ught sometimes,
before the passages can be traced; but they _are_ traceable; and if we had
the whole works of Sallustius, I doubt not but that we should be able to
trace them all much more easily. Perhaps--I say it without stress, mind; it
is a mere suggestion--it would be possible to restore, or rather connect
some of the historical fragments of Sallustius by means of the works of
Tacitus. When we find a sentiment of Sallustius half expressed in the
fragment, and trending towards the conclusion arrived at by Tacitus, may we
not, as we know how completely the latter had imbibed the thoughts of the
former, reasonably suppose the remainder of the passage to be parallel;
and, following out the idea, restore it, taking into consideration the
difference of the mode of expression in the two eras? And this may hold
good, not only between Tacitus and Sallustius, but between Sallustius and
Thucydides.

Such is the aspect under which I endeavour to behold the classics, viz. as
one great whole, having here and there pieces gone or faded (lost or
hopelessly corrupted), and which fit into each other, showing the building
which intellect erects, the only building calculated to withstand the hand
of time. Thanks be to printing, to cheap literature, and to English energy
and investigation, antiquity may again rear her head, and fell that it is
comprehended in all its varied bearings, and lights and shadows.

To men like Niebuhr, Grote, Layard, Prescott, St. John, Wilkinson,
Rawlinson, and Norris, do we owe a debt of gratitude, for such patience and
investigation; and no one cheers them on with a more sincere feeling, and
thanks them for their past exertions, than

KENNETH R. H. MACKENZIE.

[Footnote 2: Short-hand, we know, was in use at Rome.]

* * * * *

THE OUTER TEMPLE.

Mr. Peter Cunningham, in his delightful _Handbook of London_, says that
when the New Temple "passed to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, the
Inner and Middle Temple were leased to the Students of the Common Law; and
the OUTER TEMPLE to Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter:" and in describing
Essex House, by which name it {326} was afterwards known, he repeats the
same statement; as if the Outer Temple was part of the original property of
the Knights Templars.

I should be very glad to know what authority he has for this; because I
have very great doubt whether the "Outer Temple" ever belonged to the
Knights Templars or to th