argues that there is a certain ardour and alacrity of spirit natural to every man when he goes into battle, which no commander should repress or restrain, but rather should increase and push it forward. The event fully justified the general criticism, and proved it to be well-grounded in practice, as well as warranted by speculation on human character. In this battle against Pompey, Cæsar not only took advantage of his antagonist's erroneous theory, but surprised him by material innovations on the Roman manner of embattling.

When Cæsar fought against Ariovistus and the Germans, he placed the best men in the wings of his army. This may, on the first blush, appear impolitic; as the centre is likely to give way: but in that case, the wings will wheel upon the enemy, encompass, and destroy the choicest men if placed in their main battle.

The ancient mode of fortification is well described by Cæsar, especially the walls of the city of Bourges, in the seventh book of his wars with the Gauls. He used the musculus at the siege of Marseilles. The planks of the roof were covered with bricks and mortar, over which hides were laid to prevent the mortar from dissolving by the water poured down upon it by the besieged. To secure it from stones and fire, it was again covered over with thick quilted mattresses properly prepared.

The moving towers were a peculiar feature of ancient warfare. When once they were brought up, a place seldom held out long. Those who had no ground of confidence but in the height of their ramparts, must sink at once into despair on seeing the enemy in possession of an elevation to command them. The people of Namur made a jest of

Cæsar's tower, while it was at a distance: but when it was seen moving rapidly towards them, they demanded to capitulate. Cæsar tells us that they believed it to be a prodigy; and were utterly astonished that men of ordinary size should think of carrying so vast and heavy a machine to their walls.

Cæsar was a master of circumvallation. That formed before Alesia consisted of fascines instead of turf, with its parapet and fraises made of large stakes, whose branches were cut in points, and burnt at the ends, like stags' horns. The battlements he mentions were like the modern embrasures for cannon. Cæsar's lines being very high, it was indispensibly necessary to have a platform with a slope, in the form of steps, to prevent the earth from falling away.

The following specimen of the author will best explain the ground enclosed between the two fosses, which is by far the most curious part of the blockade:-"Erat uno tempore et materiari et frumentari, et tantas munitiones fieri necesse, diminutis nostris copiis, quæ longius ab castris progrediebantur: et nonnunquam opera nostra Galli tentare, atque eruptionem ex oppido pluribus portis facere summa vi conabantur. Quare ad hæc rursus opera addendum Cæsar putavit, quo minore numero militum munitiones defendi possent. Itaque truncis arborum, aut admodum firmis ramis abscissis, atque horum dolabratis atque præacutis cacuminibus, perpetuæ fossæ quinos pedes altæ ducebantur. Huc illi stipites demissi, et ab infimo revincti ne revelli possent, ab ramis eminebant. Quini erant ordines conjuncti inter se atque implicati, quo qui intraverant, se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant.

Ante hos, obliquis ordinibus in quincuncem dispositis, scrobes trium in altitudinem pedum fodie. bantur, paullatim angustiore ad summum fastigio. Huc teretes stipites feminis crassitudine, ab summo præacuti et præusti, demittebantur; ita ut non amplius IV. digitis ex terra eminerent. Simul confirmandi et stabiliendi caussa singuli ab infimo solo pedes terra exculcabantur: reliqua pars scrobis ad occultandas insidias viminibus ac virgultis integebatur. Hujus generis octoni ordines ducti, ternos inter se pedes distabant. . . . Ante hæc taleæ pèdem longæ, ferreis hamis infixis, totæ in terram infodiebantur; mediocribusque intermissis spatiis, omnibus locis disserebantur, quos Stimulos nominabant." The other line, to prevent succours from without, was exactly the same as this.

The most curious and remarkable sieges on ancient record are those of Platea by the Lacedæmonians and Thebans; of Syracuse by the Athenians; of Lilybæum, Syracuse, Carthage, and Numantia by the Romans; but above all, that of Alesia by Julius Cæsar, and of Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian. These two last are so circumstantially described in all their details, the former by Cæsar, who planned and conducted it; the latter by Josephus, who was an eye-witness of all that passed, that an attentive reader will find every thing worth knowing on the subject, and be qualified to form a clear and comprehensive judgment of the perfection attained by the ancients, and especially by the Romans, in this leading branch of the military

art.

But the discovery of gunpowder has occasioned so entire a revolution in the art of war, that the interest felt in the perusal of these Commentaries

would be much lessened, unless in the estimation of military antiquaries, were it not that the narrative relates simply and unaffectedly, what the author himself performed at the head of his army.

Hirtius, in Præf. lib. viii. de Bello Gall. speaks thus respecting the execution of these works :"Constat enim inter omnes, nihil tam operose ab aliis esse perfectum, quod non horum elegantia commentariorum superetur: qui sunt editi, ne scientia tantarum rerum scriptoribus deesset; adeoque probantur omnium judicio, ut prærepta, non præbita facultas scriptoribus videatur."

The following is the character Cicero gives of them, in Bruto, cap. 75.:-" Atque etiam commentarios quosdam scripsit rerum suarum; valde quidem, inquit, probandos. Nudi enim sunt, recti, et venusti, omni ornatu orationis, tamquam veste, detracto. Sed dum voluit alios habere parata, unde sumerent, qui vellent scribere historiam: ineptis gratum fortasse fecit, qui volent illa calamistris inurere: sanos quidem homines a scribendo deterruit. Nihil enim est in historia pura et illustri brevitate dulcius."

But these opinions of Hirtius and Cicero respecting Cæsar's Commentaries, were not without dissentients of high rank in the critical world. Asinius Pollio thought them careless, and often untrue: and he considered this as accounted for in some cases, by credulity on Cæsar's part, when unfounded or exaggerated statements were made to him; in other cases, by his personal share in the transactions recorded, which led him to give, perhaps unconsciously, a false colouring to his own exploits, either from self-love or lapse of memory. The imputation thus conveyed by Pollio,

has been attributed to his jealousy as a contemporary author, and a member of the same profession, eclipsed by the glory of the great conqueror. But these censures seem unnecessarily ascribed to any sinister motive. Pollio tracked him throughout his whole career, as a captain, a historian, and an orator. An observer so acute, and so much in the secret, might become acquainted with many circumstances stated erroneously or even falsely by the author, for want of caution or the means of verifying them: he might have convicted him even of some fabulous narratives, and yet have left much for us to admire, much from which we may derive instruction.

It has been affirmed that Cæsar did not write the three books of the civil war, and even that Suetonius was the author of the seven books on the Gallic War. But Vossius has vindicated Cæsar's title to the authorship of the Commentaries, as they stand in the editions, though he does not vouch for his accuracy or veracity on all occasions.

There are few great works, of which literary envy and malignity have not endeavoured to despoil their authors. The testimony of ancient writers, the passages quoted by them from these Commentaries, leave Cæsar in full and unquestionable possession of his property in them. There may be faults in him as an author, there may be local corruption in the manuscripts: but the works have come down to us as genuine, and as worthy of our acceptance in point both of matter and style, as is consistent with the frailty of human nature when unassisted. The opinion that the extant Commentaries are not Cæsar's may possibly have arisen from a confusion of circumstances between two works. It is believed