deale with vs for peace, and you cannott but haue had greatt cause of doubte in the City; I pray god turne all to his glory, and to the Comford of those that loue and feare his name! I should be very glad to receiue some better newes from you, soe soone as you can; soe at this time I cease to trouble you any further, and rest, committing you to the p'tec'con of the Almighty, your louing brother, HUGH BATEMAN.

(No. 43.) From the same to the same.

LOUINGE BROTHER,

I received your letter, with the Sugar loafe you sent mee, for which I giue you thankes, as also for your loue to my ssonne, and other your tokens. I am very glad of your safe returne to London; I pray god keepe you and vs from all ill affected persons! our Armes are gone out of our County, both Trayned and priuate. There hath beene some stir at Manchester this weeke, as wee here, betwixt my lord Strange and the towne, but as yet little hurt done, onely, as we are informed, 2 Townesemen kild, and some 8 of my lorde Strange his Company. At Sheafield they are very stronge; St John Hotham hath sent them 500 men, and armes for 500 more, soe that they put themselues into a posture for their owne defence, but as yet they haue noe opposition: wee are all at peace in our County for the p'sent, I prayse god; soe with my loue, with my mothers and wyfes remembred vnto your selfe, my Cosen Robert Bateman, with the rest of our freinds with you, I rest and shall remaine, Your louinge brother HUGH BATEMAN.

Bakewell, this 28th of Septe'ber, 1642.

To my louinge and kinde brother William Bateman, at the

Boares-heade in Catteaton-street, deliv' this.

(No. 44.) From the same to the same.

LOUINGE BROTHER,

My true loue, with my wyfes, remembred vnto your selfe, with the rest of our good freinds with you, with desire of all your good healthes in the lord; I received your letter, with what you sent mee thereinclosed by John Garratt, for weh I shall rest thankefull and engaged vnto you, for the times are soe that I dare not write soe largely vnto you as I would; this Gentleman, Mr. Greaues, whome I make bould withall for the carridge of this my letter, can certifie you of truth of what newes wee haue in darbisheire; my Father and Mother, with all the rest of our freinds here, I praise god, are well; if you can with convenience, and that you perceiue you may sent theim safe, eyther in some packe by the Carrier or otherwayes, to buy mee a case of very good brasse pistols,* with snap lockes, and not wheele lockes, ayther new or ould, soe that they be firme good, and I will, god willinge, send you the money, what the shall cost, by the next returne. My mother in law reme'breth her kindly vnto you; I haue here inclosed sent you vs. as a small token of my loue vnto you. I pray god blesse and kepe you all, and vs likewise, and put a good end to these destracted times in this kingdom, to the reioyceinge both of king and kingdome; soe in hast I rest your truly loving Brother, HUGH BATEMAN.

Ashbourne, this 29th of Nov'ber, 1642.

Brother, Mr. Greaues disapoynted me of the Carridge of this letter, soe that I can not send to you in that manner as I would haue done, for my case of pistols, wch I desire you send mee with all speede; I thinke the most saffest way will be thus; deliu' theis pistols from Mr. Robert Bateman, Chamberlain of the City of London, vnto his Cosen, Hugh Bateman, of Bakewell; wch I hope you may doe without exception.

To my louinge and kinde brother William Bateman,

at the Boares-head in Catteaton streete.

These pistols are still preserved in the family.

(No. 50.) From the same to the same.

Bakewell, 23th, 1644.

LOUING BROTHER, I haue sent you by this bearer, Mr. Midem, my Rond mare, because wee could not buy any one eyther gildinge or mare that we thaught fitt to carry you; my vncle Bateman hath also sent his rond mare with one Mr. Bingley, that hath formerly beene an Ironmonger in London, and now liues in Birchouer; he comes up with Mr. Nicolson; wee had sent theim sooner, but could not heere of any one to bring theim you, for the messenger you desired they might have been sent by onely sent the letters by a boy to my Fathers, and since we neuer heard from him, neyther did he write or send word where wee might meete with him. I haue receued nothing for your vse, but what I writte you of formerly; my sisters Jane and Elizabeth desire you to buy theim 3 yeards of green searge, to make theim 2 aprons; I pray you buy 6 ells of whyte buckram of 18. iiiid. an ell for my wyfe, a little sugar loafe, of aboubt 3 li. and I desire you to bestow me as much more as to make it vp 20s. in fruit and peper, nuttmeegs, cloues and mace, for Chrismas, if it please god to grant us health; my Father and mother with all the rest of our freinds are well, I praise god; he desires, if you haue not alredy, to dispose of his mare, as I formerly writt vnto you to doe; my mother in law, with my selfe and my wyfe, reme❜ber our loue vnto you, desiring to be reme❜bred vnto Cosin Hugh Bateman, and the rest of our freinds. I shall not write any more vnto you at this time, because the bearer hereof can satisfie you more fully of all things in theis p'ts then I can express. Therefore I take leaue, and rest referring you to the p'tec'con of the Allmighty, and will euer remain your assured louing brother, HUGH BATEMAN.

To my assured loving brother Mr. William B-
Boares heade, in C streete.

at the

(No. 65.) From Thomas Lord Fairfax to Sir Charles Egerton. You will p'ceive by the inclosed petition the Cause, why the pet desires my Letter vnto you, on his behalf. I thought fitt to certifie thus much vnto you, That hee hath bin a faithfull souldier in the service of the Parliam*, and imployed vnder my com'and in the North. I doe therfore reco'mend his Case vnto you, That hee may bee admitted to injoy that livelihood of a Keeper's place in the Forest of Needwood, which was soe fully granted vnto him, many yeares since. If you please to grant his Desire heerin, itt will bee a prevention of further trouble. I remayne y' very assured friend T. FAIRFAX. St. Alban's, Nov. 20, 1647. For Sir Charles Egerton, Kt.

Member of the ho❜ble House of Com'ons.

(No. 69.) From Thomas Bateman, to his Cousin Hugh Bateman, of Hartington. Lo: COSEN, London, the 12th March, 1648. Since my last vnto y P. the former post, noe thinge hath appered from y", wch will inforce me to bee the breifer; I then aduising y", that my occasions were sutch, that Could not permit my absence vpon soe short warninge, therefore did entreat y" to take charge of my busines, wch am Confident will not bee in the Least omited. Heere inclosed I send y" a Letter from the Generall to y' committy, and Likewise the extent,* wch must desier y" to get executed at yr most Leasure, and must desier y" to frame a petition to his Excelency Tho. Lord farfax, Generall of the Parliment force (in the kingdome of England),

This is illustrated by the preceding letter (No. 68), dated 6 March, 1648, London, in which the same writer says: "I haue heere lying by me the extent for the Lands, and doe expect the Generall's letter to yr committy to bee brought to me this night, beefore this post goeth away; for it is donne, but hee that hath it is gonne out of the way." He adds, "This day the Lords, that is to say, D. Hamile [Duke of Hamilton?], L. Capell, L. Goreinge, L. Holand, and St John Green, did to resayue there sentence of death."

setinge forth how wee were thretend to bee interrupted by the souldiers; and when yu haue soe done, then please to put it in to the Leter, and then droppe some wax vnder the seale, and soe p'sent it to the Committy; and yf ya thinke it requisite that I should Come downe to y", about getinge the Land extended, I shall then doe it, but hope it will bee needeles, in regard that I haue soe good freinds there as Cosin Parker and y' selfe to doe the busenes for me; to whome I forbore to write at this time, because I did not know whether to direct my Letter; for I doe conceaue he is not at home, and vncertaine to find him wth yu; soe wth my loue to my Cosin, y' wife, and y' selfe, I take Leaue, and Rest y' lo' cosin to Command, THO. BATEMAN.

The Leter that is directed to the committy, is lapt in the paper that I gaue the generall, but in regard the Leter speakes of a petition, I was Loath to troble the generall againe; therfor make what petition y" thinke fitte. Soe rest. Idem. T. B.

To his lo. Cosen Mr. Hugh Bateman, at his house at
Hartington, theise dd. in Darbysheire.

QUÆSTIONES VENUSINE. No. III.

The character of M. LOLLIUS (Consul 21 B. C., and the subject of Horace's Ode,

""

Ne forte credas," &c. 4 C. ix.) vindicated from ancient and modern calumnies. First of all, let the following extracts from Francis's Horace be patiently read:

1. "Horace, in this Ode, celebrates the character of a hero, a man of integrity, of disinterested honesty, and a lover of his country; yet the subject of all these praises was a coward, a villain, a miser, and a traitor.

"Lollius had an appearance of virtue ; nor should we wonder that he had imposed upon Horace, since even Augustus was long deceived by him. They who are acquainted with Courts, are convinced that such characters are not uncommon. TORR. SAN."

2. "51. Non ille pro caris amicis.]

"Such was the character which Lollius deserved, or seemed to deserve, when the Poet wrote this Ode. So great an opinion had Augustus of his abilities and integrity, that he confided to him his grandson Caius Cæsar's education in the art of war. He waited on the young Prince in his expedition to the East, where he amassed immense riches by abusing the authority of his employment. He supported the quarrel between Caius and Tiberius, and betrayed the councils of his Prince to Phraates. When his treason was publicly discovered, he put an end to an infamous life by poison; and hath left this moral to posterity, that we should no more pronounce a man perfectly virtuous than perfectly happy, before he dies. CRUQ."

And such are the portraits of Horace's friends, which the readers, young and old, of Francis's Horace have contemplated as true, since the year 1742, the date of its first publication!

In the first place, TORRENTIUS does indeed, from Velleius, report his black charges against Lollius; but then, be it remembered, with this remarkable caveat entered and warning given. . . " scribit Paterculus; sed Lollio fortassis iniquior, in Tiberii Principis, cui turpissimè adulatur, gratiam."

It is SANADON's remark, from which, with a little omission, the whole contents of that introductory note are translated. So much for TORRENTIUS'S share in the monstrous imputations palmed upon his name!

But, secondly, will my reader believe, that not one syllable of the reflections on Lollius, with which Francis concludes his notes on that splendid Ode, was written by CRUQUIUS at all? If the reader doubt it, let him turn to the edition of Horace by Cruquius, 1611, pp. 235-6, and trust to his own eyes in the matter. He must then believe me, that the principal part of that note is a translation from Sanadon, word for word: the book is before me at this moment.

Still, however, it may be asked, what are the ancient authorities on which the impeachment of Lollius's character is supposed to rest?

Entirely on two passages in Velleius Paterculus, and on one passage in the elder Pliny.

Velleius, mentioning the defeat known by Lollius's name in Germany, says of him..."homine in omnia pecuniæ, quam recte faciendi cupidiore, inter summam vitiorum dissimulationem vitiosissimo." L. ii. c. 97. § 1.

And again, after speaking of the interview (A. D. 2) betwixt the Parthian King and the young Prince Caius Cæsar, he writes thus: "Quo tempore M. Lollii, quem veluti moderatorem juventæ filii sui Augustus esse voluerat, perfida et plena subdoli ac versuti animi consilia, per Parthum indicata Cæsari, fama vulgavit. Cujus mors intra paucos dies fortuita, an voluntaria fuerit, ignoro." L. ii. c. 102. § 1.

Of this character, and of these anecdotes, historically so important if true, neither in Tacitus nor in Suetonius does one vestige appear.

The former, Ann. iii. 48, alluding to Tiberius's unhappy residence at Rhodes, tells us that Sulpicius Quirinius, for having paid him attention in that gloomy exile, had a public funeral decreed to him at the Emperor's request; who made known in the Senate his grateful remembrance, “laudatis in se officiis, et incusato M. Lollio, quem auctorem Caio Cæsari pravitatis et discordiarum arguebat."

Not a single word or hint of censure in the Annalist's own person is here to

be seen.

Nor where he has occasion to mention Lollia Paulina, xii. 1. 22, xiv. 12, does Tacitus breath the least intimation of treason or turpitude in her grandfather. Neither, in fact, does Suetonius advance any charge on his own belief against Lollius. In Tiberio, c. xii. § 3, we are told indeed, that in young Caius, Tiberius discovered symptoms of dislike to him "ex criminationibus M. Lollii, comitis et rectoris ejus." And what should hinder but that Lollius might have very just and strong grounds to caution the son of Agrippa against such a stepfather? whose character at that time stands thus, as indirectly drawn by the great Annalist, i. 4. "ne iis quidem annis, quibus Rhodi specie secessus exulem egerit, aliquid quam iram et simulationem et secretas libidines meditatum." But Suetonius afterwards tells us, that the young Prince, (for Tiberius very luckily, but with no cause specified,) had conceived some displeasure against Lollius, and in consequence became more favourable to Tiberius being recalled from Rhodes to Rome, c. viii. § 4. "Is forte tunc M. Lollio offensior, facilis exorabilisque in vitricum fuit.'

On all other opportunities, which are several, of noticing Lollius, Suetonius never even alludes to any story by which his reputation might be disparaged.

Such then are the negative testimonies borne by Tacitus and Suetonius; which I think may be boldly set against the positive assertions of Velleius Paterculus, destitute as that writer is of all claim to historical credit, where the names of Livia, and Tiberius, and Sejanus, are any way concerned.

For Tiberius in particular, whenever his personal dislikings (no man could have more or worse) can be distinctly traced, the courtly historian is seen lending himself constantly to the jealousies and antipathies of his master, falsifying, perverting, on the one hand, stifling and concealing without scruple on the other.

His pages of direct flattery to the sovereign, coupled with adulation to the minister Sejanus (c. 126, to the end of the iid Book), are very fortunately preserved. Had that precious document been lost by any chance, as other parts of his work have perished, we might possibly have doubted Velleius's title to be the most elegant of parasites: we can now, with the less hesitation, write him down the most accomplished of sycophants also. Indeed, he who sticks at calumniating, will make but an imperfect flatterer: nor is detraction complete without skilful use of suppression and obliquity. Well, therefore, does Lipsius, in his censure of Velleius, specify this finishing trait of the character: "Ut Germanici Cæsaris virtutes ubique callide dissimulat! Ut Agrippinam, et quibus aliis infensior Tiberius credebatur, oblique premit!"

And I am strangely mistaken if Horace himself, notwithstanding the honours paid to the "Major Neronum" (4 C. xiv. 14) in his best days (egregius vitâ famâque quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub Augusto fuit. Ann. vi. 51), did not owe a very marked suppression of his name to that very Ode in praise of Lollius which we are now considering. To what cause, indeed, so probable as Tiberian malignity deeply operating, may the following fact be attributed?

In Velleius's catalogue of Roman Poets, L. ii. c. 36, §§ 2, 3, the names of Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, Tibullus, and Naso, are all prominently paraded: -that of Horace is not visible !

Could this striking omission then be the result of mere oversight, with such immense chances in calculation against it? or is it not naturally accounted for at once, by supposing it a sacrifice to the dark disgust of Tiberius's eye?

We have seen that nothing whatever asserted, nothing apparently known, either by Suetonius or by Tacitus, affords the least possible pretext for impugning the honour and integrity of Lollius. There exists not an atom of evidence, that Augustus was ever at any time displeased with him; for even that clades in Germany did not prevent him from being employed again and again in offices of important command. With such a reputation, therefore, as he clearly enjoyed, when Consul, B. C. 21; when panegyrised a few years afterwards by Horace; finally, when by Augustus entrusted with the personal care and military education of his grandson Caius, so late down as the year B. C. 1-is it within the probabilities of human nature, that in his grand climacteric Lollius, all on a sudden, should have burst out at once “a coward, á villain, a miser, and a traitor?"

To a moral revolution à priori so perfectly incredible, surely the testimony ought to be strong and well authenticated. Now the only witness, at all qualified from actual knowledge to speak, undoubtedly is Velleius; and his evidence, given in very general terms, rests after all, for the charge of knavery and perfidiousness, upon—“ fama vulgavit”—the credit due to common rumour! "Quo tempore M. Lollii, quam veluti moderatorem juventæ filii sui Augustus esse voluerat, perfida et plena subdoli ac versuti animi consilia, per Parthum indicata Cæsari, fama vulgavit." L. ii. c. 97, § 1.

But the accusation carries improbability on the very face of it. For what designs injurious to the empire was it likely that Lollius should entertain? or if entertained by him and proposed to the Parthian, must not those plans have been calculated for His advantage? and will it be credited, that from love and loyalty to Rome, HE would have sacrificed his own interests, turning informer to enlighten and rectify the mind of the Prince against his Tutor? Credat, qui possit.

Is it not vastly more probable, that the cunning Phraates eluded the prudence of the old man by playing on the weakness of the younger one? And in the absence of all intelligible story, may we not rather imagine that Caius became the dupe of flattery and intrigue, than that Lollius could have beguiled himself into an act of futile and unprofitable treason?

But Lollius certainly died not long after the private conference betwixt Phraates and Caius. Yes; and the very terms, in which Velleius, then on the spot, records that event, afford a very strong presumption that it was a natural death. "Cujus mors intra paucos dies fortuita, an voluntaria fuerit, ignoro.” C. 97, u. s.

The ignoro of such a contaminated witness can only be interpreted on the favourable side. Had he known or even suspected the death to be voluntary, he would have clinched it with his downright assertion. His affected hesitation, therefore, is in itself the best acquittal of Lollius. But he had his motive for dropping the foul hint. All is of a piece with Velleius. Remorse so insinuated, and such allegation of crime, might well go together.

In general evidence of Lollius's moral worth, an appeal to what is known of his two sons will not be deemed impertinent or unavailing.

Horace appears to have known them intimately; and if any dependence may