vans did not proceed farther east; as the direct trade of Tyre appears to have had similar boundaries within those countries where the Semitical idioms prevailed. The western roads communicated naturally with the towns and ports of Syria and Phoenicia; and as we find in this direction the temples of Helios at Emesa and Heliopolis, can we doubt that these towns, together with Damascus, for the protection of whose commerce the Romans had already taken measures ever since the time of Pompey, were actually the commercial stations on those roads?

The recent discoveries of Seetzen and Burckhardt in their travels show that the eastern parts of Palestine, the Decapolis, on the other side of the Dead Sea, likewise contained towns which had yielded to Palmyra but very little in greatness and splendour. With a surprise similar to that of the British travellers who first discovered the ruins of Palmyra, did these latter look on the ruins of Gerasa, Gadara, and Philadelphia. Those of Gerasa (Djerasch) have been described by Burckhardt: he found there temples, colonnades, one large theatre, and a smaller one. The ruins of the two other towns are said to be but little inferior. In inquiring, therefore, how these towns* at the borders of the desert could become the seats of wealth, splendour, and luxury, it can only be explained by the same causes which made Palmyra so distinguished a place. Can we doubt that, in regard to them, the words of the prophet had been fulfilled, a host of camels will cover thee; the dromedaries from Midian and Epha †?' The period of their prosperity, judging from the style of their architecture, was the same as that of Palmyra, namely, the age of the Antonines. A few mutilated inscriptions found there have still preserved us the names of these great rulers. They, however, stand there but as silent witnesses; and as it was the object of the author to found the present treatise only on incontestable and irrefutable evidence, he could not enter into any further investigations as regards those latter discoveries.

SALLUST'S CATILINE AND JUGURTHA.

1. The Bellum Catilinarium of Sallust, and Cicero's four Orations against Catiline; with English Notes and Introduction: together with the Bellum Jugurthinum of Sallust. By the Rev. W. Trollope, M. A. London: Rivington, 1830.

*These towns were the stations of the commerce of Arabia, on the road from

Petra to Palmyra.

† Isaiah, lx. 6.

2. C. Crispi Sallustii de Catilinæ Conjuratione Belloque Jugurthino Historiæ. Animadversionibus illustravit Carolus Anthon, Lit. Græc. et Lat. in Col. Coll. N. E. Prof. Adj. Novi Eboraci. Sumtibus G. et C. et H. Carvill,

MDCCCXXIX.

THE writings of Sallust do not afford a good text-book for a beginner, nor, indeed, do they possess very great value in any point of view. In all the higher qualities of an historian he is very deficient, and as a moralist or philosopher altogether contemptible. Still, if it be the pleasure of any schoolmaster or parent that a boy should read this author at or near the commencement of his studies, it is, of course, desirable to have a correct edition adapted to the purposes of instruction. Such an edition it seems to have been Mr. Trollope's intention to publish; and he has done well in adding to the Catiline and Jugurtha of Sallust the four Catilinarian orations of Cicero. We have also before us an American edition of the historian, likewise published for the use of schools. Why both these editors should have omitted the fragments of Sallust we can see no good reason: they would have required only a few additional pages, and some of the fragments are more valuable as historical documents than any equal portions of the two treatises they have published.

We believe we shall be able to give the reader a correct notion of the nature and value of Mr. Trollope's edition without trespassing largely on his time. In the introduction we find an elementary praxis, which may serve as a guide in the essential exercise of parsing.' The passage selected for analysis is the first part of the fifth section,-Lucius Catilina, natus nobili genere fuit, &c.; and the praxis commences thus :

'Lucius (2 decl.) Catilina (1 decl.) pr. n. Nominative case to the verb fuit.-Natus, part. perf. of vb. dep. 3. conj. nascor nasceris, or ere, natus sum, &c. [Rule, Verba in or, &c.] Nom. sing. masc. to agree with Catilina. [Rule, Adjectiva, participia, &c.]—Genere, noun subst. 3. decl. from genus, eris. [Rule, Est neutrale, &c.] Abl. sing. governed by natus. [Rule, Natus, prognatus, &c.]Fuit, verb. subst. from Sum es fui, &c. [Rule, Sum, fui, habet.'] and so on for four pages of precisely the same character. This praxis, we are given to understand, will be decisive in its effects upon the pupil's intellect, and he is accordingly dismissed, as follows:

'Here, then, we may leave the scholar to work for himself; and, trusting that he will find no great difficulty with the occasional assistance afforded in the notes, let him be advised to make out every word with diligence and accuracy.

To the uninitiated the mystical symbols of Mr. Trollope may appear somewhat obscure; and we had, therefore, intended to give a specimen of an English praxis, taking the sentence we have just quoted for the subject of our analysis. We had proceeded as far as the word 'trusting;' thus:trusting, part. pres. vb. act. to trust, I trust, you trust, or thou trustest, &c. agrees with we understood. [Rule, adjectives, participles, &c.] We, pron. pl. nom. from I,' &c. But when we came to apply the Rule Verb, personal,' &c. we were at a stand-still, not being able to find the verb to which the pronoun refers. We regret this the more, as an engine so effectual for the explanation of the Latin language must, of course, afford great assistance towards an accurate knowledge of our own.

6

Like nearly all our English editors of Greek and Latin books for schools, Mr. Trollope seems wholly indifferent about the correctness of his text; and, in the case of Sallust, this is the less excusable, as Cortius has, in his edition, carefully reported the readings of the various MSS. Had he but copied the text of Cortius, without examining his authorities, we should have had no cause to complain; but, unfortunately, a certain text has established itself in the school-books of this country, without much regard to authority; and to the orthodox errors of this Anglican text Mr. Trollope persists in adhering. The first word of the Catilinarian war is an unimportant specimen of this inattention. Cortius tells us that all the best manuscripts have omnis; but such evidence has no weight with our editor, when he finds in the Eton Grammar that omnes is the form of the accusative plural. Again, at the end of the first chapter, ' Ita utrumque, per se indigens, alterum alterius auxilio veget' is the reading given by Mr. Trollope, with the following note:- Although the word (veget) is very rare, there is no necessity for altering it into eget, as some have proposed. In that case auxilio would be the governed ablative. [Rule, fungor, fruor, &c.] It is now the ablative of the cause.' The reader would naturally infer from this that the manuscript reading is veget, and that eget is a conjectural alteration. The fact, however, is precisely the reverse, as appears in the note of Cortius. Gruteri, Rivii, Wassii, nostrorum et forsitan omnium qui ubique dantur MSS. hæc (eget) est lectio, quam primus Palmerius immutavit veget loco eget substituendo.'

In reference to the notes we will first observe that a considerable number of them are of the same nature as the praxis in the introduction; thus, in the second page alone, we findRule: Fungor, fruor,' &c. Rule: Verba infiniti modi,' &c. JULY, 1831.

Ꮮ

Rule: Verba imperandi,' &c. Equally valuable, and almost equally common, is the employment of the terms Hendiadys, Tmesis, Paraphrasis, Ellipsis, Hypallage, Latinism. In the third place we are indebted to Mr. Trollope for a number of parallel, or what are intended to be parallel, phrases and sentiments from Terence, Milton, Apuleius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Tacitus, Seneca, Statius, &c.

The historical and geographical articles consist almost entirely of simple references to Lempriere. Thus :-Cato, see Lempriere; Scipio, see Lempriere; Carthago, see Lempriere; Fabia Terentia, see Lempriere.

As we have already stated pretty openly our opinion of this work, we need only refer the reader to our second number; and it happens fortunately that Cato and Scipio were two of the very names particularly examined. Besides, little advantage is derived from a reference to Lempriere, when the very article to which we are referred is scarcely of greater extent than the words necessary to express the reference. Mr. Trollope, for instance, gives us a note on Fabia Terentia, directing his reader to consult Lempriere. Now, the article in the Dictionary, when found, contains just one single line. Mr. Trollope would not have been charged with plagiarism had he copied the eight words which constitute the biographical notice in the Dictionary, while his reader would have been a gainer in both time and paper.

The few historical notes of his own with which Mr. Trollope has favoured us are, indeed, worthy of Lempriere. By way of adding, we suppose, to the scenic effect of the fourth oration against Catiline, he gratuitously supposes that Terentia, with her son and daughter, were present to ascertain the course which the proceedings in which they were so nearly interested were likely to take. Is Mr. Trollope aware that the little Marcus was at this period only one or two years of age ? We have said that he gratuitously introduces them into the senate; but he does so not only without, but against evidence. To prove this we need go no further than the very passage to which he appends the note in question,— 'Nec tamen ego sum ille ferreus, qui fratris carissimi atque amantissimi praesentis mœrore non movear, horumque omnium lacrimis, a quibus me circumsessum videtis: neque meam mentem non domum saepe revocat exanimata uxor, abjecta metu filia, et parvulus filius.'

In page 5 there is an historical note on the Aborigines, which we cannot refrain from quoting in part. It will speak for itself According to Cic. Tusc. Quaest. 1., the old poet Ennius calls them Casci, a name which is thus explained by

Servius in his commentary on Virgil: Latium dicitur, quod ibi latuerint incolae ; qui quoniam in cavis et occultis montium caventes sibi a feris belluis habitaverint Casci vocati sunt,' &c.

As a specimen of the notes connected with Roman customs we extract the following:- The Romans had a greater and less coin, called sestertium and serstertius, the former of which contained 100 of the latter, and was equal to about 71. 16s. 3d. of our money.' And, again, 'The sestertius was a quarter of a denarius (74d.), equal in value to two pounds and a half of brass.'

If a second edition of this work ever be called for, we request the editor to favour us with his authority for the following points :-First, that the sestertium (value about 71. 16s. and threepence) was a coin ; secondly, that a hundred* sestertii were equivalent to a sestertium; thirdly, that a sestertius was worth a fourth part of 74d., and yet of equal value with two pounds and a half of brass.

In page 37 we are informed that liberti means 'freedmen, as distinguished from the ingenui, or free-born citizens of Rome; and that their sons were called libertini. Now, the American editor assures us that libertus is the correlative of patronus, and that libertini is opposed to ingenui; that Tiro, for instance, belonged to the class of libertini, being the libertus of Cicero. Mr. Trollope, on further inquiry, will find reason to agree with Mr. Anthon.

A few remarks on those notes which are explanatory of construction, and we have done. In page 82 (and by the time the pupil arrives at this stage of the work, be it observed, he will have read the whole of the Catiline and more than two of the orations of Cicero) there is given this note: -Negavi me esse facturum. . . . . The infinitive mood is used after an accusative case, the conjunction that being understood in the English. [Rule: Verba infiniti modi,&c.]' Had any note upon this usage of the Latin accusative been necessary, it would have been more judicious to have placed it at the outset of the Catiline, after the words qui sese student praestare. Yet Mr. Trollope, omitting it in this first passage, takes care to lose no opportunity of giving the same valuable note in the middle of his book. See p. 15, n. 1; p. 20, n. 3; p. 21, n. 5; p. 30, n. 3; p. 31, n. 2; p. 33, n. 4, &c. This, however, is merely a waste of paper. There are too many notes where the pupil is likely to be misled by the critical remarks of our editor. Thus in the seventh chapter of the

*‹ A hundred' appears to be a mistake of the press, but as the whole passage is so inexact, it seemed necessary to extract it entire. Typographical errors in Mr, Trollope's book are very numerous.