that the buildings would have been destroyed by the flames ed by the barbarians, is as follows: Note, page 61.

ppe cum supra humanas vires esset, incendere æneas trabes, et submagnarum moles structurarum, ictu fulminum Forum cum imas variis, quæ superstitione miserabili vel deum vel hominem intur, abjectum est: horumque omnium abominamentorum mmissa per hostem flamma non adiit, missus e cœlo ignis everLib ii cap. 15.'

s it was above human strength to burn the brazen beams, to overturn the mass of the great structures, the Forum, the various images, which represent man and god by a mible superstition, was thrown down by lightning; and what Il these abominations, the flames lighted by the enemy id not approach, those sent by heaven overthrew.' Does arrant the expression, relative to the barbarians not having arned these mighty structures merely from the want of ? Orosius states that it was above human power to and, as a good Christian, seems to think that Heaven osed to destroy that sanctuary of superstition which it would baffled human effort to overthrow.

› expression used by Gelasius, ninety years after the event, em evertit,' even if translated as Mr. Hobhouse would it, overturned the city,' would have little weight against thority of Orosius and other historians. But we are not a astonished that an author who is certainly a classical schohould venture to give these English words as the version Latin; they imply much more than is conveyed by the al, the English words referring to the buildings, the Latin government. Alaric did overturn the government, for he > a mock emperor one day, and on the next degraded him; ccording to Orosius, he did little injury to the buildings. o uses Evertere rempublicam,' merely for disturbing the nment, not destroying the state.

rocopius, (says Mr. H.) confines the fire to the quarter near alarian gate; but adds, that the Goths ravaged the whole city. lespoiling edifices of ornaments, many of which must have been ected with their structure, could not fail to hasten their decay.'

oes the Author mean, by inserting this altogether in one rate paragraph, to convey the idea that Procopius says these ornaments were taken away? We cannot find such a age; nor do we know any historian who mentions their g away the ornaments which were connected with the build. They remained in Rome only three days, and Rome not before been sacked by any conquering army. Is it to be Dosed that they wasted their time in taking away the bronze

apologist of Alaric.'-Yet Alaric was an Arian! Mr. H. however proceeds:

It is certain that Alaric did burn a part of Rome. Orosius, by making the comparison between the former great fires, and that of the Goths, shews that such a comparison might be suggested by the magnitude of the latter calamity. He adds also, that after the people were returned, the conflagration had left its traces, and in relating the partial destruction of the Forum by lightning, makes it appear that the brazen beams, and the mighty structures which were then consumed, would have fallen by the hands and flames of the barbarians, had they not been too massive for human force to overthrow.' pp. 60, 61.

Now, let us examine the very passages of Orosius at the bottom of these pages, that we may form some opinion of this gentleman's skill in bringing forward quotations to substantiate his text. The whole of note 2 shall be extracted for this purpose.

""Tertiá die Barbari, quam ingressi fuerint urbem, sponte discedunt, facto quidem aliquantarum ædium incendio, sed ne tanto quidem, quantum septingesimo conditionis ejus anno casus effecerat." He compares the Gallic and Neronic fires, and says they were greater than the Gothic. Hist. lib. vii. cap. xxxix. "Cujus rei quamvis recens memoria sit, tum si quis ipsius populi Romani et multitudinem videat et vocem audiat, nihil factum, sicut ipsi etiam fatentur, arbitrabitur, nisi aliquantis adhuc existentibus ex incendio ruinis forte doceatur." Lib. vii. chap, xl.'

These quotations, literally translated, mean as follows: 'the third day after their entry, the Barbarians of their own ac'cord retire, a burning of some buildings indeed having been 'made, but not even so great as chance had caused in the seven hundredth year of the building of the city.' **** • Of which, though the memory is recent, if any one should see the 'multitude and hear the voice of the Roman people itself, he will 'think nothing had been done, as they themselves allow, unless he may by chance be taught by the few ruins yet remaining from the fire.' Now, what does the magnitude suggested by the comparison between the Gothic, and the Gallic and Neronic fires, amount to, more than this, that a few buildings, certainly, were burned, but that the fire was not equal to the one in the seven hundredth year of Rome, which is one of the smaller fires hardly mentioned by authors; and that it was so small that the common people had almost forgotten it, and a stranger might not discover it, except he happened to meet with some of the few ruins yet remaining. Orosius, who speaks this in his own person, wrote about A.D. 416, not more than six years after Alaric took the city.

The other passage which is quoted in support of the asser

tion, that the buildings would have been destroyed by the flames kindled by the barbarians, is as follows: Note, page 61.

Quippe cum supra humanas vires esset, incendere æneas trabes, et subruere magnarum moles structurarum, ictu fulminum Forum cum imaginibus variis, quæ superstitione miserabili vel deum vel hominem mentiuntur, abjectum est: horumque omnium abominamentorum quod immissa per hostem flamma non adiit, missus e cœlo ignis evertit. Lib ii. cap. 15.'

As it was above human strength to burn the brazen beams, and to overturn the mass of the great structures, the Forum, with the various images, which represent man and god by a miserable superstition, was thrown down by lightning; and what of all these abominations, the flames lighted by the enemy could not approach, those sent by heaven overthrew.' Does this warrant the expression, relative to the barbarians not having overturned these mighty structures merely from the want of power? Orosius states that it was above human power to do it, and, as a good Christian, seems to think that Heaven interposed to destroy that sanctuary of superstition which it would have baffled human effort to overthrow.

The expression used by Gelasius, ninety years after the event, Urbem evertit,' even if translated as Mr. Hobhouse would have it, overturned the city,' would have little weight against the authority of Orosius and other historians. But we are not a little astonished that an author who is certainly a classical scholar, should venture to give these English words as the version of the Latin; they imply much more than is conveyed by the original, the English words referring to the buildings, the Latin to the government. Alaric did overturn the government, for he set up a mock emperor one day, and on the next degraded him; but, according to Orosius, he did little injury to the buildings. Cicero uses Evertere rempublicam,' merely for disturbing the government, not destroying the state.

Procopius, (says Mr. H.) confines the fire to the quarter near the Salarian gate; but adds, that the Goths ravaged the whole city. The despoiling edifices of ornaments, many of which must have been connected with their structure, could not fail to hasten their decay.'

p. 62.

Does the Author mean, by inserting this altogether in one separate paragraph, to convey the idea that Procopius says that these ornaments were taken away? We cannot find such a passage; nor do we know any historian who mentions their taking away the ornaments which were connected with the buildings. They remained in Rome only three days, and Rome had not before been sacked by any conquering army. Is it to be supposed that they wasted their time in taking away the bronze

and other metals that bound the stones together? The quotation from Procopius merely states that they burned the houses near the gate, and sacked the whole city.

The authority of Marcellinus, the author of the quoted chronicle, is null and void, for at the same time that he asserts that the Goths burned a part of the city, he is guilty of a great inaccuracy, when, in the same sentence, he states that Alaric remained six days in the city. Orosius, who was a contemporary, asserts that Rome remained in their possession only three days.

The authorityin favour of the opinion against the Goths, which has the greatest weight, is Cassiodorus; although he is not, as the Author asserts, an earlier or a better authority than the three above mentioned. That Marcellinus was his predecessor, is proved by Cassiodorus's quoting him; and Procopius and Cassiodorus must have been living at the same time, as the latter did not die till A. D. 540, only three years before the plague of Constantinople, which the former so accurately describes. But let us examine what weight the testimony of Cassiodorus should have on our decision. Although, not being either a Roman or a Goth, he may be supposed to be impartial, yet, writing against Arians, we must not be surprised if he, in his ecclesiastical history, should be disposed to colour somewhat unfavourably those facts which tell against them. Cassiodorus wrote about 115 years after the sacking of Rome; he was not therefore a contemporary, like Orosius; nor was he, like Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, any time a resident in Rome. These however we have seen, do not mention any of the wonders of Rome as having been burned by Alaric. Cassiodorus also speaks generally : They came to Rome, which laying waste, they burnt with fire many of its miracles.' Procopius speaks more particularly, and says: They burnt the houses which were nearest the gate, 6 amongst which was that of Sallust the historian.' Yet, these two historians had, to say the least, equal opportunities of ascertaining the fact. Orosius, then, who lived at the very time, must be allowed to decide in our favour, when he says: Only " a few buildings were burnt.' There is one other circumstance to be taken into consideration, which is, that Jornandes, who writes specially upon the Gothic affairs, and who, in his prefatory letter to a friend, mentions that he abridges the Twelve books of Cassiodorus on the subject, which are now unfortunately lost, says, in the most clear and decisive terms: They did not, however, as is generally done, set fire to the town.' How can we reconcile this, unless we believe that Cassiodorus, in his ecclesiastical history, referred to this point negligently, as one not immediately relevant, but, in his great history of the Goths, spoke more accurately. We cannot imagine that Jornandes would have ventured, in spite of his being a Goth, so completely