45, line last, dele *

47, line 8, for "malorem," read "malorum."

186, line 24, for "Nazareens," read " Nazarenes."

214, line 3 of first note, for "are," read “is.”

215, lines 4 and 5 from the foot, for "vendæ," read "vende.”

230, line 2, for" deserves," read "deserve."

239, line 6 of the note, for "breach," read "broach."

240, line 1, for "ever," read "even."

264, line 7 from the foot, for " Numerien," read " Numerian."

272, line 30, for "and," read "an."

273, line 20, for "became," read "become."

342, line 7, for "franks," read "francs."

350, line 3, dele "to" at the end of the line.

352, in the Latin verses, line 2, for "spectore," read "spectare;" and line 5, for "certamine," read "certamina."

358, in the Latin quotation, first line, dele the full point.

361, line 23, for "laid," read "lain."

389, line 8, for "agar," read "

aga."

A

PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.

BARUCH, OR BÁRAK, AND DEBORAH;

AND, INCIDENTALLY, ON CHARIOTS OF WAR. We have no intention here to enquire at what time Baruch was chief of the Jewish people; why, being chief, he allowed his army to be commanded by a woman; whether this woman, named Deborah, had married Lapidoth; whether she was the friend or relative of Baruch, or perhaps his daughter or his mother; nor on what day the battle of Thabor, in Galilee, was fought between this Deborah and Sisera, captain-general of the armies of King Jabin,-which Sisera commanded in Galilee an army of three hundred thousand foot, ten thousand horse, and three thousand chariots of war, according to the historian Josephus.*

We shall at present leave out of the question this Jabin, king of a village called Azor, who had more troops than the Grand Turk. We very much pity the fate of his grand-vizier Sisera, who, having lost the battle in Galilee, leaped from his chariot and four, that he might fly more swiftly on foot. He went and begged the hospitality of a holy Jewish woman, who gave him some milk, and drove a great cart-nail through his head while he was asleep. We are very sorry for it; but this is not the matter to be discussed. We wish to speak of chariots of war.

* Antiq. Jud. liv. x.

VOL. II.

B

The battle was fought at the foot of Mount Thabor, near the river Kishon. Mount Thabor is a steep mountain, the branches of which, somewhat less in height, extend over a great part of Galilee. Betwixt this mountain and the neighbouring rocks, there is a small plain covered with great flint-stones, and impracticable for cavalry. The extent of this plain is four or five hundred paces. We may venture to believe that Sisera did not here draw up his three hundred thousand men in order of battle; his three thousand chariots would have fouud it difficult to manoeuvre on such a field.

We may believe that the Hebrews had no chariots of war, in a country renowned only for asses; but the Asiatics made use of them in the great plains.

Confucius, or rather Confutze, says positively that, from time immemorial, each of the viceroys of the provinces was expected to furnish to the emperor a thousand war-chariots drawn by four horses.

Chariots must have been in use long before the Trojan war, for Homer does not speak of them as a new invention: but these chariots were not armed like those of Babylon; neither the wheels nor the axles were furnished with steel blades.

This invention must at first have been very formidable in large plains, especially when the chariots were numerous, driven with impetuosity, and armed with long pikes and scythes; but when they became familiar, it seemed so easy to avoid their shock, that they fell into general disuse.

In the war of 1741, it was proposed to renew and reform this ancient invention.

A minister of state had one of these chariots constructed, and it was tried. It was asserted that in large plains, like that of Lutzen, they might be used with advantage, by concealing them behind the cavalry, the squadrons of which would open to let them pass, and then follow them; but the generals judged that this manœuvre would be useless, and even dangerous, now that battles are gained by cannon only. It was replied, that there would be as many cannon in the army

using the chariots of war to defend them, as in the enemy's army to destroy them. It was added, that these chariots would, in the first instance, be sheltered from the cannon behind the battalions or squadrons, that the latter would open and let the chariots run with impetuosity, and that this unexpected attack might have a prodigious effect. The generals advanced nothing in opposition to these arguments; but they would not revive this game of the ancient Persians.

BATTALION.

LET us observe that the arrangements, the marching, and the evolutions of battalions, nearly as they are now practised, were revived in Europe by one who was not a military man-by Machiavel, a secretary at Florence. Battalions three, four, and five deep; battalions advancing upon the enemy; battalions in square to avoid being cut off in a rout; battalions four deep sustained by others in column; battalions flanked by cavalry-all are his. He taught Europe the art of war; it had long been practised, without being known.

The Grand Duke would have had his secretary teach his troops their exercise, according to his new method. But Machiavel was too prudent to do so; he had no wish to see the officers and soldiers laugh at a general in a black cloak: he reserved himself for the council.

There is something singular in the qualities which he requires in a soldier. He must first have gagliardia, which signifies alert vigour; he must have a quick and sure eye-in which there must also be a little gaiety; a strong neck, a wide breast, a muscular arm, round loins, but little belly, with spare legs and feet, all indicating strength and agility.

But above all, the soldier must have honour, and must be led by honour alone. "War," says he, is "but too great a corrupter of morals;" and he reminds us of the Italian proverb-War makes thieves; and peace finds them gibbets.

Machiavel had but a poor opinion of the French infantry; and until the battle of Rocroy, it must be confessed that it was very bad. A strange man this Machiavel! He amused himself with making verses, writing plays, showing his cabinet the art of killing with regularity, and teaching princes the art of perjuring themselves, assassinating, and poisoning, as occasion required—a great art, which Pope Alexander VI. and his bastard Cæsar Borgia, practised in wonderful perfection without the aid of his lessons.

Be it observed, that in all Machiavel's works, on so many different subjects, there is not one word which renders virtue amiable-not one word proceeding from the heart. The same remark has been made on Boileau. He does not, it is true, make virtue lovely; but he represents it as necessary.

BAYLE.

WHY has Louis Racine treated Bayle like a dangerous man, with a cruel heart, in an epistle to Jean Baptiste Rousseau, which, although printed, is very little known?

He compares Bayle, whose logical acuteness detected the errors of opposing systems, to Marius sitting upon the ruins of Carthage:

Ainsi d'un œil content Marius, dans sa fuite,
Contemplait les débris de Carthage détruite.

Thus exil'd Marius, with contented gaze,
Thy ruins, Carthage, silently surveys.

Here is a simile which exhibits very little resemblance, or, as Pope says, a simile dissimilar. Marius had not destroyed Carthage, as Bayle had destroyed reason and arguments; nor did he contentedly view its ruins; but, on the contrary, he was penetrated with an elevated sentiment of melancholy, on contemplating the vicissitudes of human affairs, when he made the celebrated answer," Say to the Proconsul of Africa,