aureo uti cœlo (one excepted, which for cælo reads scœlo). This reading Vossius defends in his notes on Catullus, p. 199, 200. I am not of his opinion, and I will give my reasons. In the first place, I query whether the reading of Vossius be Latin; but, allowing it to be so, I am sure it is a flat and obscure expression, unworthy of Florus, who, though he wants the purity of the Augustan age, is remarkable throughout for spirit and perspicuity. Secondly, Vossius, in his notes upon it, supposes that this aureum cœlum, or vitis, which, says he, covered the sanctum sanctorum, was the very same meant by Josephus and Strabo (Ant. 14, 5.), by Pliny (L. 87. c. 2.), to whom I may add Seneca (Ep. 4.), and which was carried to Rome by Pompey. But this is certainly a mistake; for, first, how could Pompey see that in the temple which Josephus and Strabo expressly say was sent to him while he was in Colo-Syria, before his arrival at Jerusalem? And I think Josephus is an authority beyond exception in all matters that relate to his own country; nor can I believe it was kept in the sanctum sanctorum; for all authors agree that nothing was there after the captivity. Josephus positively affirms that there was nothing in it in his time (Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 14); for you know the consecrated vessels were lodged in the sanctum, or outer temple. Vossius, indeed, says it was there, not as a donarium, but as the cover or roof of the sanctum sanctorum, which (says he) was perforated to admit the light; and, after its removal, the temple lay open to the air. This is a strange conceit; and the contrary can be so plainly proved from Josephus and other writers, that I wonder a man of his wit and learning would advance such a paradox, on no better authority than Dio Cassius, a heathen writer, who lived a hundred years after the destruction of the temple. I don't believe this aurea vitis, which Vossius means, was ever in any part of the temple. Josephus says nothing of it, and plainly says it was adorned with the figures of animals-a thing expressly forbidden by the Jewish Law, and would not have been borne by that rigid and pharisaical age. It is in vain to urge the example of Solo

mon's twelve oxen under the brazen sea; for the Jews, and Josephus in particular, condemned that practicewitness Herod's golden eagle over the temple, which the Jews pulled down. Much less, had it been the roof of the sanctum sanctorum, would Aristobulus have been guilty of such a sacrilege as to remove it. I believe Vossius's vine was made by Alexander, father of Aristobulus, for an ornament of his palace, not of the temple.

If Pompey saw this aureum cœlum in the temple, as Florus says he did, what becomes of the authority of Josephus, who says (Ant. 14, 8. B. I. 1. 5.) that Pompey took nothing out of the temple? The same is affirmed by Cicero c. 28 (Pro Flacco), and if this had been the same vine which Pompey caried away and afterwards dedicated in the capitol, 'tis strange that Florus had not given us a hint of it by adding secum abduxit, transtulit, or the like.

I will not conceal two authorities which contradict what I have said. The first is Eusebius in his Chronicon, who says that Pompey plundered the temple: but Scaliger says the words were added by an ignorant hand, for the sense is entire without them; and Jerome, his translator, takes no notice of them in his version. The other is the nameless author of the Επιτομη Χρονων, printed with Eusebius, who says that Pompey, among other things, carried away the golden vine. But this writer is of a late date, and not worthy to be set into competition with the authority of Josephus and Cicero. I have done with Vossius, whose chief fault is his confounding the vine which Aristobulus gave to Pompey with that which Pompey saw, and (I believe) left behind him in the temple.

Capellus, whose opinion Mad. Dacier espouses, (and is so fond of that she mentions no other,) reads it as it is in the printed edition, sub aureo vitem cœlo; but, instead of untying the knot, he cuts it. Florus," says he,

66

having heard that Pompey dedicated a golden vine in the capitol, and that he had likewise entered the sanctum sanctorum, without more inquiry concluded he took it thence, and (withall) imagined this was the great arcanum of the Jews, because found

in that place; and Capellus must, of course, believe Pompey saw no vine at all in the temple." But I am not of this opinion. "Tis true I approve that reading; but I think Florus and Josephus may well enough be reconciled; for I believe there was a vine in the temple, which Pompey saw, and which was not the same with that of Aristobulus, which I have already proved he never saw in the temple, nor indeed was it ever there.

1. Tacitus says there was a vine of gold found in the temple, i. e. by Pompey, for Titus found none there. "Tis true there was a golden vine in the temple at the beginning of the siege, of most exquisite workmanship and infinite value, the clusters being as long as a man. But had this been found by Titus, no doubt Josephus would have mentioned it among the other ornaments of the temple borne in triumph by Vespasian; but it is probable this vine was destroyed before Titus entered the temple, for it might be embezzled by the zealots during the siege. So that, upon the whole matter, I believe Tacitus is to be understood of Pompey, and not Titus.

2. This famous vine just now spoken of, Josephus mentions (Ant. V. 14), and B. J. (VI. 6), where he says it hung over the gate, under the porch or cupola that led to the first temple. This exactly agrees with the aureum cælum of Florus, which (I think) signifies nothing but a hollow arch or cupola overlaid with gold as that was: for thence probably comes the English word ceiling. If you think cœlo won't bear that sense, by a slight correction you may read tholo, which certainly expresses it. Mad. Dacier will have cœlum signify a canopy; which, indeed, is no ill sense.*

Perhaps you'll object that the vine described by Josephus was in the third temple; and it might have been in the second too; for were not the

was

vessels of the first temple used in the second when it was built? Besides, Josephus mentions more vines than one in the same place, and it is very probable that one of them was taken from the old temple; for I am sure that golden vines were common ornaments of the old temple:-witness Ptolemy's table, which Josephus says was encompassed round with the golden vine. And the reason plain; for the Jews being forbidden by their law to use statues or images, which were the chief ornaments of the Heathen temples, strove to supply that defect by figures of trees, fruits, and plants. There remains nothing more to add, but where lay the great arcanum or mystery of this vine. Tacitus, when he says that some people thought this vine a symbol or emblem of Bacchus, and from thence concluded that Bacchus was the god worshipped in the temple (Hist. Lib. 5. c. 5). Plutarch thought so likewise (Symp. B. 4. Prob. 5). 'Tis pity the piece is not entire; otherwise the golden vine would have been urged by him as a proof of it. Juvenal (Sat. 6. 543.) makes the vine the god of the Jews; Magnæ Sacerdos Arboris, i. e. Aureæ vitis, says Vossius, which is, whether it be true or not, a most ingenious remark. So much for this subject.

Sir, I have sent you my thoughts upon this subject with no other design but to engage you, in return, to communicate yours with the opinion of other critics upon it. I have seen no other notes upon it but Mad. Dacier's and Vossius's. Want of books has made me too short in some of my remarks, and in others has, perhaps, made me say what very probably had been observed by others, which I hope your candour and ingenuity will overlook. I am your friend and humble servant,

W. M.

hope you will pardon me for taking the same liberty—“ Hanc veniam petimusq. damusq. vicissim."

Grævius, in his reading aureo velo, is no doubt mistaken; for the veil of the temple had no gold in it (2 Chr. iii. 14. Ex. xxvi. Joseph. B. J. 6. 14.) As for the ark and cherubim, they were destroyed, as all writers agree, in the general ruin of the temple, by Nebuchadnezzar.

Before I proceed further, give me leave to take notice of a little slip of your memory in a point of chronology. You say that Herod was born at least twenty years after Pompey took the temple; whereas (indeed) he was born ten years before, which I prove thus: Jerusalem taken by Pompey, A.U.C. 690 (Cicero & Ant. Coss. Jos. Ant. 14-16.); Herod made King, 713 (Calv. & Asia. Cons. Ant. 14. 26.); lived 37 years after, died 749 (Ant. 17-16. B. J. 1. 31.); and, being seventy at his death (Ant. 17. 8. B. J. 1. 31), was born ten years before, i. e. 679.

In the next place I shall propose some objections against Mr. Selden's sense and reading, and answer yours against the vulgar. I must frankly own that the reason why I dislike the MS. reading is, because I cannot construe it. What does the word uti signify in that place? You produce a parallel place out of Horace, Lib. 1. Od. 15. But, under favour, uti in Horace is an adverb of likeness, or comparison, as tanquam, velut, &c. and I appeal to your second thoughts whether the word can possibly bear that sense, as it is supposed to stand in Florus? Is there the least appearance of a comparison in the whole sentence? If there is, I would desire to know what are the two things compared.

This word is frequently used by the best writers, and in several senses; but none that I can meet with can agree with this passage. In Mr. Selden's sense it is a downright useless expletive, without any meaning at all; for it neither adds force to the thought, perspicuity to the sense, nor elegance to the expression. If Selden's interpretation be the true one, I believe the whole ought to be read and pointed thus:-"Et vidit illud grande impiæ gentis arcanum, patens, sub aureo laté

cœlo," which is plain Latin, and

wants no comment.

But I dislike his sense as much as his reading, for this following reason. He supposes cœlum to be the same with the oupavos, or ovρavioкos, of the Greeks -an ornament used by Eastern princes, which was part of the furniture of their presence room, and a thing distinct from the roof, and was, indeed, nothing else but a pavilion or canopy of state, made in the shape of a cupola. (See Casaubon on Athenæus, V. 6. Hesych. in oupav.) But there was no such ornament in the sanctum sanctorum, as appears by the silence of all the Jewish writers, and the direct testimony of Josephus, who affirms, in express words, that there was nothing at all in the sanctum sanctorum (Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 6.)

As for the vulgar reading, you reject it on the sole credit of the MSS; but pray consider how little difference there is in the two readings, and how easily vitem might be corrupted into uti; for I suppose vitem, or vitim, was, in the MSS. written thus, vitī, and the copier, not minding the mark of abbreviation, changed it into vti.

As for your first objection against my explanation, viz. "How can that be called a secret which always stood exposed to public view?" I might answer, though the vine itself stood in view, yet the mystical meaning, or the thing represented by it, might nevertheless be a secret to the multitude.. But I can give a more direct answer. It was not exposed to public view: for none but the priests were ever suffered to pass further than the court of Israel, much less were they admitted into the porch. The kings themselves were denied the entrance (Jos. Ant. L. 14. c. 14); nor were they admitted to view at a distance the ceremonies used by the priests in their religious solemnities; of which there is a remarkable instance in Jos. Ant. L. 20. c. 7. whose single testimony, with me, weighs more than all the reasons which can be produced to the contrary. But there is no necessity to understand the words of Florus in so strict and rigorous a sense, as if the vine were the secret to the Jews. It is enough to my purpose if the site of it were concealed from the Gentiles,'

as it most certainly was; they being admitted no further than the outer court of all, out of which our Saviour whipped the buyers and sellers, and being forbidden by an inscription set up on purpose to enter further.

You are pleased to add that nothing in the sanctum was a secret. If you mean the people were admitted there, what I have said before is a sufficient answer. If you mean they knew what was there by common fame and the report of the priests, your argument will turn upon you; for, at that rate, nothing in the sanctum sanctorum itself was a secret, and consequently Florus could not have styled it the Grande Arcanum; for it is certain that all the Jews knew, as well as the High Priest, what was contained there; the Scripture and other writers having informed them.

Your next objection is, that there was no vine in the second temple. I foresaw that objection, and tried to obviate it in my former letter, and will now answer your arguments to the contrary. Your first is drawn from the silence of the Jewish writers con

cerning the vine of the second temple, though they have at large described that of the third, which indeed is the true reason why they make no mention of the vine of the second temple; because, in describing the ornaments of the third, they actually described those of the second likewise; for Herod's temple was, as all the Jewish writers allow, a perfect imitation of Zorobabel's, which must be understood of the model, the fashion, and the ornaments, for it exceeded it in dimensions, insomuch as it seemed rather the old temple repaired than a new one erected. This the Christian writers must also allow; otherwise, what becomes of Haggai's prophecy, that the Messiah should appear under the second temple? From whence it may naturally be inferred, that the vine of the third temple was either the same with that which I suppose to have been in the second, or at least an imitation of it; either of which will suit my purpose.

For the authority of Tacitus, you answer that he is to be understood of Titus, not Pompey; and to the argument I urged to the contrary from the silence of Josephus, who makes no

mention of it among the other ornaments of the temple borne in triumph by Vespasian, you say that the vine was too large to be carried in triumph. But, with submission, I think, the larger the vine, the fitter for such a solemnity. They wanted neither hands nor instruments to have conveyed it. Aristobulus's vine was every whit as large; for it weighed 500 talents, or 30,000lb. weight English. Yet Pompey made a shift to carry it in triumph, as Pliny assures us (Lib. 37. c. 2).

I shall only add one testimony more, that there was a vine in the second temple; and that is the nameless author of the Fasti Siculi, collected (as Scaliger supposes) from the writ、 ings of Eusebius and Africanus. This author expressly affirms it.

[N. B. There are several things hinted at as contained in the letter here answered, not to be found in the foregoing, which is, perhaps, but the original draft, or a very imperfect copy; unless this is rather an answer to a second letter not preserved.]

Note.-The reading "uti" is retained

by Duker in his edition of Florus, with a note in justification of its retention. (See Florus Dukeri, Lib. 3. c. 5. s. 30.) The entire passage is, "Hierosolymam defendere tentaverunt Judæi. Verum hanc quoque intravit, et vidit illud grande impiæ gentis arcanum patens, sub aureo uti cœlo."

THE extensive labour in the formation of the London and Southampton Railway being now so nearly completed here as to preclude the hope of further Roman discoveries, I am induced to communicate to you some particulars of those which have come within my observation. I cannot, however, avoid expressing my regret, that no person of ability and experience in antiquarian pursuits had given his attention from the commencement; for, although the hurry and confusion attending a work of this magnitude, render accurate examination scarcely possible, yet, I think, his zeal might have been much gratified, and some valuable information obtained, contributing essentially to a correct knowledge of the ancient topography of this interesting portion of our suburbs.

The present Romsey turnpike is described by Milner, in his History of Winchester, as the Roman road to Old Sarum, through the intermediate station at Broughton, one of those firm, straight roads, still remaining to attest the genius and magnificence of that powerful nation; in forming which, their soldiery were employed to enure them to toil and hardship. Distinguished as there is every reason to believe this city was, it can scarcely be matter of surprise, that in the vicinity of this road, many remains of the Roman era should be discovered.

Along the whole distance in front of the King's house (now the barracks), little was seen requiring particular notice, with the exception of the pits, described by your able correspondent Mr. C. R. SMITH, in the October Magazine, p. 372, and these, from their number and contents, would cad to the supposition, that at some distant period the spot had been

fully inhabited. The labour in sinking them through the solid masses of chalk must have been very great.

Proceeding northwards, abundant evidence was obtained, by the discovery of extensive flint foundations, scattered tessellæ, and various other remains, to prove it a site of considerable importance. Besides the antiquities given in your plate, were several fibulæ, vase handles beautifully modelled, spear and arrow heads, and a variety of minor objects in bronze; pottery of all kinds, some urns, two in my possession, perfect, which from the close resemblance to those found here a few years ago, in ranges of sepulchres,* may be presumed to be of a funereal character; and vases of various shapes and fineness of workmanship and material, now in the hands of gentlemen in the neighbourhood. The fragment of a vessel represented in the annexed engraving, is not the least extraordinary of the number.

I am not aware of the finding of a single gold coin, or many in silver; but in brass they were very numerous, generally in fair preservation-those of the Lower Empire much predominating.