fhall therefore leave the point, where Mr. Addison thought proper to leave a more improbable doctrine, in fufpence.'

Next to the life of Plutarch, the original matter of the greateft" importance, with which our Tranflators have enriched their. work, is their notes and illuftrations. In thefe they have difplayed an extenfive acquaintance with the Greek and Roman, ufages; and, while they elucidate the obfcurities of their Author, they fupply the more memorable facts which he had omitted. It must be observed, at the fame time, that they have made a free ufe of the annotations of former critics and tranflators; but, in doing fa, they have generally improved on the fources from which they have derived their information.

It will gratify the curiofity of our Readers to fee a fpecimen of the manner in which they have acquitted themselves in this department; and, on this account, we fhall prefent them with the criticifm they have given of the life of Cæfar, as written by Plutarch, and with their delineations of the characters of Craffus, Alexander, and Pompey.

Whatever Plutarch's motive may have been, fay they, it is certain that he has given us a very inadequate and imperfect idea of the character of Cæfar. The life he has written is a confufed jumble of facts fnatched from different hiftorians, without order, confiftency, regularity, or accuracy: He has left us none of thofe finer and minuter traits, which, as he elsewhere juftly obferves, diftinguish and characterize the man more than his moft popular and fplendid operations. He has written the life of Cæfar like a man under restraint; has skimmed over his actions, and fhewn a manifeft fatisfaction when he could draw the attention of the reader to other characters and circumftances, however infignificant, or how often foever repeated by himself, in the narrative of other lives. Yet from the little light he has afforded us, and from the better accounts of other hiftorians, we may cafily discover that Cæfar was a man of great and distinguished virtues. Had he been as able in his political as he was in his military capacity; had he been capable of hiding, or even of managing that openness of mind, which was the connate attendant of his liberality and ambition, the laft prevailing paffion would not have blinded him fo far as to put fo early a period to his race of glory.'

The picture which our Tranflators have drawn of Craffus is executed with great force and fpirit.

There have been more execrable characters, fay they, but there is not perhaps in the hiftory of mankind one more contemptible than that of Craffus. His ruling paffion was the moft fordid luft of wealth; and the whole of his conduct, political, popular, and military, was fubfervient to this. If, at any time, he gave into public munificence, it was with him

no

no more than a fpecies of commerce. By thus treating the people he was laying out his money in the purchase of provinces. When Syria fell to his lot, the tranfports he discovered fprung not from the great ambition of carrying the Roman eagles over the Eaft. They were nothing more than the joy of a mifer, when he ftumbles upon a hidden treasure. Dazzled with the profpect of Barbarian gold, he grafped with eagerness a command for which he had no adequate capacity. We find him embarraffed by the flightest difficulties in his military ope rations, and, where his obftinacy would permit him, taking his measures from the advice of his lieutenants. We look with indignation on the Roman fquadrons ftanding, by his dif pofitions, as a mark for the Parthian archers, and incapable of acting either on the offenfive or the defenfive. The Romans. could not be ignorant of the Parthian method of attacking and retreating, when they had before fpent fo much time in Armenia, The fame of their cavalry could not be unknown in a country where it was fo much dreaded. It was therefore the firft bufinefs of the Roman General to avoid thofe countries which might give them any advantage in the equestrian action. But the hot fcent of eastern treasure made him a dupe even to the policy of the Barbarians, and to arrive at this the nearest way,. he facrificed the lives of thirty thoufand Romans.'

What they have faid of Alexander is no lefs juft and masterly.

Portraits, they obferve, of the fame perfon, taken at different periods of life, though they differ greatly from each other, retain a refemblance upon the whole. And fo it is in general with the characters of men. But Alexander feems to be an exception: for nothing can admit of greater diffimilarity than that which entered into his difpofition at different times, and in different circumftances. He was brave and pufillanimous, merciful and cruel, modeft and vain, abftemious and luxurious, rational and fuperftitious, polite and overbearing, politic and imprudent. Nor were thefe changes cafual or tem-. porary the ftyle of his character underwent a total revolution, and he paffed from virtue to vice in a regular and progreffive manner. Munificence and pride were the only characteristics that never forfook him. If there were any vice of which he was incapable, it was avarice; if any virtue, it was humility.'

Of Pompey they have spoken in the following terms: Pompey has, in all appearance, and in all confideration of his character, had lefs juftice done him by historians than any other man of his time. His popular humanity, his military and political skill, his prudence, (which he fometimes unfortunately gave up) his natural bravery and generofity, his conjugal virtues, which (though fometimes impeached) were both naturally and morally great; his caufe, which was certainly, in its origi

B 4

nal

nal interefts the caufe of Rome; all thefe circumstances intitled him to a more diftinguished and more refpectable character than any of his hiftorians have thought proper to afford him. One circumftance, indeed, renders the accounts that the writers, who rofe after the established monarchy, have given of his oppofition, perfectly reconcileable to the prejudice which appears against him; or rather to the reluctance which they have fhewn to that praise which they feemed to have felt that he deferved when the commonwealth was no more, and the fupporters of its interefts had fallen with it, then history itself, not to mention poetry, departed from its proper privilege of impartiality, and even Plutarch made a facrifice to imperial power.'

We can, by no means, fubfcribe to the opinion which our Tranflators have formed of Pompey. His military fkill appears, indeed, to have been confiderable, and this, perhaps, is the moft fhining part of his character. As a politician, he does not feem to have been poffeffed of much forefight, or penetration. Though a great diffembler, he had not the art to conceal his real fentiments. His league with Cæfar and Craffus gave a mortal blow to his interefts; and will not, furely, be mentioned as a proof of his prudence and fagacity. It furnished to Cæfar the means of deftroying him. It may be faid, that after his return from the Mithridatic war, he flighted the opportunity that was offered him of becoming mafter of the republic; but, it must be remembered, that the fupreme power was conftantly the object of his ambition, and that, if he neglected to feize it at this time, it was merely because he expected to receive it as the gift of the people. Of his humanity, we may judge, from his cruel treatment of Hypfeus, who had been his quæftor, and had been conftantly attached to him; and from his putting to death M. Brutus, a man of the first quality, who had furrendered himself into his hands, under a promife of life. Hence too, we may form a conclufion concerning his integrity, and his honour; and, when we confider the large fums, which he extorted from Ariobarzanes, we cannot fay that he is intitled to the praife of generofity.

There is another character of antiquity, which our Translators do not feem to have perfectly understood. In their notes to the life of Antony, they fpeak of Octavius Cæfar as cowardly and pufillanimous. We are not to be informed, that this invidious charge has been pretty generally received; but we must be allowed to obferve, that it has no folid foundation in history. The Abbé de Vertot, and the Prefident Montefquieu gave inadvertently into this opinion, and fubfequent writers have conftantly adopted it. The grounds, upon which thefe writers formed their conclufion, are fome vague and depreciating expreffions, which, it appears from Suctonius, had been made ufe

of

of by Antony in his manifeftoes against Octavius; and this partial foundation did not furely give them authority to pronounce fo bold a cenfure. There are, indeed, feveral other circumftances, which have a place in history, and which seem to indicate a timidity of fpirit in Octavius; but they are so palpably abfurd in themselves, and fo totally inconfiftent with the tenor of his actions, that no fenfible man could think of employing them against him. His conduct, from his first entering into public affairs, after the affaffination of Cæfar, till the battle of Actium, appears to have been fpirited and daring; and the accounts of authentic hiftorians are a furer criterion from which to judge of his character, than the reproaches of a declared enemy. His behaviour at the fiege of Mutina, in the wars against S. Pompey, in those against the Dalmatians, and in the whole of his conteft with Antony, difcovers nothing of timidity and irrefolution.

We do not mean, from these ftrictures, to draw any general. inferences difadvantageous to the accuracy of the annotations of our Tranflators. It does not follow, because they may have been mistaken in one or two particulars, that they have either. wanted penetration, or have neglected to inform themselves. In the first quality, they are far from being deficient; and, while the industrious ftudent will receive inftruction from the ftores of their learning, he will improve his tafte by the elegant manner in which they have expreffed themselves.

We fhould now offer our opinion of the merits of their tranflation; but, as this article has run into a confiderable length, we fhall delay what we have to fay concerning it, till our review for the next month.

ART. II. The prefent State of the European Settlements on the Miffifippi; with a geographical Defcription of that River; illuftrated by Plans and Draughts. By Captain Philip Pittman. 4to. 6 s. fewed. Nourfe. 1770.

THER

HE European fettlements on the river Miffifippi comprehend Louifiana, part of Weft Florida, and the country of the Illinois. In these countries, the Author of the work before us, refided during feveral years; and, as he was employed in furveying and exploring their interior parts, and was acquainted with many of the more intelligent of their inhabitants, he has been enabled to exhibit an account of them, which is accurate and worthy of attention. The relations of Charlevoix on this fubject, though he is by no means an injudicious writer, are extremely incomplete, and of little authority; as he had not leifure from his rapid progrefs through these countries, to authenticate his materials from his own perfonal knowledge.

Our

Our Author appears to have informed himself with more care; and the candour, which is fo apparent in bis work, will not permit the moft fcrupulous reader to fufpect his veracity.

This performance was not originally intended for publication. It was written at the requeft, and for the perufal only, of the fecretary of state for the colonies. On this account, the compofition and method of our Author ought not

too feverely criticised. His work had certainly the good effect to remove in part thofe unjuft reports concerning the. climate of Weft Florida, which retarded the fettlement of that country, and the matter it contains muft, in general, be allowed to be interefting and important. If we cannot commend his narration and his ftyle, we muft yet obferve, that he has every where expreffed himself with perspicuity.

We fhall transcribe for the entertainment of our Readers, the account, which he has given of the country of the Illinois, and of the government of this country, when belonging to the French; and, from this extract, they will be able to form an opinion of his capacity and merit.

The country, fays he, of the Illinois is bounded by the Miffifippi on the Weft, by the river Illinois on the North, by the rivers Quabache and Miamis on the Eaft, and the Ohio on the South.

The air in general is pure, and the fky ferene, except in the month of March and the latter end of September, when there. are heavy rains and hard gales of wind. The months of May, June, July, and Auguft, are exceffive hot, and fubject to fudden and violent ftorms; January and February are extremely cold; the other months of the year are moderate. The principal Indian nations in this country are, the Cafcafquias, Kaoquias, Mitchigamias, and Peoryas; these four tribes are generally called the Illinois Indians: except in the hunting feafons, they refide near the English fettlements in this country, where they have built their huts. They are a poor, debauched, and daftardly people. They count about three hundred and fifty warriors. The Peanquichas, Mascoutins, Miamis, Kickapous, and Pyatonons, though not very numerous, are a brave and warlike people. The foil of this country in general is very rich and luxuriant; it produces all forts of European grains, hops, hemp, flax, cotton, and tobacco; and European fruits come to great perfection. The inhabitants make wine of the wild grapes, which is very inebriating, and is, in colour and tafte, very like the red wine of Provence. The country abounds with buffalo, deer, and wild-fowl; particularly ducks, geefe, wans, turkies and pheafants. The rivers and lakes afford plenty of fifh.