, the fir ft Author who quotes it as Cicero'*. For Valerius wrote towards the end of Twir&i's Reign, iuppofe about the year U. C. 786. three years before the Death of that Emperor, but Ajconius, as I fa id before, probably did not write thefe Notes upon Cicero till towards the year U. C. 812. So that the Forger of this Ora- tion De Ilaruj'picum Refponfis might bor- row this Sentence from Valerius, and pub- lifli this piece under the Name of Cicero ; and before A/coniiis wrote his Annotations it might have been received as the Work of Cicero. For at that time nothing was more common than this kind of Frauds ; and the Z 2 Age 340 REMARKS 0/z /&" ORATION Age was fo far gone in Indolence, and the neceflary confequence of it, Ignorance, that the Declaimers impofed upon it juft what they thought fit, without any Danger of being detected, as Marcus Seneca, who lived about that time, complains in Prooem. Lib. I. Cont rover/jar urn : Scntentias a difer- tijfimis viris faff as y facile, in tanta homi- num defidia, pro fuis dicunt. and foon after he fays, That the moft famous and great Declaimers (all whom he had heard) either left nothing behind them in writing ; or, which was worfe, the Pieces which then pafs'd under their Names, were forgeries : Fere enim aut nulli commentarii maximorum Declamatonim extant -, aut, quod pejus eft, F ALSI. And what further drengthens the Sufpicion that this Author had been dab- bling in Valerius Maximus, is a paflage in Orat. pro Domo fua cap. 38. Sp. Melii, regnum *abpetentis, domus eft complanata. Ec- quidaliud? aequum accidijje Melio populus Romanus judicavit, nomine ipfo Aequimelii : Jlultitia pocnd comprobata eft. Val. Maximus vi, 3. i. in the Chapter De Severitate, after he had fpoken of the Crime of Sp. Cajjius, adds his Punilhment : Senatus enim popu- lufque Romanus, non contentus capitali eum fupplicio DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 341 fopplicto Aequimelii appellationem traxit ; as itValerius had faid that the place had its name from thzjuft ^punifliment of Melius. and then, bccaufe juflum and ae- quum are often equivalent, hence he took the opportunity of improving upon Valerius^ and inftead of lusjufii, put his own aequi s which would come nearer and make a more plaufible Etymology of Aequimelium. But Valerius knew very well that this was Falfe, as DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 343 as appears from his own words. Forjujti in him has no relation or allufion to the Etymology and Signification of Aequimclium, and only exprefles his own private opinion, as a Narrator, that Metius's punimment was 2ijujl one : The area of his Houje y fays he, had the name o/'Aequimelium, whereby pofierity might be injormed of his punijhment (viz. his Death, and the levelling of his Houfe), 'which was a juft one. So above, in the fame Chapter, fpeaking of the pu- nifhment of Manlius : cujus juftae ultionh nimirum haec fuit praefatio. where juftae in like manner declares the private judge- ment of Valerius himfelf. It is impoffible that this account of the word Aequimelhtm, fo manifeftly Falfe, could come from Ci- cero, but it is the trifling color of a Declaim- er, founded, I believe, upon the miftaken fenfe of Valerius Maximus. Whoever will compare this Chapter of the Oration with that Section of Valerius, will find a great Similitude in the Senfe and Expreflions, and the fame Examples in both. Thus what in Valerius is, Par indignatio civita- tis adversus Sp. Caffium erupit, in the Ora- tor is, Sp. CaJJii domus. ob eandem caitjjam ever/a. In the former, in fob autem ae- j /' Z 4 dem 344 REMARKS ^ORATION dem Telluris fecit : in the latter, in eodem loco aedes pojlta T'eUuris. In the former, M. Flacci et L. Saturnini corporibus trucidatis, penates ab imis fundament is eruti jiint : in the latter, M. Flaccus et Sena- tus fententid eft inter fectus, et ejus domus everfa et publicata eft. Then "immediately follows in the former, Ceterum Flacciana area, cum diu penatibus vacua manjijjet, a Q^Catuh Cimbricisjpoliis adornata eft : as it follows immediately in the latter, in qua [here his pen nipt -, he meant, and mould have written, in cujus area] porticum pojl ahquanto >i{. Catulus de mamibiis Cimbricis fecit. Here is a manifeft Borrowing on one fide or the other : and let any body judge whether it be likely that Cicero could write this laft mentioned piece of nonfenfe, and put in qua domo for in cujus domus area. Cap. xi. An^ fi ludius conjlitit, aut tibicen repente conticuit^ ant puer ilk patrimus et matrimus fi terrain non tenuit^ aut thenfam aut lorum omifit ; aut, ft aedilis verbo, aut flmpulo aberrant, hidi funt non rite facJi, eaque errata expiantur, et mentes Deorum immortalium ludorum inftauratione placan- tur : etc. Arnobius adv. gentes Lib. iv. p. 148. DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 34^ 1 48 . Lugd. Eat. 1651. In ceremoniis ve/trts rebufque divinis poftulicnibus locus eft y et piaculi dicltur contratta effe commiflio, fiper imprudmtiae lap/tun, ant in verbo quifpiam, aut Jimpuvio deerrdrit^ aut Jl cur fit in Jb- lennibus htdis^ curriculifque diuinis : corn- mi fj urn omnes ftatim in religiones clamatis fa- cras y Ji ludius conftitit, aut tibicen repente conticuit : aut ft patrimm ille qui vocitatur puer omifit per ignorantiam lorum^ aut ter- ram tenere nonpotuit. The paiTage of dr- nobius is plainly taken from the Oration, but not quoted by him as Cicero s : and therefore proves nothing more than that the Oration was more antient than Arnobius^ which no body denies. But this is no more a proof of its being written by Cicero p , than by Hortenflus or Curio, tho' I allow that in Antobtufs time it might be read as Cicero's, and very probably he might look upon it as fuch. Cap. xii. id cum ipfum s i B I monjlrum eft, etc. A genuine Roman would have Written ipfum PER SE monjlrum eft : as this Author himfelf does cap. 1 7. hoc quid fa, PER SE ipfum non facile interpreter. Cicero De Legg. iii, 14. eft magnum hoc PER SE ipfum 346 REMARKS on the ORATION ipfum malum. Can this be the writing of a Native of Rome? For if the Author thought that fibi might be ufed here as it is in the noted paflage of 'Terence ', juo SIBI bunc jugulo gladio , he miflook the matter widely. Cap. xiii. ne hoc qiddem tibi in mentem venicbat, Sibyllino facer dot i, haec J'acra ma- jor es nojlros ex veftris libris expctijje ? Ji Hit funt VEST R i, quos tu impia mente conqui- ris, violatis oculis legis, contaminatis mani"- bus ctttreffas. Did it never Jo much as en- ter into the thoughts of Ton who are one of the Quindecemviri appointed to injpeff the Writings of the Sibyls, that our Ancejlors took thefe Sacred Games out cfyour Books? if thoje are YOUR Books, ORATION the ufe of Language, and transfers to the Agent what belongs to the Patient ; oculi violatz , inftead of, oculi qui vio/anmf. Could Cicero return from his Grave, and fee fuch things as thefe impofed upon the world for his Writings, what Grief and Indignation would it occafion him ! Ibid. Sed ut ad haec harufpicum refponfa rede, am : ex qui bus eft primum de Ludis : quiz uirit. poft red. cap. v. Cap. xv. quo puhinari? quod ftupraras. This I believe is Latin of his own Inven- tion. For Jluprare, as far as I can find, is always joined to Perfons (v&Jluprare ma- tronas > virgines, pueros, etc.) never to i Things. 350 R E M A R K s on the O R A T I o N things. He mould liave written, cuijin- prum intuleras, out of the Orat. / P//3/7. cap. 39. e mi flits etlam ille auclor tints provinciae, cum ftuprum Bonae Deae pulvinaribus intu- liflet : as he himfelf writes above, cap. v. qui pulvinaribus Bonae Deae ftupruni intu- lerit. and pro Domo cap. 40. ftupro polluit (not ftupravit) ceremonias. Cap. xviii. An tibi luminis obefj'et caecitas plus, quarn libidinis ? I mentioned this be- fore, as a mafter-piece of nonfenfe. He Would have faid , Could A B s E N c E (or want) of Light been more hurtful to you than ab- ienee of Luft ? i. e. Would it not have been better for you to have been blind ^ than out vtLuJl to have been guilty of fuch an impious action ? But fuppofing caecitas lu- minh may fignifie (as I am pretty lure it cannot) abfence oj light y yet I am certain that caecitas libidinis can no more fignifie abfence of lujl than caecitas divitiarum can fignifie poverty or abfence of riches. In the fentence which goes before, Quis E N i M ante te J'acra ilia vir fciens viderat, etc. I fhould be glad to know what may be the defign of enim y and what is to be proved. Here is a clear inftance of great Weaknefs of DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 351 of Head in this Writer, in the foregoing words, inftead of, ut opinio illius religionis t/}, he mould have pat, ut FALSA opinio illius, etc. and then the Reafoning would have been good, >uis ENIM ante te Jacra. ilia vir fciens viderat, ut quijquam poenam, quae fequeretur illud fee/us, fcire pojfet ? and fo he writes pro Domo cap. 40. con- cerning this very thing: Ex quo intelligitur, multa in vita FALSO homines opinari ; cum ille^ qui nihil viderat fciem quod nefas effef, lumina ami/it ; etc. rather amiferit y becaufe of cum ; and^f converja, juft after, inftead- of eft coK-verfa. In the fentence which fol- lows this I am upon, fpeaking viApp. Clau- dius Caecus^ he calls his eyes, connivc?ites oculos : which is very Improper, or rather Falfe. For connivenies oculi are thofe which are fometimesyZv// and fometimes open, now this Appius was totally blind, and his eyes were always (hut. but contivvert\ to ivink, does not fign-ine to be blind. Tliis Author's -.ip.ce or AfFtdation mifleads him pi- ly. The latter was ftrongly upon him i he wrote cap. xx. quod Dii omen < T ! inftead of avert ant ^ as Cicero >;s. fee Philipp. iii, 14. pro Mu- raena 352 REMARKS 072 /^ORATION raenac. 41. and fo in innumerable other places. Ibid. Nam COR FOR is quidem noftri IN- FIRMITAS mult os fubit cafus per fe : deni- que ipfum CORPUS tenuijjlma faepe de caujja de cauffa conficitur. For the infirmity of our body is of itfelf liable to many accidents : laftly, our body itfelf often is dif patched by fome very flight caufe. The fimple quoting of this paiTage is fufficient to {hew the weak- nefs of it. For what is the infirmity of our body, in the firft fentence, but our infirm body : and what is our infirm body but our body itfelf, in the fecond ? But according to this Writer, the Infirmity of our body (which is only an Accident of it) is to be confidered as a Being diftincl: from the Body itfelf. So that Man will confift of tfhree parts, Infirmity, Body, and Soul. The fame lize of Skill in Arguing ap- pears cap. xxii. where he fays, That Clo- diuss manner of aft ing does not fur prize him in the kaft : but that he cannot help being fur prized^ in the firjl place, that men of the great eft characters for Wifdom and Gravity^ ftould readily fuffer one who has deferred Jo well DE HARtfspicuM RESPONSIS. 353 well of the Public as Himfelf hath done, im~ pufiffimi voce hominis VIOLARI, to be HURT by the language of a moji impure fel- low : and in the next place ', he wonders how they can think, that the glory and dignity of 'any man CAN BE HURT y the reviling* of fitch an abandoned and profligate per/on. But take it in his own words, and obferve the polite and nervous repetition of the word fjomo : illos HOMINES fapientijfimos gravijflmojque miror 5 primum^ quod quem- quam clarum H o M I N E M, atque optime de republica faepe meritum, impuriffimi wee HOMINIS violari facile patiuntur : deinde y quod exiflimaht, perditi HOMINIS profliga- tique malediftis pofle, id quodminime condu- cit ipjis y cujufquam gloriam dignitatemque violari. In the firft article of his Wonder, he fuppofes or allows that himfelf i s hurt by C/odius's railings : in the fecond, he fays that he CANNOT BE hurt by them. Gap. xxiii. turn ille qui omnes an- gujtias, omnes altitudines,- omnium objetfa teia, femper vi et virtute perfregit, obfejjus eft ipfe domi. He is fpeaking of Pompey. But perf ringer e altitudines and tela 9 is fo far from the Language of Cicero, that I am A a perfuaded 3 54 & E M A R K s cn rt je ORATION perfuaded Cicero would fcarce have under- flood the meaning of it. Cap. xxiv. Quid exiftimath eum, fi redi- tus el gratiae patuerit, effe fotfurum, qui tarn libenter in opinioncm gratiae irrepat ? This undoubtedly is Falie Latin, for a Roman never fays redire gratiae or reditus gratiae, but redire and reditus in gratiam. De Prov. Confular. cap. 20 iisji qui meum cum inimico fuo reditum in gratiam vitupe- rabunt^ cum ipfi, et cum meo, et cum fuo inimico in gratiam non dubitarint redire. Pro Milon. cap. 32. ipfum ilium qui pot e- rat obftare, novo reditu in gratiam quaji de- uinftum arbitrabatur . Ad Attic, ii, 3. con- junctio mihi Jumma cum Pompeio - y Ji placet etiam cum Caefare ; reditus in gratiam cum inimicis. But there is no need of proving reditus in gratiam to be true Latin j and I believe it 'will be impoffible to prove reditus gratiae to be fuch. Gap. xx vi. Quae funt occultiora quam tjits etc. The Senfe and Reafoning of this place I have examined above, p. 204. Cap. xxviL DE HARUSPICUM RESFONSIS. Cap. xxvii. far urn templum inflamma'uit Dearum, quarum ope etiatn aliis inccndiis fubvenitur. Cicero pro Milon. cap. 27. puts it fimply, aedem Nympharwn incendit : and Paradox, iv. aedes Nymph arum manu tua dejiagrarunt. The addition and Improve- ment of this Author, quarum ope ctlam aliis etc. is commendable, if it be certain that this Temple of the Nymphs, which Clodius ieton fire, was a Temple of Water-Nymphs ; there being fo many other Nymphs of dif- ferent Offices and Denominations. Ibid, aut tarn eminentibus canibus Scyl- lam y taniquejejiinis, quibus iftum videtis roftra ipj'a mandentem. Inftead of eminen- tibus the true Reading is imminentibus. It is taken from in Verr. ii, 54. nam ipfum Verrem^ tanium avaritid femper hiante at- que imminenti fuifle. The other part too is an Imitation of in Verr. iii, 11. where Cicero is content with a modeft Metaphor, horum canum quos TRIBUNAL ?neum vides LAM BE RE. But our Author makes Clo- dius 's Hounds more ravenous by far. for they do not lick or gnaw, but even E AT the very ROSTRA. Graevius wasjuftly offend- ed at this : and therefore inftead omahdeto A a 2 ' tern 356 REMARKS on the O R AT ION tern he conjectured lambentem^ as in the paflage laft quoted. But that very Learned man does not feem to have had a true appre- fion of this Writer, whofe Stomach was ftrong enough to digeft Wood, or any thing Harder, had it come in his way. Cap. xxviii. atttforitas principum cecidit : conjenjus ordinum eft divulfus etc : I believe this is all Falfe, and nothing but Common- Place Harangue upon Bad-Times, formed by the Declaimer to be made ufe of occa- iionally in any other Oration, but unfuitably ftuck in here. For Cicero who fpake the Oration for P. Sextius in the fame year (U. C. 697.) in which this is fuppofed to have been fpoken, gives a very different ac- count of thefe matters, cap. 49. Nunc jam nibil eji quod populus a deleftis principibus diffentiat : et dignitate optimi citjuf- que, et univerfae reipublicae gloria dele- ftatur. Therefore the Authority of the principes, or Chief men in the Roman Go- vernment, 'was not loft, and cap. 50. Nunc, nifi me fallit *, in eo jlatu civitas eft, ut y * Upon thefe words Hottomans Note is this : *' niji me fallif] Alibi fie legifle non memini : c< fempcr fie : nifi me animus fallit.'" He had for- gotten Jld dtti<, xiv. 12. fed nos, nifi me fallit, ja- DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 357 jl operas conduffiorum removeris, omnes idem de republica Jen/uri effe irideantur. therefore the good agreement of the Jeveral Orders, or different Ranks of men in the State, was not broken. Ibid, cum quibufdam multis, metuendif- que rebus. This is not an ufual way of Writing, quibu/dam multis, inftead of aliis multis ; as above, cap. v. in quo, cum aliis multis, fcriptum etiarn illud ejl. Neverthe- leis perhaps it may be defended (that this Author and I may part in good humour) by a paffage in the Orat. in Pijbn. cap. iv. collegia, non ea folum quae Senatus jujiulerat, rejlituta-, fed innumerabilia quaedam no'va, ex cmni faece urbis, ac fcrvitio, concitata. where quaedam mull fignifie alia, becaufe the Senfe will not admit of a Diftindlion cebimus. Which expreflion the Author of the Epifllcs of Cicero to Brutus was not ignorant of, Epift. xxiii, p. 184. Maximus auttm, nil! me forte fallit, in re- publica nodus eft, inopia re'i pecuniariae. So pro M. Coelio cap. .19. fed inerat, nifi me propter bmevolen- tiam forte fallebat, ratio et bon'n artibus injlituta, et curd et vigiliis elaborata. And fo it may be taken in Terence Phorm. I, 4. 42. Ego pleflar pendens, nifi quid me fefellerit, fcil. animus : if I am not fomewbat mijlaken, A a 3 after 358 REMARKS on the ORATION after innumerabilia. and if innumerabilia quaedam be right, for the fame reafon per- haps mult a quaedam may be fo. THUS far I have ventured upon my own Bottom, and the Reader may obferve, that the paflages upon which I have made thefe Remarks, are of Two kinds ; Firfl^ fuch as all the MSS. are agreed in : and, Secondly^ fuch as have not been taken notice of by the Learned men who have written upon thefe Orations, nor by others, that I know of. Had I been matter of more Time, I would have brought a larger num- ber of Inftances of the fame fort : but I did not intend to concern myfelf at prefent with this Latter part, nor did I fet about it till the Former was almoft printed off. This I hope will be my excufe for any flips or Inadvertencies of any kind that may have efcaped me. But that I may not feem altogether Singular in finding fo ma- ny objections to, and Difficulties in, thefe Four Pieces, (more, I believe, than are to be found in all the reft of Cicero's Orations put together) I have here fubjoined fome Excerpt a out of the Commentators upon them in Graevius's Edition, Tom. iv. p. DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 359 327, etc. from which it will appear, that thofe Learned Gentlemen had fufficient reafon to doubt, at leaft, concerning thefe Orations, had there not lain in their way a Prejudice which they could not get over. For when, upon the Authority perhaps of Afconius, and the Confent of the Infer ipt ions of the MSS, they had once admitted this Pofition as a certain and undoubted Truth, viz. that " Thefe Orations are Cicero 's;*' all the Abfurdities and Difficulties they met with afterwards, could not, and indeed ought not to hinder them from making this juft Inference, " Therefore the many " and great Miftakes we find in thefe Ora- " tions, agreed in by all the MSS, cannot " be Cicero's, but muft come from fome < { other Hand." whereas, had they taken hold of the Argument by the other End, and hadreafoned thus, " The miftakes we " find in thefe Orations are many and " great, and agreed in by all the MSS : " Therefore perhaps the Orations may not " be Cicero's, notwithftanding the Autho- Ic rity of A/conius, and the Infcriptions of tc the MSS, but may come from fome 11 other Hand:" Had they, I fay, argued in this manner, the Premijfes would have A a 4 been 360 REMARKS /fo ORATION been much more certain, and the Gonclur fion equally juft, becaufe it is undeniably more poffible and probable that ^fconius might be impofed upon by a Forgery, than that Cicero mould make fuch Miftakes as thole which they mention, in which like- wife the copies all agree : and if the Con-r fent of MSS be a good Argument in one Cafe, why fhould it not be fo in another, when all the Circumftances are the fame ? See what was faid above, in the Preface to this Oration. But to come to my prefent Purpofe : in which I mall mention only or chiefly fuch paffages out of the Commen- tators as are agreed in by all the Manu- fcripts : for where there is any Variety in the Reading, I will not charge any thing to this Author, but will fuppofe him to be al- ways in the right, tho' in reality, even un- der this head too, there are feveral places and circumftances that look very ill-favour- edly againft him. I follow the Order of the Orations in which I find them in Grae- vius's Edition. A D QjJ IRITES POST REDITUM. CAP. I. odium in me uno deficeret.~\ Deficeref eil menda. Latinos dixifle, odium in hoc deficit, pro, omne odium conjiimituc. in DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 36? in hoc, credat Apella, non ego. Quomo- do Cicero fcripferit, fine rneliore codice vix invenies. Sententia poflulat fatiaret, aut expkret^ aut tale quid. GRAEVIUS. I fuppofe Graevius wrote fatiarent and ex- pier -ent. The Explication ofdffcefet which he finds fault with, was Gniter's. There can be no doubt but the word deficeret came from the Author's Pen. but what other Latin Writer ever ufed it in the fignifica- tion which the Senfe of this place requires, has not yet been found out. IBID, ejus devotiotiis me effe convitfum laetor^ >uirites.~\ Ita videtur dicere, ejus de- votionis me compotem eile faclum ; id eft, quern ilia devotione fruclum petivi, eum tuluTe me. M AN u T i us. Who partly faw what the Senfe required, but was forced to guefs at the meaning of the Words. The expreliion devotioms convtflum is Latin: fee the Orat. pro P. Sulla cap. xv. But here it is quite wide of all Reafoning and Con- nexion, which ought to have been thus : Quod precatusjum^ ejus compotem me fa- ctum effe laetor, >uirites : not, ejus devo-r tio?iis me e./e conviftum , which is nothing ^o the purppfe. 362 REMARKS on the ORATION IBID, ludl denique, et diis fefti y quid baberent wluptatis, carendo magis inteHexi, quamfruendo.~\ It was very improbably done of .he Author, to make Cicero mention the ludl or Public Games, and the diesfefti, among the things that he found the want of in his Banimment ; iince he declares in feveral places of his Works, that he never took any pleafure in them, fee pro Plancio cap. 27. pro Archia cap. 6. Famil. vii, i. Ad Attic, iv, 8. Manutius in excufe for the Author, fays, " hoc dicit fortaffe temporis Abefl DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 363 Abed fane in codice Drefdenfi TO parvits^ et debet abefle, quod omnes emundtae nans homines mecum teftabuntur, qui hunc lo- cum redte perpendent. etc. GRAEVIUS. This isaveryjuft Criticifrn upon the foolifli word parvus in this place. Neverthelefs, tho' it is certain that this could not come from Cicero, yet it is far from being cer- tain that it might not come from the Au-* thor of this Oration, tempted by the Op~ pofites, aparentibus PARVUS, a wbis CON- SULARIS, C A P. v. in tribunali Aurelio centuriari] Jn Sextiana (c. 14.) hoc fie extulit: pro tribunali Aurelio decuriari : ex quo intel- gitur, et pro idem valere quod in y et decu- riari idem quod centuriari. HOT TOM AN- NUS. This mould be farther enquired into, for I think the Authority of this Writer is not fufficient to prove that decuriari ancj centuriari are of the lame import, or may be put indifferently. In the Orat. pro Do- mo fua cap. v. it is, decuriatos et defcriptos exercitus. CAP. viii. turn fe fuifle miferum^ cum carcrct patrid^ etc.] Hoc quid fit, etquem- admodum 364 REMARKS on the ORATION admodum Oratoris inftituto conveniat, fa- teor me non intelligere etc. HOTTOMAN- NUS. S. Vi&oris (codex), et Pall, ele&iores, Ji careret. Et vero quam magis excutio nexum argument!, tarn minus invenio in hac vulgata. GR UTERUS. I confefs I can- not fee how fi inftead of cum mends the matter. Hotfoman's Conjecture is probable, that the Negative may have been omitted, turn je NON///f^fc mijerum, CAP. ix. malt tneritis, quam optime me- rit i^ referre quod debeas] Male mentis, et of time merit is, nefcio quid fcholafticum prae fe fert, et alienum a majeftate Tul- liana. GRAEVIUS. Here the Copies vary ereatjv, and therefore the Author is to be o w excufed. See Graeviuis Note. IBID, neque id reipublicae repetere ut- cumque necefje ejlj] Hoc quid lit, divinare nunquam potui. etc . HOTTOMANNUS, Haec fateor me non intelligere : ficut etiam n^erito Hottomajwo, Paulh Manutio, haec vifa funt corrupta. Non improbo Paulli conjedluram. GRAEVIUS. Manutiufc Con- jedture is pet ere inftead of repetere. But itill this is fcare intelligible ; much lefs agree- able to the Perfpicuity of Cicero. See too the DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 365 the Notes upon the words which follow fbon after, moxapertelaudatur. upon which Gr li- ter obferves, Equidem in hac oratione rnul- ta fiint mendofa : quae forte MSS librorum collatione purgari poffent. Sed cui otium cxcutere novem, decem, undecim mem- branas? I believe it would have been to very little purpofe, if Gruter had collated and examined as many more Copies as thofe he here mentions, for the Caufe of the ob- fcurity of thefe Orations was not to be fought for in the Miftakes of Tranfcribers, and in Various Le&ions j but in the Head of the Author himfelf. CAP. x. dum anima fpirabo mea.] Forte anima mea eft interpretatio, quae irreplit ex margine, et Cicero fcripiit, dum Jpirabo, aut, dum Juperabo. Sic fane Veteres loque- bantur : non, dum anima fpirabo ; aut ju- perabo^ med. GRAEVIUS, In whofe edi- tion this pafTage (and innumerable others) is badly printed and pointed. Here too is fome variation in the MSS. IBID, in fententia fimpliciter referenda.} Quid fit fententiam referre non intelligo. HOTTOMA.NNUS. Recte quaerit etiam 366 fefcivf ARK s on the OR AT ION Manutius, quid fit refcrre fententiam$ GRAB vi us. He and Hot toman read Je- renda^ from- Conjecture. See what I noted above upon Cap. v. of this Oration, con- cerning this Author's Ufe of Compound Verbs inftead of Simple, whence it is very probable, that referenda is the true Read- ing in this place, and repetere above, cap, ix. and retulijii^ pro Domo cap. 19. in which places Manutius reads petere and tu- Itftij as the Latin Tongue feems to require. POST REDITUM IN SENATU. CAP. 1. in ampliffimo concilio] Senatu. Quaeri tamen poffet, cum Senatores non a populo crea- rentur, fed a Cenforibus legerentur, quid eft, (^odipopuH bcncficio fe in Senatu col- latum dicit ? pofTet autem fubtiliter refpon- deri, nonnullos qui magiftratum adepti ef- fent, quamvis Senatores non effent, tamen jus in Senatu dicendae fententiae habuiffe. HOTTOMANNUS. Hottoman here makes a Difficulty and raifes a Queftion for which there does not feem to be any reafon. For the Right a Roman Senator had to his Seat in the Senate, was ordinarily from his hav- ing born the Office of <=>uaeftor y Aedik, Praetor ; or Con/id : which were called ho- mres, DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 367 nores. and thefe honores were conferred by the People, as Electors into thofe Pofts. fo that a Senator might truly fay that he was placed in the Senate HONORIBUS POPULI Romani j fmce his fitting there was the Confequence of the Honour or Magijlracy into which he had been cbojen by the People , not by the Cenfor. For tho' the Cenfir afterwards allowed or confirmed his Right by calling over his Name in the Roll or Ca- talogue of the Senators, which was termed legere Senatum -, yet the Right itielf of fit- ting in the Houfe, and the actual taking his Seat and Voting in it, was antecedent to that Act of the Cenfor t who could not deny him this piece of Juftice, nor exclude him, unlefs he had fomething to object to him. So that the part the Cenfor acted herein, feems to have been a Matter of Form more than of abfolute and eflentiai Neceffity. and without doubt there were many perfons who for fome time had been Senators to all intents and purpofes, and died fuch, before their Names had ever been call- ed over by the Cenfor. C A P. ii. mihi quam patriae malueram effe fatalem,] Fata/is, et in bona et in mala re dicitur :- 368 R E M A R K s on the O R A f r o iV dicitur : quafi fato et certo Dei decreto ye! falutaris vel exitiojus. Itaque in Catilin. iv. meus y inquit, confulatus ad falutem reipub- licae prope fatalisfitit. Sed quomodo Ci- cero malueram cum illo verbo conjunxit, cum fatalis et voluntarius contraria fmt, ut ipfequoque in Philip, oftendit? etc. H OT- TOMAN N us. This Remark Q{ Hottcman is a very good one : and had he carried it as far as he might have done, and as far as it would go, I think it would have difcovered to him that this could not be the Writing of a genuine Roman, much lefs of Cicero. but when he had once taken it for granted that Cicero was the Author^ he could do no more than wonder , and make the beft of it. I will endeavour to illuftrate his Re- mark. Fatalis, as is obferved by Him, and by Servius upon Virgil Aen. ii. 165, is rSv p'uruv, a word of a middle iignification, and Originally implies any thing that is appoint- ed* decreed by the Fates > which, whether it be Good or Bad> is to be determined by the Adjuncts, hence in Catilin. iii, 4. fatalem bunc effe annum ADINTEKITUM hujus nr- bis atque imperil, and iv, i . fi P. Lentulus fuum nomen, induftus a vatibus, fatale AD ; PERNICIEM reipublicae fore putavit -, cur eg* DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 369 Cgo non laeter meum confulatnm AD s A LU- TE M reipublicae prope fatalem extitijfe? The Oppofite to fatalis is voluntarius, or what is in our (manpower or choice. Philippic. vi, 7. fu'it aliquis fatalis c afus y ttt ita de- earn, quern tulimus y quoquo mo do ferendus fait. nunCj fi quis erif, erit voluntarius. and x, 9. an, cum ilium neceffarium, et fa- talem paene cafum non tulerimus t hunc fe- remus voluntarium ? See too fro Q^Ligario Gap. vi. So then Jat alem and malueram are utterly inconfiftent, lince Choice (malueram) has nothing to do, and has no room in a matter already (fatalem) dec reed by the Fafes or Gods. But befides this primitive and in- different (ignification of fatalis, Ufe has given it another and more extended one, in a bad Senfe ; whereby it denotes any thing decreed by the Fates to the Deftruflion or Death of the Thing or Perfon fpoken of: the reafon of which fee in Muretus upon the Third Orat. in Catilin. cap. i. Thus Li vy lib. xxxix, 5 1 . Flaminini quoque adventum uelut fatalem fibi horrtierat. He is fpeaking of Annibal^ who dreaded the coming of Flamininus to -the Court of Prufias King of Bittynia, as a thing decreed by the Pates to his deJlrucJion. And this (that I may not B b trouble 370 R E M A R K S On the O R A T I O N trouble the Reader with Inftances of a thing every where to be met with) I be- Heve is always the cafe in the wordfatalis when it exceeds its Original and Indifferent Signification, and has the Notion of Dt 7 - f.ruttion or -Death annexed to it. and it is a miftake to think that fatalis, in this latter ufe of the word, is merely the fame as cxitiofus or /eta/is : for it is always more, and lignifies any thing that is deftruffive or deadly, with the addition of, its being decreed by the Fates or Gods, which Decree leaving no room for Choice, it mould feem, that malueram ejfe fatalem, in either Senfe of the vfordjatalis, is an Abfurdity, or In- conliftency in Terms ; and confequently, not the writing of Cicero, or of an Author who was well acquainted with the Latin Tongue, which Ignorance, notified in fo many Inftances, is one Reafon why I think thefe Four Orations weVe written by a Provincial. CAP. iii. clarij/imi conjulisfafcesfrattos\ Apparet P. Lentulum fignificari etc. HOT- TOMANNUS. clarij/imi confulis] QJVIetelli . MANUTIUS. I believe the FadT: is not true either of the one or the other; and that it is DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 371 is either a FicJion or a MJJlake of the Au- thor 5 becaufe it is incredible that neither any Hiftorian, nor Cicero himfelf, who in the Orat. pro P. Sextio cap. 3?., 33, 34, etc. is fo Particular and Circumftantial in recounting each ftep of his recall from Ba- nimment, and of what befel his Friends or Adverfaries in that tranfadtion, mould make mention of fo remarkable an Infult upon one of the Confuls ; or, if he had men- tioned it, at the fame time fliould not have acquainted us whether it was Lentuhis or Metellus who fufFered this Indignity upon his account, For in the preceding year, when the like Outrage was committed upon the Conful Gab'mius, it is related both by Cicero in Pifon. cap. xii. and Dio lib. xxxviii. In the Orat. Ad Qyirit. poft red. cap. vi. tho' he tranfcribes, according to cuftom, the reft of the Sentence out of this, yet in the particular concerning the Conful, he fpeaksmore cautioufly, coxsuLisfafces frangerentur> without any Title or Epi- thet, and ftill leaving it undetermined whe- ther he meant Lentulus or Metellus. It feems very probable, that this Oration be- ing written feveral years after the time of Cicero t the Author might remember, that B b 2 in 372 RE M A R x s on the O R A T i O^N in the Hiftory of thofe Times he had found that Somebody's Fafces were broken \ and not having a diftindt notion of the Seafon, might' transfer to Lentulus or Metellus what in reality happened to Gabinlus. which kind of miftake is no new thing in him, as lean (hew from more Inftances than one. . CAP. vii. Capuaene tc putabas con- futem .e//e, ficut eras eo tempore^] Hoc quid fit fateor me non intelli2;ere. alius fortaife o acutior videbit. etc. HOT TOM ANN us. This paffige I mentioned above, p, 145. 247. CAP. viii. M\ Curius, cujus ego patri quaejlor jut)~\ Valde hie haereo. huic enim Curio, neque confuli, qui confulatum nun- quam geffit, neque provinciam aliquam poll praeturam adminiftranti quaeflor effe Cicero potuit, quem fcimus quaeftorem Sex. Pe- ducaeo in Sicilia fuilTe. MANUTIUS. The only poffible Solution of this difficulty is,. that Mdnius Curius might be adopted by Sex. Peducaeus. Hottman and Pighius have recourfe to this fuppolition. It remains then to foe enquired, whether a Per ion who adopts another for his Son, is ever in Cicero called fimply pater to the 'adopted, without ' W O 1 T DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. -37^ /If fllfM fllif flf'fr any mention or hint of the adoption, as SK, Peducaeus is here- called /#/ micos acccrfit^ quos IN CONSILIO HA-^ BERET. It is likewife to be found in other places of Liiy t and of other Writers. PRO DOMO SUA. CAP. iii. bunc domo et patrid cedere citrafti~\ Pro coegifti. Non memini me fimileni apud hunc locutionem animadvertiiTe. HOTTOMANNUS. I fhould be glad to know whether the like expreffion is to be met with any where elfe -, at leaft, in a Profe- Writer. The ufual Latin wav * of writing is, curajll nt hie cedcrct. and tlio' Cicero pro Sex. Rcfch cap. 36. rightly -fays cum DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 375 aim homitiem Qccidendum (fcil. effe) curavzf, the fame as, ut is homo occideretttr ; yet you cannot proceed in the fame manner here, for, hunc cedendum effe curaflL would * */ / J be nonfenfe. CAP. v, propter varietatem venditorum} Non capio quid lit varietas venditonwi. nullis fidiculis ex his verbis poteft extorqueri fententia quam illis affingit Hottomannm. Sufpicor Ciceronem fcripfiffe, propter ava- ritiam i HARUSPICUM RESPONDS.' 377 r> fT J ' / Jclndl'j non vero provincial. GRAEVIUS. Here is a very fmall variation in lame of the MSS : fo that nothing quite certain ought to be determined againft the Author. Neverthelefs, the Sufpicion of Bad .Latin is exceeding ftrong, both here and in the foregoing Line, conjlitui per Senatum de- cretdlegefanxit. upon which fee the Notes. CAP. xi. quis apud populum Romanum, quis fenatui faepim dixit?] Pro quis apud fenatum. Simile loquendi genus non memi- ni. HOT TOM ANN us. It certainly is not Latin : unlefs when Cicero Ad Attic, iv, 2. fays, diximus apud Pontijices pridie Kal. Q&obres, he might as weM have written, diximus Pontificibus. CAP. xiii.Jinejudicio fenafiis] Quomodo fenatus, cum in Verr. vii. (v, 48.) ita fcri- bat : Quo confugient focii ? ad Senatum de- venienf, qui deFerre fuppliciumfimmt? Non eft ufitatum, non Senatorium. Ergo deftipe- riorum temporum ratione haec intelligenda funt, cum, ut Polybius vi. fcribit, fenatas de rebus capitalists cognsfcebat. HOTTO- MANNUS. When Hottoman fays, that vvhat is 378 RE MARKS on the O R A T i o N is here mentioned of the "Judgement of the Senate is to be underftood of former times j he is evidently miftaken. For the Author is here fpeaking of the Rights of the prefent times , IMC NOB is effe a major i bus traditum : and of thofe of a Free-State at all times, hoc effe deniquc proprium liber ae croitatis, ut nihil de capite civis 3 aut de bonis, fine ju- diciofenatus detrahi poffit. The Objection therefore which Hottoman makes to this pafiage, flands upon the fame footing it did before his Solution. CAP. xvii. ut ter ante magiftrattts ac- cufet quam mulSlam irroget, aut judlcetl\ Inftead of accufet^ Lambin read citct -, be- caufe it was not the bufmefs of a Magiftratc to accufi, but to cite the Party accufed. Upon this Gr uter notes: " Lambinus, magi ft ra- tc tus cltet\ tanquam id ratio et veritas < -probet. contra omnes libros, ideoque in- cc epte." Lambitfs Conjecture was a bold one, and ought "not by any means to have been taken into the Context. But then on the other hand, it was the part of Gruter y r.fter he had made fo free with Lambin^ to (hew by an Inftance, that Cicero might write DE HARUSPJCUM RES PON sis. 379 write in this manner,' and that a Magi/irate or Judge is any where faid to accuje the Criminal. CAP. xvii. liberis^ Otiofum hoc videtur. IVI A N u T i us. I think it may be defended by thispaflage in Verr. iv, 35. ne mine quidtm t in tanto tito, Kberorumque tuorum pericuk, perhorrefcis ? IBID, ne in praedae quidemfocietate man- cipcm aut praedae focium rcperire potuijli] Non adhibere (Graevius meant _ rcperire) potuifti in praedae jbcietate praedae focium ', abfurde dicitur, non eqviidem ore Tulliano, GRAB vi us. for focietate He and Pitboeus read feStione '. inftead of praedae focium ^ Ma- nutius conjectures, praedem focium. IBID, neque pontificem adhibere quern ve/Ies] Pro quemquam velles^ id eft, quem omnes probarent. adhibuifti enim adolef- centem imperitum, novum facedotem, etc. MANUTIUS. Either this Note is very ob- fcare, or Manutius fure is greatly miftaken when he explains qucmquam by quem omnes probarent. I find indeed quem for quem- quam in De clar. Orator, cap. 4 1 . and elfe- where. but quemquam for quem omnes pro- barent, r. ^ *8b R E M A R K S / fed totum * Palatium, Jenatu, equitibus Romants, civi- tate omni, ItalidcunSld, refer turn : and part- ly out of pro Cn. Plancio cap. 3 5. concern- ing the fame matter : Aderat mecum cun~ ft us equefter or do ; quern quidem in cone ioni bus faltator ille Catilinae, conjul t profcriptionis denuntiatione terrebat. From this lait place he has likewife transferred it into the Orat, poft red. in Sen. cap. 1 3 . ^uare cum vide- rem equites Romanos projcriptionis metu ej/e permotos -, etc. CAP. cSz R EM AR K s on the OR AT ION o CAP. xxviii. ant montani~\ Qui illi ex plebe Romana montani^ diftincti a pagans* ? etc. GRAEVIUS. See above, p. 214. CAP. xxxii. mihi makdifti locum cbtinebit ?] Mihi pro in me pofitum vide- tur. HOTTOMANNUS. I believe it is not Latin. CAP. xxxiv. odium retinebat] Fero: fed tenebat ufitatius. MANUTIUS. See upon Ad Quir. poft Red. cap. v. p. 272. and p. 366. CAP. xxxviii. nomine ipfo Aequimelii Jlultitia poena comprobata eft.] Mihi videtur Jlultitia nefcio quo cafu irrepfifle, et Melii^ * ex veftigiis veterum codicum colligo exci- diffe. Num Cicero fcelus et flagitium Me-- Hi, regnum afFedlantis, Jiultitiam vocet? Caecina apud Cic. vi. ad FamiL Epift. 7. Jiultitiam vocat cum quis contra potentes fcribit : fed affeftationem tyrannidis nemo fanae mentis, nedum Tullius, Jiulti- tiam dixerit. Ciceronis manus fuit, nomine ipjb Aequimdii poena ejl comprobata. GRAE- VIUS. This would be an excellent Con- je&ure on a better Writer. But as it is cer- tajn DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 383 tain that Cicero in this place would not have put the word Jlultitia ; fo I think it is as certain that this Writer would. This paf- fage was mentioned before, p. 340. where it is pointed as I believe it came from the Au- thor's Hand, viz. aequiim accidiffc Melio populus Romanics judicarvit (or indicavit) no- mine ipfo dequimelii : Jlultitia poend compro- bata eft. CAP. xl. nimium ejje juperjlitiofum mn oportere.~\ Sufpedhis mihi locus, nam quid eft hoc, nimium ejje juperjlitiofum ? quale eft, nimis avarum et nimis intemperantcm efle, et fimilia. quo modo li quis loquatur, fignificet, iiitium horum habituum nafci ex eo quod eft nimium, non ex rebus ipfis; et eum, qui fit avarus, aut intemperam^ modo non fit nimis avarus aut nimis intern- peram> non efTe vituperandum. quod ub- furdum di6hi eft. At, ut avaritia, et in- temperantia^ "oitiorum funt nomina, ita et fuperjlitioy vitii nomen eft. Ut igitur ali- quis reprehendatur, nimis fuperftitiofum efle non necefTe eft j fed qmtquis fuperftitiofus e/t, eo ipfo vituperandus eft. LAMBINUS. Haec ft in fchola Stoica Lambinus difputaret, fii- ciles ei praeberemus aures. Sed in Oratore qui 384 R E M A R K S On the O R A T I O N qui cum vulgo loquitur, nemo haec repre- hendat. etc. GRAEVIUS. This Criticifm of Graevius upon Lambin, does not feem to remove, or indeed at all to affe armis aut homini- nilfus ? - . PoiTes dicere, pojjidere forum armatis, effe, per armatos, aut cum arma- tis. -Sed hoc infolens eft, ut puto, Latinis auribus, DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 385 auribus. GRAEVIUS. He conjectures that it mould be read ohfideres inflead ofpoflide- res. I do not doubt but pffffideres, the read- ing of all the MSS, was the Author's writ- ing, and I think we may account for his miftake from the paflage whence, as ufual, this was taken, Orat. pro P. Sextio, cap. xv. armatl homines forum et condones tenebant. He knew that temre and poffidere are fre- quently fynonymous: and having a mind to vary a little from Cicero's Words, he feems to have concluded, that if tenere forum ar- watis hominibiLS were right, pojfidere Jorum armath cafervzs could not be wrong. It is very well that he did not put haberes inflead of pojjidcres, fince teneo, habeo, and pojjideo^ are often convertible. But it is wonderful that Graevius, who had true Skill in the Latin Tongue, and who fojuftly had doubt- ed of the Latinity here, mould fo eafily give it up again, and think tha&peffl&res might be defended by tenere in the Orat. in Vatiniwn cap. 2. num armatis bominibus templum tenuerit* For the words are of a very different fignification ; and tenere there, and in the abovemention'd paflage of the Orat. pro Sex f to, and in many others in Liiy, Caefar, Cicero, and other Writers, Cc is 386 REMARKS on the OR AT ION is a military term, and fignifies to keep guard in, or defend, as is noted upon Virgil Aen. viii, 653. Capitolia celj'a tenebat. Where Servius : tenebat} defendebat. et eft militare verbum etc. and Aeneid. ix. 168. Haecfuper e vallo pro/pedant Troes, et armis Alta tenent : where Servius again, Eona elocutio : id eft, arm at I tenent alt a, hoc eft, muros. Tenent autem, cuftodiunt. So in Caefar Bell. Civ. i. 12. Inter ea certior faff us, Iguvium Ther- mum praetorem cohortibus quinque tenere, etc. and fo again a little lower in the fame chapter ; and cap. xv. id oppidum Lentu- lus Spinther x cohortibus tenebat. Curtius iv, 5. inde Macedones tranjlere Mitylenen y quam Chares duorum millium praelidio tenebat. Now if any body can bring an In- ftance in which pojjldere is ufed in the fame military fenfe that tenere is, fuch as, poffi- dere oppidum cohortibus, praefidio, or armatis hominibus -, this Author, and others, will be greatly obliged to him. C A p.xliv. excogitavit] Fero: fie tamen ut cogitavit* magis probem. MANUTIUS. See p. 30. CAP. DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSJS. 387 CAP. xlvii. avi fut, ^Mefel/e,] Nepo- tem appellat, non Cderem, qui jam perierat, ut ex orationdi in Vatihium colligitur. Sed Nepoti proavus, non avus, Macedonicus fu- it, etc. Eft igitur pvr,i.wvixw a^e^r^ou M A- NUTIUS. CAP. xlviii. recu/ares,] Legendum pu- to, uti recujares. HOT TOM ANN us. This was well meant by Hottoman^ who did net fufpecl the Poverty of this Writer, and the miierable (hifts he is often driven to in his Language. CAP. L. foedera feriebantur provinci- arum, re gum appellationes venales erant^\ Sic omnes editi, quos infpexi. Sed quid fit, foedera provinciarum ferire non ego intel- ligo. Si qui fit, qui me docere velit, erit mihi Apollo, etc. GRAEVIUS. He then ot- fer ves, \hatfoederaferiebantur provinciarwr is Falfe in point of T^ime : for the agree- ment concerning the Provinces, between Clodius and the Confuls Pi/b and Gabinius, was made before the tranfaclions he is now fpeaking of: and that Cicero's Hand, and the Senfe, are to be reftored by changing the Pundtuation, in this manner : fed uno tempore cautioner fiebant pecuniarum> foede- Cc 2 ra 388 REMARK s on ^ORATION raferiebantur, provinciarum, re gum appel- lationes venaks erant, etc. and fo it is pub- liftied in his Edition. But this Pointing ftill leaves as great a Difficulty as That it was defigned to remove. For tho' any body may underftand the meaning of re- gum appellationes, the Titles or Appellations of King, which were vena/es, or expojed to jale, and to be bought /or money ; yet who can explain appellation? sproiiinciarum in the like manner, or tell what the Appellations of Provinces were, or how to be bought and fold ? The common Pointing of this paffage is undoubtedly the right one. nor do I fee any difficulty in it. For foedus fe- rire is a very obvious expreflion, examples of which may be found in any Lexicon : and foedus . provinciarum is often ufed in thefe Orations, and in the true Cicero, to fignifie the agreement which was made be- tween ClodiuSj and Pijb and Gabinius the Confuls, that Pifo mould have the Province of Macedonia affigned him, and Gabinius That of Syria, for their fervices to Clodius in bringing about the Difgrace and Banifh- ment of Cicero, fee pro P. Sextio cap. x. So Ad Quint, poji red. cap. v. qui provin- ciarum foedere irretiti^ totum ilium annum DE HARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 389 querelas fenatus pertulerunt : which a little lower he calls provinciarum paftiones. Poft red. in Sen. cap. vii. ut civis optime mcriti fortunas provinciarum foedere addiceres. Ci- cero pro P. Sextio cap. 14. lidem confides paQojam foedere provinciarum, product: in Circo Flaminio, etc. cap. xv. cum duo ccn- fules a republica provinciarum foedere re- traxijjet. \\~iPifon. cap. xii. foedus quodmeo fanguine in paclione provinciarum iceras, franger? noluijli. and fo in feveral other places. For as to Graevius's obje&ion, that focdera feriebantur provinciarum is not agreeable to Hiftory, and does not come in at the right ftme -, it is very true : and this is to be ad- ded to the feveral other Blunders of the fame kind which this Author has committed. CAP. Iviii. extendendam pTitavi,] This is the Reading of all the MSS, as Gruter and Graevtus tedifie. The whole Sentence is this : 'quorum (munerum cxbonorum) ego non tamfacultatcm imquam et cctiam extcndcn- dam putavi, quam et in uicnch rationem, ct in carendo paiientiam . The FACULTAS c r COP i A of Riches or the Goods oj Fortune may perhaps be rightly faid cxtendi, to be enlarge dm extended : but in what Senfe can C C 3 RATIO 390 R E M A R K s on the O R A T i o N RATIO in utcndo, and PATIENTIA in carendo^ be &\&extendi? The Author took care of the firft part of the Sentence, but be- fore he got through it, Nature returned, and he has left the latter part to fhift for itfelf, not feeing that the fame word was not ap-r plicable to the whole Period. Expetendqm would have anfwered this purpofe, as Grae- iiius too obferves ; and therefore it has been thruft into fome Editions : but contrary to all the Written Copies. DE HARUSPICUM RESP. CAP. vi. Q Metellus] Nepos. quern non efTe ilatim poft P. Lentulum nominatum, et confulem appel- latum, equidem miror. MANUTIUS. In the next chapter the Author writes as he ought to have done here : P. Lentulo, ^ Mefe/Io, CoJJ'. refer entibus. CAP. ix. quijlatasfokmnefque cerimonias, pontlficatu\ Pontificatu, pro pontificum Jcien- tid y dixit. MANUTIUS. Seep. 337. Cap. xvi. ad nojlrum (ut je ipfe appella- vit) imperatorem\ L. Pifonem fignificat. In dratione tamen contra ipfum (cap. xvi.)^>- pellatus eft y inquit, hie vulturius illius pror vinciae^Ji Diis placet, Imperator. MANU. TIUS. See too cap. 23. of that Oration. DE I-TARUSPICUM RESPONSIS. 391 CA P. xx. in dome/lids eft germ ani tat is ftupris volutatus] Quid hoc fibi vult, ger- manitatis Jluprh ? Scio quid mihi didturus ilt aliquis, cum Clodia forore, et ceteris foro- ribus, rem habuifle fignificat. Audio. Itane vero? his verbis hanc fententiam exprimi oportuit ? quis unquam hoc modo locutus ell ? dixiffet potius, in domefticis eft cum germanis forori bus ftupris, etc. Confiderentigiiurhunc locum, qui fe Ciceronianos dici volunt, et videant num potius ita legi debeat, in do- mefticis, germanifque Jiupris eft volutatus. LAMBINUS. Graevius fays, that germanitas is here put for germanae for ores, as matri- monium for uxor, and /ervitia for fervi. And this perhaps may be confirmed out of Livy xl, 8. in the Speech of Philip of Mace- don to his fons Perjeus and Demetrius, who were at variance : fed inter dum /pes animwn fubibat Jubitiiram vobis aliquando germa- nitatis memoriam. tho' there indeed the relation, or thing, viz- brotherhood, is fig- nified, not the Per fons, as in this place of our Author. He has the lame Sentiment again cap. 27. Quis unquam nepos tarn libere eft cumfcortis, quam bic cum jorori bits, wlu- tatus ? IBID, cum propinquis fuh decidit, ne reog C c 3 facerct] 392 REMARKS on the ORATION, etc. facer ct~\ Sic omnes plane veteres libri. Mihi nee hiftoria haec nota eft, nee fatis conftat mendane locus vacet. MANUTIUS. CAP. xxvi. in mentem fubito ncc cogi- tanti venire pot Hipe] Omnino fi quis atten- tius confideret, videtur ridiculum dictu, ve- nire cuiquam aliquid in mentem nee cogltanti. nifi quis dicat, ea dici alicui in mentem ve- nire nee cogltanti^ quae cujufpiam animo objiciuntur ex tempcre, et aliud agenti, etc. LAMB IN us. He fays that nee is wanting in the MSS : whence in (lead of cogitanti, he reads concionanti. tho* I do not find that Gruter or Graevius take notice of the o- rniffion of nee in any of their written Copies. IBID, tent at as aures veftras] Quomodo tentatae font fena forum aures, cum ilia Clo- dius non m/enatu, fed in condone, dixerit? To which he anfwers, Quia pofTunt ztfena- toresm concione adefTe. MANUTIUS. What Manutius fays, is poffible. it is as poffible like- wife a that the Author might in this place have forgot what he was about, and if by this time the Reader is not convinced that it is as probable too, I believe it will be to little purpofe to detain Him or myfelf any longer at prefent. FINIS. O F The moft remarkable PERSONS, WORDS, and EXPRESSIONS, APtfentis rationem ha- *- here. pag. 70. Accenji. 309. Adfidem^ dignitatem, per- tinet. 78. Ad rempublicam^ fdemque pertinet. 76. Ad (or apud) Pontifices. 284. Adire^ infpicere libros Si- byllinos. 347. Aedepol or Edepol. 90 Acquimelium. 340. 382. Aetas, bonaj mala. 226. JMr. Affinis. 16 1 Agitur caputj vita, fortu- nae, fama. 83 Ago animam. 84. Amandari infra mortuos 202 AmpliJJimus ordo, fenatus 380 Avwf J0wo pontijices. ^ 1 3 Appellations: provincia rum y regum. 388 Appius Claudius. 303. w. 351 j, Marcus. I ^, ZJ /Vwfci 242 . 326. dftettius Pedianus. 7*0, palfredoj dromeda- rio. 1 22. 4jjumere auftoritatem, PO- tentiam. 19. Auftoritas. 90. ^c/^. tfuguratus^augurium. 338. Bellum gentibus, contra. gentes, 376. Bellum terra marique. 150. Bibulus, Lucius, Marcus. 66. 'aecina Longus. 325. Paetus. 326. JV0/ra P. &#- ^. 233. Claud'n or Clodii^ Patri- cians and Plebeians. 17, 18. G^r. 278. Csnniventes ecttfi. 3/#// fenatuiy apud fena- tum. 377 Dirigere judldum ad ali- quidy aliquo. 42. Divinitus, divine. 248. Dlvinum. 2.4.1. Domltla lex. 170. JDomus and tefTrf. 315 Z)ww animd Jpirabo me a. 365. Erepublicafidequefoa. j6. Ecce. 134. ' Efflagitare. 271. Egentem fud virtute. 3 04. fminenteS) imminentes ca- 'nes. 355. Er.im.iio. 213.314. 350. Exaftio operum publlco- rum. pag. 380. Excogitavit) cogitavit. 30. Note. Explere mentum^fpem^ vc- luptatem t contumelias he- norlbus. 101. Exfolvere meritum } remu- nerare. 104. Extendty expetl. 389. Exturbare. 43. Facile pat i. 193. /tf a'(J 3 and its Compounds. 120. Facito ut facias. 88. Fattum gerere. 301. Fadius, Tttus. 254. Fallere^finirejincipias. 28. Fatalis. 368, 9. /vm? tibl curatlonem. 295. Fideliter infervire valetu- dini. 207. Flagitare. 271. / y^a Cijlopborum. 296. Flavius } CaiuSj the Scribe. .^ TI .- Fluffuans genus dicendi. 2.^6. Foedera provlnciarum. 388. jf^n?, forPo Ro. i. e. />0/>- / Romano. 45. A'ij^. Fugere. 137. urbem, ex urbe. 140. Fundltus evertere. 5 1. jpr. 303. Germanitas. 391. Germanltatis'Jluprh. ibid. Gerere faflum t rem } ntgo- tium. 39 1. INDEX. Habere In conftlio. p. 3 7 3. j Honos deer et us, habitus. 79- 8 4- Honcres adhibere* 80. Honor es. 366. Ho/lia^ devota, conjlituta. . 333- 7?z liber urn loco baberi. 255. Imperatcr. 257. Inceptisduobusverbis. 332. Incredible. 241. Inenodabiliter, inexplicabi- liter, inbofpitaliter, in- fo-miter. n 8. Infideliter, mala fide 116 In mea pote/late, cuJJodia 99- Injignes equi. 2,84. Jnjiituto ceterorum vetere. .3*5- Interdlcatur^ interdifium fit. 291. Inter feflor reipublicae. 244. , emphatical. 335. /? ^?, ^o. 34. a/. 288. w i. e. w/ pag- 54 Libertas de potejiatibus. 375- Licere. 61. Licet and Po/^/?. 59. Licentia and libertas. 302.' Lift ores. 3 11 * Littera religionis, de reli- gone. Laf m Clodius, a Plebeian. I7>.i8- Magiftratus accvfat, citat. 37?- Magnitndo, magnitude ani- nimi. 41. Malueram ejje fatalent wow. 291. Junta Tertia. 162. LabefaElare, movere. 49. Laetitiae voluptate. 265. Largitio and Liberalitas. & Largitio and Ambitus, ibid. Largitione corruptus. 57. LargitioneSy largiri hono- res. 55. Legere fenatum. 367. Sj Marcus, Paulus. 165. >^ Sacerdotiii. Mandere tribunal, larriberc. 355- Marcellus, Marcus. 180. Melius Spuriui. 341. MemmiJJe ut meminerh . 88. Mercede reddcnda, augen- da. 277. iniusj L. Rufus. 258. , /KWtf. 382. Moderatio rei familiarity modus. 316. Molejle ferre^ pail. 193. Montani. 214. A/ij/^. 308. Mulium fangiiinisfattum. 85. Murrbedius. 331. Muiare vejlem. 249. NeceJJitudo. 256. Negat negare. 8^. Nimis fuperjlitiofus. 3 84. mefallit, (c. animus, 87. INDEX. Nominatio. pag. Non modb non, non modo y . nedum, ne quidem, adeo, adeo nan, ttiam, etc. 108, etc. Obruere omen, avertere. 35 1 - Omni-s crit mlbl aetas ad hoc. 249. Optimum genus dlccndi. no. Oratorio caUiditas. 321. Note. Parricidae. 180. Pater. 373. Pcdibus ire in Jententlam. 244. Pejus malum, majus. 191. . Note. Perfringere alt'itudine^ tela. . 353. Pergitin pergcre. 8 8 ? Perfuadcre cotpimus, fua dere^ 2.7. : 9. Perfuadere Jluduit> i. n n- vit, etc. 29. Peter e, bonores peter c. 6^. Petit zo, bcnorum petit io. ibid. Pinarius, L. Natta. 506. P/KJ afl, plure: uno. 1 14. Pontifex Maximus. 313 Pontificates. 337, 8. Popilius Laenas. 279. PoJJldere forum armaiis ca- tervis. 3 84 Praedd aliquid tangere. 293. PraediElum^ diftum. 349. Pracfidium. 239. Primis tribus vcrbis. 332. Pro (or pag. 284. Pryfefiu's ire. 88. Probibere praefentia ma- la. 31. ^yaeftor imperatori. 254. 259. Quanta quanta^ quanta- cumque. 305. Quatefacio. . 120. >uem velles, quemquam vettes* 379. ^tt/tf. 210. Quibus qutbus, quibujcum- que. 305. Quibufdam multis, al'ris mult is. 357. ^K/ f w?w -M Antonio f it- erant. 75. ^uocumque vcnit. 294. Rationem habere ahcujus. 70. Redder e me miht. 270. Redder e in integrum. 40. Redderevicem merit is. 104. Reditus gratiae, in gra- tiam. 354. Refer re fententlam^ ferre. Referre gratiam merit is, etc. 104. Reponi in ejus locum. 93. Refcindere provtnciam ) le- gem, etc. 376. Rejiitui in integrum. 38. Retinebat odium } tenebat. 272. Reuocari in integrum^ in irritum. 38. Sacrorum. 1 8. INDEX. Sahidienus, pag. 166 Salus. 214. Sarcire, explere. lOi.Noie. Scato^ JMarfus. 304 Scribae. 309. Scriptum facer e. 311 SeRam fequi. 74 Segnis. 5 2 Seipfum obtulit. 155. Senatui dixit^ apud Sena- turn. 377. Sept em monies for Roma. 308. / for ^//7., quanruis. 284. 5/^/ monjlrum^ per fe. 345 . &>/ 253. 1 9. abundance abundance 256. 8. Fabius Fadius 258. 7. and Imp e rat or an Itnperatar \ 263. 6. c. C. 273- penult, apprehended apprehend \ ^ 278. 2 1 . wanted to be. wanted it to be\ 33- //-. Tbufeus, Tbu/cus, 33*- 2 1 . qufrebatur. quaerebatur. 356. 3. apprefion apprehenfion 3 6 4- penult, fcare fcarce 37- 4. it Original ii's Original. 1 *Jni B ! CO ^ i CO =0 I I lWllli A 000105682 9