ution; the latter is a formal
reply of the petition or libel of Symmachus. The same ideas are more
copiously expressed in the poetry, if it may deserve that name, of
Prudentius; who composed his two books against Symmachus (A.D. 404)
while that senator was still alive. It is whimsical enough that
Montesquieu (Considerations, &c. c. xix. tom. iii. p. 487) should
overlook the two professed antagonists of Symmachus, and amuse himself
with descanting on the more remote and indirect confutations of Orosius,
St. Augustin, and Salvian.]

[Footnote 18: See Prudentius (in Symmach. l. i. 545, &c.) The Christian
agrees with the Pagan Zosimus (l. iv. p. 283) in placing this visit of
Theodosius after the second civil war, gemini bis victor caede Tyranni,
(l. i. 410.) But the time and circumstances are better suited to his
first triumph.]

[Footnote 1811: M. Beugnot (in his Histoire de la Destruction du
Paganisme en Occident, i. p. 483-488) questions, altogether, the truth
of this statement. It is very remarkable that Zosimus and Prudentius
concur in asserting the fact of the question being solemnly deliberated
by the senate, though with directly opposite results. Zosimus declares
that the majority of the assembly adhered to the ancient religion of
Rome; Gibbon has adopted the authority of Prudentius, who, as a Latin
writer, though a poet, deserves more credit than the Greek historian.
Both concur in placing this scene after the second triumph of
Theodosius; but it has been almost demonstrated (and Gibbon--see the
preceding note--seems to have acknowledged this) by Pagi and Tillemont,
that Theodosius did not visit Rome after the defeat of Eugenius. M.
Beugnot urges, with much force, the improbability that the Christian
emperor would submit such a question to the senate, whose authority was
nearly obsolete, except on one occasion, which was almost hailed as
an epoch in the restoration of her ancient privileges. The silence of
Ambrose and of Jerom on an event so striking, and redounding so much to
the honor of Christianity, is of considerable weight. M. Beugnot would
ascribe the whole scene to the poetic imagination of Prudentius; but
I must observe, that, however Prudentius is sometimes elevated by the
grandeur of his subject to vivid and eloquent language, this flight of
invention would be so much bolder and more vigorous than usual with this
poet, that I cannot but suppose there must have been some foundation
for the story, though