count of the refpectability of the quarter from whence it proceeds, certainly lays claim to notice in this place. "Salluft, he alleges, was fo extremely fparing in his praife of Cicero ; firft, on account of the perfonal enmity which, according to tradition, fubfifted between them; and, fecondly, on account of the time of publishing his history in the reign of Auguftus, while the name of Cicero was ftill obnoxious to envy. This opinion as an hypothefis of Dr Middleton's, it were easy to refute, on more than one of the grounds on which I have controverted that of Le Clerc. But this becomes wholly unneceffary, from the confideration, that it was impoffible for Salluit to have published his Catiline "during the reign of Auguftus,i as he himself died A. U. C. 718, no less than four years previous to its commencement-that is, previous to the battle of Altium.” I. p. 249.

This appears to us little better than quibbling. We do not mean to say, that the fear of giving offence to the ruling party, was in fact the chief, or even a partial, inducement with Sallust to refrain from bestowing on Cicero his due share of praise: but, certainly, the historian was not less likely to be actuated by such a motive during the joint reign of Augustus and M. Anthony, who was the orator's bitterest enemy, and whilst the memory of Cicero's assassination was yet fresh in every one's mind, than he was afterwards, when Augustus was sole emperor. The mention of the battle of Actium, therefore, seems wholly irrelevant to the point in question.

We come now a little nearer to the translation. Dr Steuart tells us (Vol. I. p. 285.) that it has been already observed, in this Essay, and will be admitted by every impartial scholar, that the writings of our author are intelligible throughout, and infinitely more so than those of either Livy or Tacitus; insomuch that he may be accounted the most perspicuous of the Roman historians. Whether this be so or not, we certainly will not presume to determine; but that he is not always intelligible to Dr Steuart, appears to us to be manifest from a variety of his interpretations. We shall lay a few of them before the reader for his consideration.

In the following sentence from the Jugurthine War, (§ 34, Var. edit. 8vo. Vol. I. p. 431.) Ac, tametsi multitudo, qua in concione, aderat, vehementer accensa, terrebat eum clamore, vultu, sæpe impetu, atque aliis omnibus, que ira fieri amat; vicit tamen impudentia'-he plainly conceives, that the plural que is the nominative to the singular amat. Hi, reasons for this opinion, of which we confess we do not see the force, are, that in Thucydides verbs singular agree with nouns of number; and in Horace and Cicero with (as might have been guessed) singular no+ minatives!

We come now to that passage in the first Epistle to Cæsar,

which, we have already said, Dr Steuart appears to have mistaken. It is as follows, At herculè nunc cum Catone, L. Domitio, cæterisque ejusdem factionis, quadraginta senatores, multi præterea cum spe bonâ adolescentes, sicuti hostiæ, mactati sunt: cum interea opportunissima genera hominum tot miserorum civium sanguine satiari nequiverunt: non orbi liberi, non parentes exactâ ætate, non gemitus virorum, luctus mulierum immanem eorum animum inflexit: quin, acerbius in dies male faciendo ac dicundo, dignitate alios, alios civitate eversum irent.' (Epist. ad Cæs. 2. edit. Var. 8vo. 1659.) Cook translates it thus. But now, when by Cato, L. Domitius, and the rest of the same faction, forty senators, with many young men of excellent hope, were sacrificed like victims; when, meantime, this most outrageous set of men could not be satiated with the blood of so many miserable citizens: not orphans, not parents of decrepid age, not the groans of men, or the wailings of women, could prevail upon their cruel dispositions, but still they went on with greater sharpness every day in evil works and words, to deprive some of dignity, others of their country.' In this sense we ourselves have always understood the passage-nor does any difficulty strike us, which might lead us to hesitate in our opinion. Sallust was of Cæsar's party; and, addressing to him this epistle, he naturally inveighs against the sanguinary proceedings of Cato, L. Domitius, and others of that faction. In another part of the same epistle, speaking in terms of censure of the same set of men, he again mentions by name the same two individuals. An L. Domitii magna vis est, cujus nullum membrum à flagitio aut facinore vacat? lingua vana, manus cruentæ, pedes fugaces; quæ honestè nominari nequeant inhonestissuma. Unius tamen M. Catonis ingenium versutum, loquax, callidum haud contemno. Parantur hæc disciplina Græcorum. Sed virtus, vigilantia, labos, apud Græcos nulla sunt.' (Epist. ad Cæs. edit. Var. Svo. 2. p. 525.) To us, all this appears very clear: and to all the commentators on Sallust, one only excepted, it was probably equally clear, since they have observed, as Dr Steuart informs us, an entire silence in regard to the passage.

The Abbé Thyvon, (the one editor above alluded to,) instead of the above unintelligible reading, fubftitutes the following-" At hercule, bine cum Carbone, L. Domitio, cæterifque ejufdem factionis," &c.; because bine may be eafily fuppofed to have been miftaken for nunc, and particularly Carbone for Catone, by the copyifts, as the latter name was fo much better known to them. From this improved state of the text, the prefent tranflation is made. But it furpaffes my comprehenfion, on what principles of Latin fyntax, not only the Prefident De Broffes, but likewife Mr Rowe and Mr Cooke (both certainly fcholars) fhould have

fo

fo rendered the words, as to make cum an adverb, inftead of a prepofition, and Cato (or Carbo) and Domitius, the perpetrators of the masfacre.' (Vol. I. p. 494.)

We shall not here dwell on the inaccuracy of stating,' that Mr Cooke makes cum an adverb,' whereas he in reality makes it a conjunction; but proceed to express our counter-astonishment, how Dr Steuart could imagine cum to be a preposition; and further to inquire, how, in this mode of interpretation, he disposes of the second cum (i. e. the cum interea). These two conjunctions govern the verbs mactati sunt and nequiverunt, thus making inflexit the principal verb in the sentence. We give Dr Steuart's translation.

But, under the domination of his adherents, what deplorable exceffes have we not feen committed! Not only Carbo and Domitius, and other persons of like principles, but forty Senators have alfo been cut off, together with the flower of our youth, all victims to their fury. Meanwhile, did the civil blood, which they thus made to flow, fuffice to appease them? Deaf alike to the cries of the orphan, the tears of the widow, the entreaties of youth, and the groans of age, they maintained their course of unbridled violence. They grew daily fiercer with infolence and brutality; and, whomfoever they regarded as hoftile to their views, they degraded from his rank, or else expelled from his country. (Vol. I. p. 453.)

Another argument against the reading proposed by the Abbé and Dr Steuart, is this, that if Sallust had been speaking of Cæsar's and his own friends, instead of their enemies, he would never have used the word factionis. A neutral historian, indeed, might have called both parties factiones; but a partizan would not have termed his own side factionem. It is further curious, that after all this trouble to depart from the plain track, Dr Steuart, when he makes Domitius the slain, instead of the slayer, is obliged, in order at all to reconcile the fact with history, to change his name, and to contend, without the least authority, that Lucius is a corrupted reading for Cnæus. Indeed, the only plausible argument brought forward by him in defence of this reading is, what we cannot alJow much weight to, that Sallust, in his second epistle to Cæsar, mentions, that the opposite party did, on some occasion, put to death Carbo and Cnæus Domitius. Now, according to Dr Steuart himself, there were, at this period, not fewer than five Domitii. An illa, quæ paullo ante hoc bellum in Cn. Pompeium victoriamque Syllanam increpabantur, oblivio abstulit? interfecit Domitium, Carbonem, Brutum, alios item non armatos, neque in prælio belli jure, sed postea supplices per summum scelus interfectos.' (Epist. ad Cæs. I.) (Vol. I. 473, 493, 537.)

In Cato's answer to Caesar, in the debate on the sentence to be passed

passed on the accomplices of Catiline, we conceive the following passage to be quite misrepresented in the translation. Ipsos per municipia in custodiis habendos; videlicet, ne, si Romæ sint, aut à popularibus conjurationis, aut à multitudine conductâ, per vim eripiantur. Quasi vero mali, atque scelesti tantummodo in urbe, et non per totam Italiam sint; aut non ibi plus possit audacia, ubi ad defendendum opes minores sunt. Quare vanum equidem hoc consilium est, si periculum ex illis metuit. (Bell. Cat. 52. var. edit. 8vo.) Dr Steuart renders this as follows.

He has moved, that their fortunes be confifcated, and themselves thrown into prifon, charging, with their confinement, the great munici pal towns of Italy. Without doubt he prudently forefaw, that in Rome, at any moment, they might be refcued by force, either by their confederates, or by a mob, hired for the purpose. But I would demand of Cæfar, by what right the city of Rome fhall thus monopolize the whole vice of Italy, and the municipal towns be denied their fhare? If their pretenfions be admitted, is it not also true, that vice mult be more formidable, in proportion as it is removed from the eye of government, where there is lefs vigilance to detect it, and less energy to check it? The propofition of Cæfar, therefore, is clearly nugatory, if the plot or the confpirators be really dreaded by him.' II. 75.

Here, the specific position as to the comparative probability of the prisoners being rescued by profligate persons in Rome, or the municipal towns, seems turned into an assertion concerning vice in general and the word illis, which evidently refers to the mali and scelesti who were to rescue the prisoners, is made to stand for the conspirators themselves!

In the Jugurthine war, just after the death of Micipsa, we meet with a passage, in the interpretation of which we must again differ from Dr Steuart. The original is- Sed Hiempsal, qui minumus ex illis erat, naturâ ferox, etiam antea ignobilitatem Jugurthæ, quia materno genere impar erat, despiciens, dextera Adherbalem adsedit: ne medius ex tribus, quod et apud Numidas honori ducitur, Jugurtha foret. Dein tamen, ut ætati concederet, fatigatus à fratre, vix in partem alteram transductus est.' (Bell. Jugurth. c. 11.) Englished, we think unintelligibly, thus

He thruft himself down by his brother, thereby occupying the right hand of the prince, and excluding Jugurtha from the place of honour, which is accounted, likewife, the midft of three, in Numidia. Af ter much importunity from Adherbal, he was with difficulty persuaded to remove, and to give place to fuperior years. II. 336. 522.

We take the meaning to be very plainly this. Hiempsal wished to exclude Jugurtha from the middle seat, which, amongst the Numidians, (et) as well as at Rome, was accounted the seat. of honour at last, however, he gave it up to him, on the in

terference

terference of Adherbal. In the sentence which immediately follows, we cannot clearly determine, whether Dr Steuart has exactly reversed the meaning of his author, or only expresses himself unintelligibly. (Vol. 2. p. 398.) And he had, moreover, secured them against an unequal contest with an enemy superior in numbers, as in discipline. The original is- Quæ ab imperatore 'decuerint, omnia suis provisa: locum superiorem ; uti prudentes cum imperitis, ne pauciores cum pluribus, aut rudes cun bello melioribus manum consererent.' (Bell. Jugurth. 49.) There can be no doubt of the right sense of this passage, viz. that Jagartha had taken care, that his forces should be equal in number, and in discipline, to the Romans. Whether Dr Steuart's translation carries this, or the contrary meaning, it appears difficult to determine. But to do our author justice, as a translator of Sallust, it is not in his translated matter, that we meet with his most numerous or most glaring errors. It is to his unhappy propensity to dissertation he is indebted for the most serious of his misfortunes. Of these, we must add a few more specimens.

In the extract from Cicero's epistles (I. 517), we do not imagine, that the orator means to sneer at Bibulus; and consequently are of opinion, that the words, Quòd, in pares copias ad confligendum non habebis, non te fugiet uti consilio M. Bibuli; qui se oppido munitissimo et copiosissimo tamdiu tenuit, quamdiu in provincia Parthi fuerunt-(Epist. ad Fam. 1. 12. 19), are improperly translated. But should, &c. I trust at least you will not forget the valorous example of Marcus Bibulus, who, on the first approach of the same terrible people, retreated, with great presence of mind, to Antioch, one of his most comfortable, and best fortified towns, and there closely shut himself up, till they had quitted the country. Of the words which immediately follow, however, Dr Steuart has indubitably mistaken the sense. Sed hæc melius ex re, et ex tempore constitues;' which he renders, This, however, I mention only in case of need, and that you have no better expedient to suit the emergency!' The sentiment, Facile imperium est in bonos,' Dr Steuart thinks not greatly dissimifar to regibus boni quam mali suspectiores sunt; semperque his aliena virtus formidolosa est.' (Vol. I. p. 528.) To our comprehension, these sentences carry meanings precisely contrary to each other. Again (Vol. I. p. 532), Nihil actum est a Pompeio nostro sapienter, nihil fortiter,' is translated, Our friend Pompey has nothing in him that savours of either ability or courage. But if we turn to the epistle (Ep. ad Att. 1. 8. 3.), from which these words are taken, we shall find nothing to warrant this general attack on the character of Pompey. The real meaning is, that, on a particular occasion, his measures were defici

ent