ture adopted in a country, whose climate so nearly resembles our own. These were the objects of my voyage, and with them I was chiefly occupied during my residence in America. My readers, however, must not expect to find in this work any new discoveries in the vegetable kingdom, nor minute botanical descriptions, it having appeared to me sufficient to give the Linnean generick and specifick name of any plant of which I was describing the uses, adding thereto the synonime of those authors who discovered them, or had been very particular in describing them. The history of animals, and mineralogy which are objects of the highest utili ty, and at present the most favorite studies, might have received great aid and assistance from a well informed traveller in this country. But so far from claiming any merit on these subjects, I freely confess, that I have not attended to this part of natural history. After all, I wish it to be understood, that my voyage was undertaken chiefly for my own instruction, and I pretend to give only a simple narration of what I have seen and observed. Perhaps the reader will sometimes think that the de scriptions are too minute, but I preferred to err on this side, rather than to leave any doubt as to the exactness of the facts related by me. With these sentiments, I leave to the publick this work, without any pretensions; and I shall be fully rewarded, if my writings shall tend to excite and spread among my fellow-citizens the desire of applying to the study of botany, taking into consideration the true object of that science, that is to say, the use which society may derive from it. ARTICLE 3. M. T. Cicero's Cato Major, or his Discourse of Old Age, with Explan atory Notes. Philadelphia, printed by Benjamin Franklin. 1744. 4to. pp. 159. (Continued.) In the seventh chapter is a passage, which, as Melmoth and every other commentator appears to have too hastily imagined, conveys the strange and unaccountable opinion, that the memory is impaired by reading the inscriptions upon tombstones. Cato in this passage says, "nec sepulcra legéns, vereor (quod aiunt) ne memoriam perdam : his enim ipsis legendis redeo in memoriam mortuorum." Melmoth indeed acknowledges that this is the only passage in any ancient author, where this foolish superstition is expressed; and that this is the only authority that he has found for the notion, that it ever prevailed among the Romans, or any other people. Instead however of seeking a more rational meaning of the sentence, he goes about to account for the folly, though without much success. Our American translator has not indeed expressed this absurd fancy, but by the omission of the clause quod aiunt, and the latter part of the sentence has made the words susceptible of a more natural meaning. "Nor when I read over the inscriptions of the tombs do I find I am in danger of losing mine." Perhaps it is not necessary to omit any words to extract from the original an intelligible sentiment. Cato, it is well known, was a famous antiquarian; and was at the time of this dialogue employed upon his Origines, a work, where as he himself tells us, "omnia antiquitatis monumenta colligo." In the composition of this work he was obliged, no doubt in many instances, to consult the tombstones for dates and facts. As he was now in his eighty-fourth year (sect. 10.) it is extremely natimagine, that his memory had in ural that people in general should therefore incompetent to such a lasome degree failed, and that he was bour of accuracy and learning. In reply to this suspicion he observes, "when I read the inscriptions upon the tombs, I feel no apprehensions, as they suggest, of the failure of my memory; for I find as I read, that one role only is committed to him, I fully recollect the persons and events there recorded." This employment satisfied him, that he had not lost any of the retention and vigour of that faculty. If the pasSage will not, as we think it will, admit this construction, the interpretation of Manutius is to be preferred to that, which, without any other support, presents the absurd meaning we first mentioned-"legendis enim multorum nominibus," says this commentator," perturbatur & confunditur memoria." Cicero, in the eleventh section, says, that the aged were excused by the laws and institutions of the commonwealth from those publlck duties, which required strength; ergo et legibus et institutis vacat ætas nostra muneribus iis, quæ non possunt sine viribus sustineri." If this was the reading in the edition used by Logan, it is unaccountable that he should render it as he has done. and whatever that be, if he acts it well, he is applauded." Surely all that Cicero says, is, that it is not necessary for the applause of an actor, that his part should continue to the conclusion of the play. The consul Duilius was remarkable for his pompous appearances in publick, with a company of musicians. Cicero says he took this liberty in consequence of the glory he obtained in his naval victory-tantum licentiæ dabat gloria. This Logan has strangely metamorphosed. "So great was the pleasure he gave himself, though not without some vanity, in keeping up the memory of that great action." There are many other perversions of the original, of little consequence, which it is needless to enumerate, but which discover a want of critical attention. The great fault however of this translation is the unnecessary insertion of superfluous clauses, which the Latin does not justify, with a view of helping out the meaning. The laws, their administration, the in- Many of these additions seem to be stitutions and discipline of our ancestors, publick and private, are their proper business. There is a passage in the nineteenth section, where the meaning of the original is perhaps doubtful. The reader may determine whether Logan is not entirely mistaken. Cicero observes, that we ought always to be contented with the limits assigned to our present life, for that a short one is sufficient for the purposes, and long enough to obtain the honours and rewards of virtue. "Neque enim histrioni, ut placeat, peragenda est fabula, modo, in quocunque fuerit actu, probetur." It is thus rendered by Logan : "No man expects of any one actor on the theatre, that he should perform all the parts of the piece himself: the suggestions of a sportive imagination, attempting to make the work more pleasant and lively to the mere English reader. The omissions, which are few, may sometimes be accounted for from the difference of editions, and sometimes from mere negligence. Our modern prose writers, who are fond of the puerile ornament of alliteration, may perhaps be gratified by having one pointed out to them in Cicero, which he seems to have intentionally admitted in this highly finished treatise. It is in the eleventh section, where speaking of the imperceptible approach of old age, he says, "ita sensim sine sensu ætas senescit." The commentators say that this is peculiarly proper in the mouth of Cato, as it was the fashion of his age. Take for example the following line of Ennius: "O Tite, tute Tati, tibi tanta Tyranne tuliste ;" or this; "Stultus est qui cupida cupidus cupienter cupit." Or this of Plautus: "Non potui paucies plura plane proloqui." Perhaps the tautology, as well as the alliteration in Cicero, might have been worthily imitated by a translation like the following: "We grow grey with gentle gradation, gradually gliding into the grave.' There are one or two more instances of this figure in Cicero, not however so forced as this, nor so unnatural as to be considered as blemishes. An unfortunate want of precision is observable in our translator's use of the word pleasure, which he continually uses as synonymous with voluptuousness, or mere sensual indulgence, and thus the English exposes reader to mistake the meaning of some excellent sentiments of Cicero. The notes, with which the book abounds, are chiefly historical and biographical; generally entertaining, and taken, not from modern compendiums, but from the original authors. They discover considerable familiarity with the classical historiAmong a great number of nearly equal interest, take the following as a specimen. ans. Marcus Atilius Regulus, being in the year 498 of Rome (256 years before Christ) elected the second time Consul, in the place of Q. Cædicius, who was chosen for that year, but died soon after, embarking in the 9th year of the Romans' first war with the Carthaginians with his colleague Lucius Manlius Vulso, in a fleet of 330 ships [though this was but the 5th year since the Romans had any fleet at all, see Note 69] and 140,000 men, each ship carrying about 420, engaged that of the enemy, consisting of 360 ships and 150,000 men, commanded by Hanno and Hamilcar; sunk 30 of them, and took 63, with the loss of 24 on their own side, which were all sunk, Vol. V. No. VII. 2Z and none taken. After this victory, they invaded Africa, and besieged and took Clupea. This year being expired, and new Consuls chosen, the Senate ordered Manlius to return with the fleet and army, excepting 40 ships, 15,000 foot, and 500 horse, to be left under the command of Regulus, during whose gov ernment they 'continued to him as ProConsul. Regulus, on receiving these orders, remonstrated to the Senate, that if he continued longer absent from home, his farm [which consisted only of 7 Jugera, or 4 and a half English acres] would be ruined; for that his hind or manager that he had left on it was dead, and another had run away with his implements of husbandry; and his wife and children would want bread. Upon which the Senate appointed another to take care of his business, and made good the loss of what was stole from him, out of the public treasury. [Val. Max. 1. 4. c. 4.] Regulus then augmenting his troops, carried on the war successfully but his army lying near the river Bagrada, exceedingly suffered by a monstrous serpent; which was proof against all their weapons, till they brought battering engines against it. Silius Italicus says, it was 100 yards in length; but Pliny calls it only 120 feet, or rather says its skin of that length, was sent to Rome, together with its jawbone, which were kept there in a temple, to the end of the Numantine war, that is, at least 120 years. Valerius Maximus, l. 1. c. 8. from a book of Livy (the 18th) now lost, is large in the account of the army's sufferings by it, and says, it was more terrible and destructive, than all their enemics' forces. Regulus having gained several victories over the Carthaginians, was willing to make peace with them, that he might himself have the honour of ending the war; and the Carthaginians earnestly desired it, but the terms he proposed appeared intolerable. Xanthippus with some mercenaries that they had sent for, arriving soon after from Lacedemon, observing their past mistakes, at their request took on him the command of their army, gave Regulus battle, defeated him, and destroyed his whole army, then consisting (as Eutropius says) of 47,000 men, excepting 2000 that escaped to Clupea ;killing (as he gives it) 30 000, and taking 15,000 prisoners, with Regulus himself, whom they sent in cha ns to Carthage. The Romans, notwithstanding this loss, so vigorously carried on the war, that the Carthaginians five years after, sent embassadors to Rome, and with them Regulus himself, to sue for peace, or if they could not obtain it, at least for an exchange of prisoners; taking Regulus's oath to return if they did not succeed. [So sacred was an oath by their idols held by those heathens, that are now so little regarded, even by christian princes, as well as others.] Coming to the Senate, Regulus behaved as a Carthaginian, whose subject he said he was; but being required to give his sentiments as a Roman, he advised both against a peace and an exchange See Horace, Bo. 3. Ode 5, on this subject. His friends on the Senate's taking his advice, used their utmost endeavours to dissuade him from returning with the embassadors, since he could expect nothing but the most cruel treatment; nor would the Senate either encourage his return or his stay. But, his oath and plighted faith, he said, was of more weight with him, than the fear of tortures or death. He was unmoveably fixt, refused to see his wife and children, and embarked and returned in the same company he came in. Upon his arrival, the Carthaginians incensed against him, caused him (as 'tis said) to be tormented to death, by cutting off his eye-lids, placing him erect on his feet in a narrow wooden case drove full of sharp spikes, with their points towards his body; that he should not lean, or sleep, or rest, without running upon them; and exposing him in that condition with his face turned all day to the sun, until he expired. This account of his death, or the substance of it, we have from Cicero in another place, from Livy, (Argum. 18. B.) Silius Italicus, Appian, Florus, Orosius, Zonaras, and others of the ancients; and yet some late critics reject it, and treat it only as a fable. Palmerius (Jaques Paumier de Grentemesuil, a very learned Frenchman) in his observations upon Appian, I think was the first who modestly proposed his doubt, and gave his reasons from Polybius's silence in the case, who, he say, has largely and prolixly given the history of the first Punic war; but chiefly from a fragment of the 24th book of Diod. Siculus, an excellent historian, recovered, with others, last century, by Peiresc, and published by H. Valesius, in which there is this expression in Greek, ‘oti ‘e meter, &c. That the mother-of the youths (that is Regulus's wife and mother of his children) being deeply affected with her husband's death, and believing be died (di ameleian) for vant of care being taken of him, caused [or advised] her sons to treat the prisoners (Bostar and Hamilcar that were delivered to them) with rigour: Which they effectually did, by shutting them up together in a narrow closet, without victuals; so that Bostar died in 5 days, but Hamilcar continued until the Tribunes hearing of it, summoned the young men, and threatning them with death, for so highly dishonoring the State, obliged them to take due care of them; upon which, throwing all the blame on their mother, they burnt Bostar's body (according to the Roman custom,) sent his bones to Carthage to his relations, and by proper care restored Hamilcar to his health and strength. From which passage, in so faithful an historian, Palmerius concludes, that the family of the Atilii, (i c. of Regulus) to excuse that barbarity, framed this story of Regulus's death, which, being to the dishonour of the nation they were at war with, and greatly hated, easily obtained credit, and passed afterwards for truth. Which, indeed, is not improbable. J. le Clerc, in a note on Freinsheimius's Suppl. to Livy, (lib. 18.) joins in this with Palmerius. But though, for the sake chiefly of this late discovery,I have already dwelt too long on it here; I cannot forbear adding, that Palmerius ought not to have said, that Polybius has given the history of this war largely or prolixly (fuse ne dicam prolixe,) for he professes to give only a summary account of it, as but preparatory to those actions, with which he designed to begin his history; and therefore, though that war continued near 24 years, and was, as he himself says, the greatest and most terrible that had ever been known, (the Romans, who had not one large ship when it began, having lost 700 of five banks of oars, that is, of 300 rowers each, and the Carthaginians 500 such, besides vast numbers of others; and, as near as I can judge, not less than 300,000 men on each side ;) yet Polybius bestows but about two thirds of his first book upon the whole. Livy gave it 4 books, from the 16th to the 19th inclusive; but these, with all the rest of his 2d Decad, from II to 20, are lost, and only the arguments saved. Appian's history of it is also lost, and he only barely mentions it, with Regulus's death, in his beginning of that of their ad war. Diodor. Siculus's account of it is also lost; for of his 40 books we have but 15, with that fragment mentioned before, and some other few scraps. Of Polybius's 40 books there remain but 5 whole, with some excerpts of 12 more, and some other fragments. Of Livy's 140 books there remain but 35, i. c. from 1 to 10, and from 21 to 45; but Freinsheimius has given us excellent supplements of the rest. Of Appian's 24 volumes of the Roman wars there are about 8 or 9 left, for their divisions are uncertain. So that a great part of the Roman history, and particularly of this great war, excepting what Polybius has given, as mentioned above, is to be picked out only from scattered hints in other old authors, or from epitomes, as Florus, Eutropius, Justin, and such like but there is nothing mentioned in any part of these notes, but what is taken from the original authors themselves. When or how Bostar and Hamilcar were taken, I find nothing, nor their captivity mentioned, but in that fragment of Diodore. They were committed to the charge of Regulus's family,as a pledge for him, as he was a captive at Carthage. p. 139. Though it is now well understood, that the story of Regulus is at least doubtful, yet, when this translation was written, we are not sure that it had been doubted by any English historian. This account of the suspicions of Palmerius discovers some attention to critical studies, and may yet be read with interest. From the general complexion of the notes, it would not be surprising, if it should prove, that Dr. Franklin himself had occasionally inserted some remarks. There is sometimes much quaintness and always great freedom in the reflexions, which perhaps betray more of Pagan than of Christian philosophy. This tract of Cicero is peculiarly interesting, from its containing the most explicit avowal to be found in his works of his belief in the soul's separate existence after death. True, it is very difficult to reconcile this language of Cato with other passa ges in Cicero's philosophical works, and especially with some in his letters; but as this seems to be his last opinion we are willing to believe it his real one. But in their doctrine of the soul's future existence, as the philosophers excluded all idea of punishment, and left only the alternative of non existence or beatitude, there was nothing of much practical value, and their most sublime and confident speculations on this doctrine of immortality remain now only to illustrate the value of the christian revelation. The following translation of a well known passage in this treatise, is a fair specimen of the work we have been reviewing. mind of some, and amongst them we I am therefore far from being of the have known men of good learning, who lament and bewail the condition of human life, as if it were a state of real misery: for I am not at all uneasy that I came into, and have so far passed my lived in it, that I have reason to believe, course in this world; because I have so I have been of some use to it; and when the close comes, I shall quit life as I would an inn, and not as a rea' home. For nature appears to me to have ordained this station here for us, as a place and not as a fixt settlement or permanent of sojournment, a transitory abode only, habitation. But Oh the glorious day, when freed from this troublesome rout, this heap of confusion and corruption below, I shall repair to that divine assouls! and not only to those I mentionsembly, that heavenly congregation of cd, but also to my dear Cato, than whom a more virtuous soul was never born nor did ever any exceed him in pięty and a Tection. His body I committed to the funeral pile, which he, alas! ought to have lived to do by mine: yet his soul did not forsake me, but keeping me still in view, removed to those abodes, to which he knew, I was in a little time to follow. I bore the affliction indeed with the fortitude that became me, to outward view, though inwardly I severely felt the pangs of it; but in this I have supported myself, that I knew our parting was to |