except one in the museum of the Prince of Waldeck there are many extant bearing the name of Lælianus, which appears to have been that of the competitor of Posthumus. Eckhel, Doct. Num., t. vii., 449.G.

P. 170. According to some Christian writers, Zenobia was a Jewess. (Jost, Geschichte der Israel, iv., 166. Hist. of Jews, iii., 175.)—-M.

P. 171. According to Zosimus, Odenathus was of a noble family in Palmyra; and, according to Procopius, he was prince of the Saracens who inhabit the banks of the Euphrates. Eckhel, Doct. Num., vii., 489.-G.

P. 172. This seems very doubtful: Claudius, during all his reign, is represented as emperor on the medals of Alexandria, which are very numerous. If Zenobia possessed any power in Egypt, it could only have been at the beginning of the reign of Aurelian. The same circumstance throws great improbability on her conquests in Galatia. Perhaps Zenobia administered Egypt in the name of Claudius, and, imboldened by the death of that prince, subjected it to her own power.-G.

P. 173. Tadmor or Palmyra was probably, at a very early period, the connecting link between the commerce of Tyre and Babylon. Heeren, Ideen, v. i., p. ii., p. 125. Tadmor was probably built by Solomon as a commercial station. Hist. of Jews, v. i., p. 271.-M.

P. 175. Klaproth's theory on the origia of such traditions is at least recommended by its ingenuity. The males of a tribe having gone out on a marauding expedition, and having been cut off to a man, the females may have endeavoured, for a time, to maintain their independence in their camp or village, till their children grew up. Travels, ch. xxx., Eng. trans.-M.

P. 179. The interregnum could not be more than seven months: Aurelian was assassinated in the middle of March, the year of Rome 1028. Tacitus was elected the 25th September in the same year.-G.

P. 182. On the Alani, see ch. xxvi,, note 55.-M.

P. 186. It was only under the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian that the Burgundians, in concert with the Alemanni, invaded the interior of Gaul: under the reign of Probus they did no more than pass the river which separated them from the Roman empire: they were repelled. Gatterer presumes that this river was the Danube: a passage in Zosimus appears to me rather to indicate the Rhine. Zos., 1. i., p. 37, edit. H. Etienne, 1581.-G.

On the origin of the Burgundians may

be consulted Malte-Brun, Geogr., vi., p. 396 (edit. 1831), who observes that all the remains of the Burgundian language indicate that they spoke a Gothic dialect.— M.

P. 186.-† Luden, vol. ii., 501, supposes that these Aoyiovai have been erroneously identified with the Lygii of Tacitus. Perhaps one fertile source of mistakes has been, that the Romans have turned appellations into national names. Malte-Brun observes of the Lygii, "that their name appears Sclavonian, and signifies inhabitants of plains; they are probably the Liéches of the middle ages, and the ancestors of the Poles. We find among the Arii the worship of the two twin gods known in the Sclavian mythology." Malte-Brun, vol. i., p. 278 (edit. 1831)-M.

P. 187.- De Pauw is well known to have been the author of this work, as of the Recherches sur les Americains before quoted. The judgment of M. Remusat on this writer is in a very different, I fear a juster tone. Quand au lieu de rechercher, d'examiner, d'étudier, on se borne, comme cet écrivain, à juger, à prononcer, à decider, sans connoître ni l'histoire, ni les langues, sans recourir aux sources, sans même se douter de leur existence, on peut en imposer pendant quelque temps à des lecteurs prévenus ou peu instruits: mais le mépris qui ne manque guère de succéder à cet engoument fait bientôt justice de ces assertions hazardées, et elles retombent dans l'oubli d'autant plus promptement, qu'elles ont été posées avec plus de confiance ou de témérité. Sur les Langues Tartares, p. 231.-M.

P. 192. Three monarchs had intervened, Sapor (Shahpour), Hormisdas (Hormooz), Varanes or Baharam the First.-M.

P. 192. The manner in which his life was saved by the chief pontiff from a conspiracy of his nobles, is as remarkable as his saying. "By the advice (of the pontiff) all the nobles absented themselves from court. The king wandered through his palace alone he saw no one: all was silence around. He became alarmed and distressed. At last the chief pontiff appeared, and bowed his head in apparent misery, but spoke not a word. The king entreated him to declare what had happened. The virtuous man boldly related all that had passed, and conjured Bahram, in the name of his glorious ancestors, to change his conduct, and save himself from destruction. The king was much moved, professed himself most penitent, and said he was resolved his future life should prove his sincerity. The overjoyed high-priest, delighted at this success, made a signal, at which

all the nobles and attendants were in an instant, as if by magic, in their usual places. The monarch now perceived that only one opinion prevailed on his past conduct. He repeated, therefore, to his nobles all he had said to the chief pontiff, and his future reign was unstained by cruelty or oppression." Malcolm's Persia, i., 79.-M.

P. 192. Niebuhr, in the new edition of the Byzantine Historians (vol. xi.), has boldly assigned the Philopatris to the tenth century, and to the reign of Nicephorus Phocas. An opinion so decisively pronounced by Niebuhr, and favourably received by Hase, the learned editor of Leo Diaconus, commands respectful consideration. But the whole tone of the work appears to me altogether inconsistent with any period in which philosophy did not stand, as it were, on some ground of equality with Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity is sarcastically introduced, rather as the strange doctrine of a new religion, than the established tenet of a faith universally prevalent. The argument, adopted from Solanus, concerning the formula of the procession of the Holy Ghost, is utterly worthless, as it is a mere quotation in the words of the Gospel of St. John, xv., 26. The only argument of any value is the historic one, from the allusion to the recent violation of many virgins in the Island of Crete. But neither is the language of Niebuhr quite accurate, nor his reference to the Acroases of Theodosius satisfactory. When, then, could this occurrence take place? Why not in the devastation of the island by the Gothic pirates, during the reign of Claudius? Hist. Aug. in Claud., p. 814, edit. Var. Lugd. Bat., 1661.-M.

P. 197.- Kullicza.-Eton Atlas.-M. P. 199. Eckhel concurs in this view, viii., i., p. 15.-M.

P. 199. On the relative power of the Augusti and the Cæsars, consult a dissertation at the end of Manso's Leben Constantins des Grossen.-M.

P. 200.- According to Aurelius Victor and other authorities, Thrace belonged to the division of Galerius. See Tillemont, iv., 36. But the laws of Diocletian are in general dated in Illyria or Thrace.-M.

P. 201. The Menapians were settled between the Scheldt and the Meuse, in the northern part of Brabant. D'Anville, Geog. Anc., i., 93.-G.

P. 206. Compare, on the epoch of the final extirpation of the rites of paganism from the Isle of Phila (Elephantine), which subsisted till the edict of Theodosius in the sixth century, a dissertation of M. Letronne on certain Greek inscriptions. The dissertation contains some very interesting ob

servations on the conduct and policy of Diocletian in Egypt. Mater. pour l'Hist. du Christianisme en Egypte, Nubie, et Abys sinie, Paris, 1832.-M. P. 207.

Os patulum signifies merely a large and widely opening mouth. Ovid (Metam., xv., 513) says, speaking of the monster who attacked Hippolytus, patulo partem maris evomit ore. Probably a wide mouth was a common defect among the Armenian women.-G.

P. 207. Mamgo (according to M. St. Martin, note to Le Beau, ii., 213) belonged to the imperial race of Hon, who had filled the throne of China for four hundred years. Dethroned by the usurping race of Wei, Mamgo found a hospitable reception in Persia in the reign of Ardeschir. The emperor of China having demanded the surrender of the fugitive and his partisans, Sapor, then king, threatened with war both by Rome and China, counselled Mamgo to retire into Armenia. "I have expelled him from my dominions (he answered the Chinese ambassador); I have banished him to the extremity of the earth, where the sun sets; I have dismissed him to certain death." Compare Mem. sur l'Armenie, ii., 25.—M.

P. 208. See St. Martin, Mem. sur l'Armenie, i., 304.

P. 208. The Chinese Annals mention, under the ninth year of Yan-hi, which corresponds with the year 166 J. C., an embassy which arrived from Ta-thsin, and was sent by a prince called An-thun, who can be no other than Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who then ruled over the Romans. St. Martin, Mém. sur l'Armenie, ii., 30. See also Klaproth, Tableaux Historiques de l'Asie, p. 69. The embassy came by Jy-nan, Tonquin.-M.

P. 208. M. St. Martin represents this differently. Le roi de Perse profite d'un voyage que Tiridate avoit fait à Rome pour attaquer ce royaume. This reads like the evasion of the national historians to disguise a fact discreditable to their hero. See Mém. sur l'Armenie, i., 304.-M.

P. 211.-* .—* The Siounikh of the Armenian writers. St. Martin, Mem. sur l'Armenie, i., 142.-M.

P. 211.- There are here several errors. Gibbon has confounded the streams, and the towns which they pass. The Aboras, or, rather, the Chaboras, the Araxes of Xenophon, has its source above Ras-Ain or ReSaina (Theodosiopolis), about twenty-seven leagues from the Tigris; it receives the waters of the Mygdonius or Saocoras about thirty-three leagues below Nisibis, at a town now called Al Nahraim; it does not pass

P. 212. See St. Martin, note on Le Beau, i., 380. He would read for Intiline, Ingeleme, the name of a small province of Armenia near the sources of the Tigris, mentioned by St. Epiphanius (Hæres., 60). For the unknown name Arzacene, with Gibbon, Arzanene. These provinces do not appear to have made an integral part of the Roman empire; Roman garrisons replaced those of Persia, but the sovereignty remained in the hands of the feudatory princes of Armenia. A prince of Carduene, ally or dependant on the empire, with the Roman name of Jovianus, occurs in the reign of Julian.-M.

P. 212. † I travelled through this country in 1810, and should judge, from what I have read and seen of its inhabitants, that they have remained unchanged in their appearance and character for more than twenty centuries. Malcolm, note to Hist. of Persia, vol. i., p. 82.-M.

P. 216. In the time of the republic, says Hegewisch, when the consuls, the prætors, and the other magistrates appeared in public to perform the functions of their office, their dignity was announced both by the symbols which use had consecrated, and the brilliant cortége by which they were accompanied. But this dignity belonged to the office, not to the individual; this pomp belonged to the magistrate, not to the man. * The consul, followed, in the comitia, by all the senate, the prætors, the quæstors, the ædiles, the lictors, the apparitors, and the heralds, on re-entering his house, was served only by freedmen and by his slaves. The first emperors went no farther. Tiberius had, for his personal attendance, only a moderate number of slaves and a few freedmen (Tacit., Ann., iv., 7). But, in proportion as the republican forms disappeared one after another, the inclination of the emperors to environ themselves with personal pomp displayed itself more and more.

**

The magnificence and the ceremonial of the East were entirely introduced by Diocle

tian, and were consecrated by Constantine to the imperial use. Thenceforth the palace, the court, the table, all the personal attendance, distinguished the emperor from his subjects, still more than his superior dignity. The organization which Diocletian gave to his new court, attached less honour and distinction to rank than to services performed towards the members of the imperial family. Hegewisch, Essai. Hist. sur les Finances Romains.

Few historians have characterized in a more philosophic manner the influence of a new institution.-G.

It is singular that the son of a slave reduced the haughty aristocracy of Rome to the offices of servitude.-M.

P. 217. The most curious document which has come to light since the publication of Gibbon's History, is the edict of Diocletian, published from an inscription found at Eskihissår (Stratoniceia) by Col. Leake. This inscription was first copied by Sherard, afterward much more completely by Mr. Bankes. It is confirmed and illustrated by a more imperfect copy of the same edict, found in the Levant by a gentleman of Aix, and brought to this country by M. Vescovali. This edict was issued in the name of the four Cæsars, Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, and Galerius. It fixed a maximum of prices throughout the empire for all the necessaries and commodities of life. The preamble insists, with great vehemence, on the extortion and inhumanity of the venders and merchants. Quis enim adeo obtunisi (obtusi) pectores (is) et a sensu inhumanitatis extorris est qui ignorare potest immo non senserit in venalibus rebus quæ vel in mercimoniis aguntur vel diurnå urbium conversatione tractantur, in tantum se licentiam defusisse, ut effrænata libido rapien— rum copia nec annorum ubertatibus mitigaretur. The edict, as Col. Leake clearly shows, was issued A.C. 303. Among the articles of which the maximum value is assessed, are oil, salt, honey, butchers' meat, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, fruit, the wages of labourers and artisans, schoolmasters and orators, clothes, skins, boots and shoes, harness, timber, corn, wine, and beer (zythus). The depreciation in the value of money, or the rise in the price of commodities, had been so great during the last century, that butchers' meat, which in the second century of the empire was in Rome about two denarii the pound, was now fixed at a maximum of eight: Col. Leake supposes the average price could not be less than four: at the same time, the maximum of the wages of the agricultural labourers was twenty-five. The whole edict is, perhaps, the most gigantic

P. 218.- Constantine (Orat. ad Sanct., c. 401) more than insinuated that derangement of mind, connected with the conflagration of the palace at Nicomedia by lightning, was the cause of his abdication. But Heinichen, in a very sensible note on this passage in Eusebius, while he admits that his long illness might produce a temporary depression of spirits, triumphantly appeals to the philosophical conduct of Diocletian in his retreat, and the influence which he still retained on public affairs.-M.

P. 223. This attack upon Lactantius is unfounded. Lactantius was so far from having been an obscure rhetorician, that he had taught rhetoric publicly, and with the greatest success, first in Africa, and afterward in Nicomedia. His reputation obtained him the esteem of Constantine, who invited him to his court, and intrusted to him the education of his son Crispus. The facts which he relates took place during his own time; he cannot be accused of dishonesty or imposture. Satis me vixisse arbitrabor et officium hominis implesse si labor meus aliquos homines, ab erroribus liberatos, ad iter cœleste direxerit. De Opif. Dei, cap. 20. The eloquence of Lactantius has caused him to be called the Christian Cicero. Anon. Gent.-G.

Yet no unprejudiced person can read this coarse and particular private conversation of the two emperors, without assenting to the justice of Gibbon's severe sentence. But the authorship of the treatise is by no means certain. The fame of Lactantius for eloquence as well as for truth would suffer no loss if it should be adjudged to some more "obscure rhetorician." Manso, in his Leben Constantins des Grossen, concurs on this point with Gibbon. Beylage, iv.-M.

P. 225.- Zosimus is not the only writer who tells this story. The younger Victor confirms it. Ad frusrandos insequentes, publica jumenta, quaqua iter ageret, interficiens. Aurelius Victor de Cæsar says the same thing, G., as also the Anonymus Valesii.-M.

Manso (Leben Constantins), p. 18, observes that the story has been exaggerated; he took this precaution during the first stage of his journey.-M.

P. 227. Savigny, in his memoir on Roman taxation (Mem. Berl. Academ., 1822, 1823, p. 5), dates from this period the abolition of the Jus Italicum. He quotes a remarkable passage of Aurelius Victor. Hinc denique parti Italiæ invectum tributorum ingens malum. Aur. Vict., c. 39. It was a necessary consequence of the division of the empire: it became impossible to maintain a second court and executive, and leave so large and fruitful a part of the territory exempt from contribution.-M.

P. 228. Manso justly observes that two totally different narratives might be formed almost upon equal authority. Beylage, iv.-M.

P. 228.- Compare Manso, Beylage, iv., p. 302. Gibbon's account is at least as probable as that of his critic.-M.

P. 231. Yet some pagan authors relate and confirm them. Aurelius Victor, speaking of Maximin, says, cumque specie officii, dolis compositis, Constantinum generum tentaret acerbè, jure tamen interierat. Aur. Vict. de Cæsar, i., p. 623. Eutropius also says, inde ad Gallias profectus est (Maximianus) dolo composito tamquam a filio esset expulsus, ut Constantino genero jungeretur; moliens tamen Constantinum, repertâ occasione, interficere, pœnas dedit justissimo exitu. Eutrop., x., p. 661. (Anon. Gent.)-G.

These writers hardly confirm more than Gibbon admits; he denies the repeated clemency of Constantine, and the reiterated treasons of Maximian. Compare Manso, 302.-M.

p.

P. 233. Yet the panegyric assumes something of an apologetic tone. Tevero, Constantine, quantumlibet oderint hostes, dum perhorrescant. Hæc est enim vera virtus, ut non ament et quiescant. The orator appeals to the ancient usage of the republic.-M.

P. 235.- The dissertation of Messrs. Cramer and Wickham has clearly shown that the Little St. Bernard must claim the honour of Hannibal's passage. A tract by Mr. Long (London, 1831) has added some sensible corrections of Hannibal's march to the Alps.-M.

P. 238.- Manso (Beylage, vi.) examines the question, and adduces two manifest allusions to the bridge from the Life of Constantine by Praxagoras, and from Libanius. Is it not very probable that such a bridge was thrown over the river to facilitate the advance, and to secure the retreat of the army of Maxentius? In case of defeat, orders were given for destroying it, in order to check the pursuit: it broke down accidentally, or in the confusion was destroyed, as has not unfrequently been the case, before the proper time.-M.