eaties, and who had familiarly
conversed with the subjects of the empire in the same camps, and the
same churches. The savage Radagaisus was a stranger to the manners, the
religion, and even the language, of the civilized nations of the South.
The fierceness of his temper was exasperated by cruel superstition; and
it was universally believed, that he had bound himself, by a solemn vow,
to reduce the city into a heap of stones and ashes, and to sacrifice the
most illustrious of the Roman senators on the altars of those gods
who were appeased by human blood. The public danger, which should have
reconciled all domestic animosities, displayed the incurable madness
of religious faction. The oppressed votaries of Jupiter and Mercury
respected, in the implacable enemy of Rome, the character of a devout
Pagan; loudly declared, that they were more apprehensive of the
sacrifices, than of the arms, of Radagaisus; and secretly rejoiced in
the calamities of their country, which condemned the faith of their
Christian adversaries. [75] [7511]

[Footnote 70:

Cujus agendi
Spectator vel causa fui,
---(Claudian, vi. Cons. Hon. 439,)

is the modest language of Honorius, in speaking of the Gothic war, which
he had seen somewhat nearer.]

[Footnote 71: Zosimus (l. v. p. 331) transports the war, and the victory
of Stilisho, beyond the Danube. A strange error, which is awkwardly and
imperfectly cured (Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. tom. v. p. 807.) In
good policy, we must use the service of Zosimus, without esteeming or
trusting him.]

[Footnote 72: Codex Theodos. l. vii. tit. xiii. leg. 16. The date of
this law A.D. 406. May 18 satisfies me, as it had done Godefroy, (tom.
ii. p. 387,) of the true year of the invasion of Radagaisus. Tillemont,
Pagi, and Muratori, prefer the preceding year; but they are bound, by
certain obligations of civility and respect, to St. Paulinus of Nola.]

[Footnote 73: Soon after Rome had been taken by the Gauls, the senate,
on a sudden emergency, armed ten legions, 3000 horse, and 42,000 foot;
a force which the city could not have sent forth under Augustus, (Livy,
xi. 25.) This declaration may puzzle an antiquary, but it is clearly
explained by Montesquieu.]

[Footnote 74: Machiavel has explained, at least as a philosopher, the
origin of Florence, which insensibly descended, for the benefit of
trade, from the rock of Faesulae to the banks of the Arno, (Istoria
Fiorentina, tom. i. p. 36. Londra,