one.

But I think the statement that tamen is virtually equivalent to praeterea requires the qualification, that there is always some note of opposition to the previous clause. Thus here the meaning is—I shall be far from entertaining the unpleasant feeling of suspicion that you were displeased with me, indeed I shall entertain the pleasant feeling of heightened obligation to you for showing greater consideration to me than I showed to you. Translate tamen, indeed, on the contrary.'

For good remarks on the humanitas of the last century of the Roman Republic, see § 3 of O. E. Schmidt's Introduction to Briefe Ciceros und seiner Zeitgenossen,' Heft i. He finds, in Cicero's life and writings, our most important source from which to learn the humanitas of the ancients.

...

iii. 23.4. Investiges velim . quare octo tribuni pl. ad senatum de me referre non dubitarint-scilicet (sive or sine codd.) quod observandum illud caput non putabant-eidem in abrogando tam cauti fuerint, &c.

Müller, after Lehmann, supposes a clause beginning with sive to have been lost. The ordinary reading is Lallemand's scilicet. It would be nearer to the letters of the MSS. to read sane: cf. Terence, Eun. 89, for sane quia.

iii. 25. Post tuum a me discessum litterae mihi Roma allatae sunt.

We do not hear of any visit of Atticus to Cicero at this time, so that a me would seem to be very doubtful. Rauschen (op. cit., p. 29) thinks that this silence is no proof that such a visit was not paid, and, as we do not hear of any letters of Atticus to Cicero after the Ides of November (23. 5), there is some slight presumption that they met personally, and that Atticus left him to go to Epirus. Still, even so, there would not be any great reason

why Cicero should upbraid Atticus for leaving him at Dyrrachium; for there he could not do more than console Cicero, while at Rome he could have given material help. Kahnt read a meis; but tuus a meis discessus would have been a most unlikely phrase for Cicero to use, unless he went on to speak of his family. If we read a meis, I should suggest to transpose it and Roma. Mr. Tyrrell's conjecture ad me,' after your leaving town to join me,' has much to recommend it; but such a pregnant construction requires a parallel. I think Klotz is right in reading ab urbe: cf. Att. viii. 3. 3 fin. If b was written as u, the corruption might readily have occurred by the omission of the intervening letters.

L. C. PURSER.

THE LIBRARY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN: THE GROWTH OF A LEGEND.

IN

N this year that the co-eval Library of Oxford, the Bodleian, is celebrating the Tercentenary of its foundation, a suitable moment occurs for reviewing the origin of our own great Library, and the fables which have gathered about it.

All the modern statements on the matter, and they are many, seem derived from that in our first Calendar (1833), edited by the late learned Dr. Todd. Here it is (p. 187): "In the year 1603 [sic] the Spanish troops were defeated by the English at Kinsale, and Her Majesty's army, to commemorate their victory, subscribed the sum of £1800 from the arrears of their pay to establish in the University of Dublin a public Library. Dr. Chaloner and Mr. James Ussher were selected by the benefactors as the trustees of this donation, and commissioned to purchase such books," &c.; then follows the usual statement from Parr's Life of Ussher, about their meeting with Bodley, who was purchasing for his newly-founded Oxford Library. This statement is so precise that it seems bold to gainsay it; all that a historian of the College wants is to find the original authority from which Dr. Todd derived it. I need not retail my search through older accounts in order to find a reference to the original statement. But

I must state that, having turned in the first instance to the two very minute accounts of the siege of Kinsale, and the subsequent occurrences, written by competent eyewitnesses, the secretaries of Mountjoy and Carew, both panegyrists of their patrons, I felt much astonished that there was not a single reference in either to this magnanimous act, which could not but have redounded to the great credit of Mountjoy, and could hardly have been completed without his sanction and approval.

There is a third contemporary document in the Library (MS. 591), of which the silence is still more significant. It is the draft, with many corrections, of a Latin oration, either delivered or to be delivered to Mountjoy on the occasion of a state visit to the College. The contents show that this visit was after his return from Kinsale, and before his victorious concluding of the war, for this event is not mentioned—hence the date is 1602. The oration is an elaborate panegyric, going through all the topics which the orator could think of in praise of Mountjoy. Is it possible that a splendid gift of his soldiers to the College, wherein he then stood, could possibly have been ignored? But there is not one word about it in the whole speech!

An argument ex silentio is seldom conclusive; but, if it is not so in the present case, there must have been a conspiracy of silence. It therefore became interesting to pursue the inquiry. The early Registry, the early entries in the Particular book, produced not a word of evidence; but in an old Book of Benefactions, intended to be carried on, but of which only a page or two has been written in, occurs the following (p. 3) :—“Anno 1601. In the yeare one thousand six hundred and one there was a contribution made by severall persons of quality, and especially souldiers and officers then in Her Majesty's service (the names of whom lye on record in the College books), which being

collected then by SIR JAMES CAROLL, Knt., receiver of H. M. money in the Exchequer, came to about seaven hundred pounds, and was to be disbursed for books for a Library, and was done accordingly." Is this entry contemporary? Certainly not, for Carroll was not knighted till years later, and it occurs in the book after an entry of 1610. But the book is a very formal copy of earlier entries on vellum, and was evidently intended as the official record.

The reader who compares it with Dr. Todd's statement will see that it differs in almost every detail. If it be true, Dr. Todd's account, followed by all the subsequent historians, is hopelessly and thoroughly inaccurate. The date is wrong; the sum subscribed is wrong; there is no mention of Kinsale in the gift; there is no mention of the benefactors having appointed trustees. It was not given to the University, but the College; it was not to be a public Library in the ordinary sense. A new person occupies the important place-James Carroll, a civilian official in Dublin, not a member of the army. The only agreement between the two accounts is that soldiers gave a contribution, and that Chaloner and Ussher were commissioned to carry it out.

Which of these is therefore to be adopted as the truth? The increasing evidence against the current story makes it still more interesting to find Dr. Todd's authority. But the process of my search need not detain the reader. Here is the result: In the funeral sermon preached on James Ussher in Westminster Abbey by Dr. Bernard, and published under the title "The Life and Death of Dr. James Ussher," &c. (London, 1656), occurs the following passage (p. 42):-"Not long after this defeat at Kinsale, the officers and commanders of the army gave at once £1800 to buy books for a Library to the Colledge of Dublin (then souldiers were for the advancement of