curiosity amply gratified by consulting Mosheim*, and the different authors for and against it, which he so amply alludes to. The next miracles adduced are a blind man restored to sight, in 386, by the application of a cloth which had touched the relics of the Saints Gervasius and Protasius, and three bodies roused to life by the relics of St. Stephen. Now, this is really too much for our reviewing stomachs. The whole story smells of the cloister, and the superstition of that age when relics first were introduced, and when quantities of dust and earth, brought from Palestine and other places, remarkable for their supposed sanctity, were handed about as the most powerful remedies against the violence of wicked spirits, and were bought and sold at enormous prices. We give an instance, quite a match for that of the Letter-writer, and we believe it genuine. In order to increase the wealth and power of the Clergy, Purgatory became among them a favourite doctrine. To have it established, no arts were left untried. Tales and Legends, addressed to the people's fears and credulity by Priests and Friars, enticed the multitude into this belief. Accordingly, this miracle, among others, was got up: St. Jerome's ghost appeared to Eusebius, it was said, and commanded him to lay his sack (loose upper robe) upon the corpse of three dead men. The thing was done. The three dead men, who, in their lifetime, had denied strenuously the doctrine of Purgatory, rose the instant the sack of St. Jerome touched them, and confessed Purgatory, and their solemn belief in it, from their own experience, for they had been there! This miracle was propagated, in the after centuries, as unquestionable. It was at all times ready to be appealed to. At last it was asked, Where was it to be found? In the Epistle of St. Cyril, was the reply. The moment the authority was given, the false miracle was detected and exposed for, as ill-luck would have it, St. Jerome out-lived St. Cyril, and wrote his life, which confuted the miracle: but it was all one for that. Catholics believe it nevertheless. If it was not true, they said, it should have been true: they had only to believe it, and all was well enough. There are plenty of miracles, besides this one, to prove PURGATORY in the "Speculum Exemplorum." For example, we are told of a certain Priest, who, in an extacy, saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eaves of his house, tormented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards, relieved by masses, climbing up to heaven on a shining pillar!-and of a certain monk, who saw some souls roasted upon spits like pigs, and some devils basting them with scalding lard!!—and of Bishop Theobald, standing upon a piece of ice to cool his feet, hearing a poor soul, under the ice, telling him he was tormented in Purgatory, and could only be delivered by his saying, during thirty days, thirty masses for him!!! All which is no doubt as true as Virgil's "Descensus Averni," -or Cicero's dream of Scipio,or Plato's Gorgias,—or the relics of Gervasius, and Protasius, and St. Stephen, curing the blind, and raising the dead. We would recommend the Popish Legends to the Great Unknown. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, who relate these virtues in relics, were no doubt, in their day, burning and shining lights. But the former wanted solidity, accuracy, and shrewd observation; while the latter, under the violent impulse of a warm imagination, judging with a degree of levity and precipitation, before examining carefully and diligently the subjects on which he wrote, has involved himself in the most extraordinary contradictions. Indeed, were we to quote one Father sooner than another against miracles, after the first preaching of the Gospel, it would be their champion St. Austin. We beg the Letterwriter to reconcile the following sentences with the narratives of the alleged virtues of these relics :"Accepimus majores nostros, visibilia miracula secutos esse, per quos id actum est ut necessaria non essent • Mosheim's Church History, Vol, II., pp. 61, 62. I Do not think that there is a more amusing play in any language than the "Aulularia of Plautus." The Miser Euclio, who has discovered a pot of gold under his hearth, and by the hiding and preservation of which he is kept in a state of the most constant alarm and agitation, forms the prominent figure in the group. It is not my intention to analyze or abridge this play. I only mean to shew the skill and address with which the character of Euclio is wrought up. His reflections in the Second Scene of the First Act at once discover the nature of his character. He imagines, quite amusingly, that every body is aware of his discovery, and that they court him accordingly. "Nam nunc quam celo sedulo omnes, ne sciant, Omnes videntur scire, et me benignius Omnes salutant, quam salutabant prius. Adeunt, circumsistunt, copulantur dextras; Rogitant me ut voleam," &c. The cooks who, in his own house, are employed in preparations for his daughter's marriage, alarm him exceedingly by the ambiguity of their conversation, which, in the Ninth Scene of the Second Act, he is represented as overhearing, "Aulam majorem, si potes, vicinia Pete, hæc est parva, capere non quit." This simple inquiry made by Congrio the cook, after a larger pot *St. Austin, de Verâ Religione, cap. 25. + Ditto, de Civitate Dei, lib. 22. c. 8. Credo ego ædepol illi mercedem gallo pol. licitos coquos Si id palam fecisset!" Nothing can exceed the characteristic absurdity of all this. The cock falls a scraping upon the floor, beneath which the Miser's treasure is hid, and he immediately imagines, not only that the fowl has an eye to his gold, but that the cooks have absolutely bribed him to effect the discovery! He carries his treasure, at last, into the temple of Faith, where he is observed depositing it by Strobilius. Upon which he addresses Strobilius in the most convitiatory terms, calling him worm, reptile, and fifty other names of reproach. He then carries his treasure into the grove of the god Origines Sacræ, p. 349. These quotations are taken from the Rev. Charles Barden's excellent Sermon on Miracles; the perusal of which we cheerfully recommend it is worthy of all acceptation. Printed at Dublin 1823. video, cæcus eo! Heu me miserum! miserum! perii male perditus ! &c. The whole of this Scene is indeed admirable. Lyconides, who has formerly been upon terms of somewhat easy intercourse with the Miser's daughter, comes now to make the reparation of marriage, and to ask her of her father. Here a dialogue of cross purposes ensues, from the feminine pronoun made use of, and which is, of course, equally applicable to the "aulula," or "olla," which is constantly running in the Miser's head, and the lady who is the subject of the lover's conversation. It is not that the word "olla" is mistaken by Euclio, as has generally been supposed, for" olla," or "illa," the pronoun; but that, dealing always in generals, and never speaking, in either case, the subject of their anxiety distinctly and "nominally" out, the mistake is continued. Thus, when Euclio says, "Tu illam scibas non tuam esse, (Act IV. Sc. 10.), there is no reference whatever to the word "ollam," a pot; the whole ambiguity lies in the making use of a pronoun. in the feminine gender, which is equally capable of being applied to the "Miser's daughter," the subject of Lyconides's inquiry, and to the "aula," or "aulula," the burden of the Miser's distress; and accordingly Lyconides immediately answers: "Ergo quia tangere ausus, haud cassifi cor quin eam Ego habeam potissimam." Had the pun been upon the word "olla," eam, which is here introduced by Lyconides, would not have been made use of. Euclio proceeds with his questioning, Tune habes me invito mcam ?” The answer is The error is continued, till at last "Aulam auri, inquam, te reposco, quam And this brings on an explanation, covered. We have been the more particular in bringing this Scene, to which, for the present, we mean to limit our observations, under the reader's view, in consequence of an universal mistake, as it appears to us, which has obtained respecting the nature and meaning of this passage. Mr John Dunlop, the ingenious and highlyrespectable author of the History of Fiction,-a work which is entitled to a place in every public library in the kingdom,-in a more recent and highly-meritorious publication on the "History of Roman Literature," has fallen into the same mistake with others; probably because he followed authority on this point, rather than investigated the original sources of knowledge himself. His words, at the 162 page of the first volume, are these:"Euclio coming one day to recreate himself with a sight of his gold, finds that it is gone; and returning home in despair, is met by Lyconides, who, hearing of the projected nuptials between his uncle and the Miser's daughter, now apologizes for his conduct, and offers the reparation of marriage. The Miser applies all that he says concerning his daughter to his lost treasure, the ambiguity of his discourse being aided by the equivocal word" olla," the old Latin for "illa." Now, our opinion is, that no such ambiguity or play upon the word "olla," in reference to a pot," and to a female," is manifested in the Scene we have examined, or any where else in the play; and that, in as far as this point is concerned, not only Mr Dunlop, but all other commentators whom we have seen or examined, are mistaken. There is indeed one 66 66 quibble upon the word "olla," or aula," in the case where "Euclio," as has already been shewn, imagines that the cook, who was borrowing a larger pot for culinary purposes, is speaking of that particular vessel in which his (the Miser's) treasure was hid; but this is altogether foreign from the mistaking of "olla" for "illa," the question at issue, Error of this kind is easily propagated. For every one commentator who actually reads and judges, on such occasions, for himself, there is a numerous list of writers, who take their opinions and information, without much trouble, at second hand, and thus mistakes gain support and confirmation by all the weight and authority of every additional copyist. In the 21st Book of Livy, and at the 22d line of the 31st Chapter, we have this sentence: "Sedatis certaminibus Allobrogum, quum jam Alpes peteret, non recta regione iter instituit, sed ad lavam in Tricastinos flexit." Upon this passage, Fathers Catrou and Rouille have the following note-(Vide Hist. Vol. III. p. 64): “ If, as Livy assures us, Hannibal returned back and went down towards the Durance, in order to come to the Alps, how could he say that this General turned to the left, (ad lævam,) in order to come to the Tricastine, near St. Paul Trois Chateaux, and the Canton of the Vocontii, in Dauphiné. It is certain that this country lies to the right of the mouth of the Saone, from whence Livy makes him march his army, in order to go to the banks of the Durance. He could not go to the left, but by pursuing his road along the Rhone," &c. Crevier, too, expresses himself thus:-" Nihil de hoc Hannibalis itinere habet Polybius. Et sane non facile intelligitur, quomodo Hannibal qui adversa ripa Rhodani ad Isaram pervenerat, Tricastinos inde petens, ad lævam iter flexisse dicatur, qui potius vestigia relegebat sua." Now, Sir, with your permission, and with much unfeigned respect for the great names and authorities which have just been quoted, I mean to differ "toto cœlo," as far as east is different or distant from the west, upon the question here at issue. I wave all the disquisition respecting the long-contested passage of the Alps, at least for the present, and I likewise avoid discussing the point, to which Crevier alludes, betwixt Polybius and Hannibal. I only take this for granted, that Livy, correct or not, means to inform us, that Hannibal, after remaining for some time, and with the view of settling some differences at the conflux of the Arar and the Rhodanus, begins his march towards the Alps; and that, in order to accomplish this, he ceases to ascend the Rhone or the Arar, but deflects his rout towards the Alps, taking the river Durance, the Tricastini, and Vocontii, in his way. It is admitted, both by Polybius and Livy, that the reason why Hannibal ascended the Rhone, in a line nearly at right angles with that of his intended rout towards Italy, was, that he might thus escape Scipio, who had landed an army at the mouth of the Rhone, and from whose advanced post, or cavalry, he had already experienced a defeat. He accordingly advances by forced marches towards the interior, (" Mediterranea Galliæ," or, as it is in Polybius, "Europa" petit,) and accomplishes his purpose, by leaving Scipio at a great distance behind him. Having, however, spent some time at the confluence of the Rhone with the Saone or Arar, and finding that Scipio did not follow up his advantage as he might have done, and that he had probably given up all thoughts of bringing him (Hannibal) to an action on this side of the Alps, he resolves upon returning, in some measure, upon his steps; and in the absence of Scipio, who had by this time, in all probability, dispatched his brother Cn. Cornelius to Spain, and re-shipped the remainder of his forces for Italy, he is not prevented from following that course into Italy which his guides had recommended. Thus there appears to be less inconsistency in the narrative of Livy than is generally imagined; and whether we carry Hannibal by the "Alpes Peninæ," or by the "Alpes Cottiæ," it is certain that he must have altered his course ere he could reach either of these Passes. The Tricastini and Vocontii, and the river Druentia, lie immediately south-east from Lyons, or from the confluence of the Saone and Rhone, where Hannibal was; and it seems altogether inexplicable to Rouillè, Catrou, and Crevier, that when Hannibal deflected his course from the north to the south-east, he should be said "ad lævam flectere." It is quite true, that, looking upon a globe or map, your face is supposed to be turned towards the north, and that the east is upon your right hand, and the west upon your left; and that, consequently, regarding Hannibal from any point, south of his present position at Lyons, the right and left banks of the Rhone are those upon the Roman and the Spanish sides respectively; and when Hannibal deflected towards the Tricastini, he actually returned upon the right bank of the river Rhone, whether that river be viewed from New Carthage or from Rome. But it is likewise certain, that, so soon as the Carthaginian army had turned about at Lyons, and were on their march along the Rhone, south-east ward, to every one individual of that army the river Rhone was upon the right, and the Tricastini and Vocontii upon the left; consequently, when the army were ordered by Hannibal to march, they would be ordered to incline to the left, in proportion as the point upon which they were advancing lay more or less to the eastward of the course of the Rhone. The cause of the misapprehension upon the subject appears to us to be this: The reader of Livy naturally places himself in the situation of the historian at Rome, and he considers right and left, in reference to the right and left banks of the Rhone, as viewed from Rome. Whereas the historian very naturally places himself in the situation of Hannibal returning almost upon his own steps, and, doing so, he of necessity considers the Tricastini and Vocontii as lying upon Hannibal's left hand. In advancing upwards, along the Rhone, these nations were indeed upon his right; but, for the same reason, the same people are upon his left, when he returns again south-eastward. Every scholar is aware, that, according as the Augur turned his face towards the north, or towards the south, the cast was upon his right hand, or upon his left; and by the same rule, 66 so long as Hannibal marched northwards, the Tricastini were upon his right; but so soon as he returned southwards, they were upon his left. Besides, the very terms which are made use of seem to afford a confirmation of this meaning: Quum jam," when now, at length, after so considerable a delay as had occurred at the conflux of the two rivers, " Alpes peteret," he was turning his march towards the Alps, which he had, in fact, not been doing for many days before, non recta regione iter instituit," he did not proceed towards them in a straight line, which would have been nearly at right angles with that line upon which he had hitherto been advancing-What then? How did he, in fact, proceed?" Ad lævam in Tricastinos flexit," he bent his course from the direct line into one verging towards it; he advanced, in short, not straight east, but in an easterly direction, and holding all the while to his own left hand, “in Tricatinos," towards and into the territory of the Tricastini. "It is certain," say Fathers Catrou and Rouillè, "that this country of the Tricastini lies to the right of the mouth of the Saone." True; but our answer is, that Livy does not speak of the right and left banks of the Saone, but of the right and left hand of Hannibal, when he was "flectens iter in Tricastinos." "Et sane non intelligitur," says Crevier, " quomodo Hannibal qui adversa ripa Rhodani ad Isaram pervenerat, Tricastinos inde petens ad lævam iter flexisse dicatur, qui potius vestigia relegebat sua;" and it is just upon this very circumstance that Hannibal retraced his own steps, 86 vestigia relegebat sua," that we discover the Tricastini to be upon Hannibal's left hand. Dr Hunter, however, has endeavoured to remove this difficulty in the following manner: "Si locus sanus sit," says the Doctor," verba 'ad lævam' respectu Romæ degentium dicta, non Hannibalis, existimandum est, quemadmodum ultra Iberum,' c. 5.—supra ;" which, if we mistake not the venerable Professor's meaning, is to be translated and interpreted thus:-" If the reading be 6 |