The name is absent

PE KIZONl US.

τatlιcr proud of Iiis prudentia civilis. For the second deead,
especially from the eleventh book to the fifteenth, and also for
the books from forty-six to sixty, he had tolerably complete
materials, and made vigorous and good use of them, whence
those parts are more successful than the later books ; but, as he
advanced, he became more and more careless, and from the
time of the Social war the work is altogether wretched. It
is. however, notwithstanding this, indispensable for him who
studies Roman history. Although Freinsheim was not a first-
rate philologer ; yet he and his countrymen, Boeder and Obrecht,
are ornaments of Germany in those times. That he did not
complete such a gigantic undertaking in an equal manner is
pardonable enough ; but the pretension to replace Livy is alto-
gether a mistake peculiar to the age in which Frcinsheim lived.
After him, Livy was for a long time neglected.

About twenty years after Freinsheim, quite a different man
began to write a work on Roman history, which is thoroughly
classical; this was J. Perizonius' Animadversiones Historicae.
He undertook a criticism of Roman history, or rather of some
portions of it; but what he did do, is masterly in substance
and excellent in form. It was he who first conceived the
fruitful idea, that the history of Rome, like that of the Jewish
nation, had arisen out of poetical lays ; an idea which we can-
not admire enough, if we consider the time at which Perizonius
lived; and especially if we remember that he was a Dutchman,
for such national lays do not exist all in the Netherlands. A
Dane, might much more easily have hit upon the thought, ɛɪs
Saxo Grammaticus, and the lays of the Edda would naturally
lead to it. Pcrizonius had a mind free from prejudice, and pos-
sessed incredible philological learning, and a truly historical
genius. His animadversiones, however, have not exercised that
influence, which they ought to have had : they were only once
reprinted, and then forgotten.

After the year 1684, scarcely anything was done for Roman
history in a philological point of view. Bentlcy and J. M∙
Gessner, are almost the only distinguished scholars who arose
during that sad condition of philology in the first half of the
eighteenth century. Meantime a general intellectual culture
began to spread more and more in Europe, which could not
but exercise its influence upon the history of antiquity, as a
part of universal history; and thus men, Avithout possessing

MONTESQUIEU—BAYLE—BEAUFORT—ROLLIN, ETC. Ixxxvii

any profound philological knowledge, began to occupy them-
selves with ancient history. One result of this was the little
work of president Montesquieu, “ Sur les causes de la gran-
deur des Romains, et de leur decadence,” which, notwith-
standing many misapprehensions, is an excellent book.

At the end of the seventeenth century, scepticism began to
raise its head in Europe. It began with Bayle, and also laid
hold of history: Bayle did not, however, aim at arriving at
any well-established results, but was satisfied with pointing out
the errors, in what until then had been regarded as historical.
M. de Beaufort, a refugee, who had lived for a long time in
England, and possessed a very intelligent mind, wrote on
Roman history in this spirit. His work on Roman antiquities,
however much there may be in it that deserves censure, is as a
whole the best that has been written on the subject. He was
convinced that the early history of Rome was mere poetry;
and this conviction he expounded in Iiis “ Dissertation sur
!’Incertitude des quatrespremiers Siècles de FHistoireRomaine;"
which bears the impress of a well-read man of genius, who is
not a philosopher, nor accustomed to strict critical investiga-
tion ; but it displays that spirit of scepticism which only destroys
without reconstructing; whence it met with great opposition.
Notwithstanding this, however, it has been of service; and all
that was written afterwards, was founded upon it.

The work which the good and worthy Rollin wrote from
Livy, and the Supplements of Freinshcim, can scarcely be
called a Roman history. But all that Rollin ever wrote is
pervaded by such a noble and virtuous spirit, notwithstanding
his want of judgment, that the French were perfectly right in
putting his works into the hands of the young. His history
of Rome is written in a readable and pleasing form; but no
one in our days can have the patience to go through it. Rollin
was deficient in learning, although he was not exactly un-
learned; but he wrote uncritically, and was ignorant of the
spirit of Roman history, which, on the whole, was written in
those days as if its events had in reality never taken place.

Somewhat later than Rollin, Hooke⁹, an Englishman,
wrote a Roman history with which I am but little acquainted.
Ihe book is not much known in Germany, and does not even
^f,xist in our university-library. All I can say about him is,

⁹ Compar9vol,i1. note 204.

<<   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   >>

More intriguing information