is collected by
Drakenborch, (ad Silium Italicum, xvii. 33;) but we may observe that
Livy (xxix. 14) slides over the transaction with discreet ambiguity.]

[Footnote 14: I cannot refrain from transcribing the emphatical words of
Julian: Orat. v. p. 161. Julian likewise declares his firm belief in
the ancilia, the holy shields, which dropped from heaven on the Quirinal
hill; and pities the strange blindness of the Christians, who preferred
the cross to these celestial trophies. Apud Cyril. l. vi. p. 194.]

But the devout philosopher, who sincerely embraced, and warmly
encouraged, the superstition of the people, reserved for himself the
privilege of a liberal interpretation; and silently withdrew from the
foot of the altars into the sanctuary of the temple. The extravagance of
the Grecian mythology proclaimed, with a clear and audible voice, that
the pious inquirer, instead of being scandalized or satisfied with the
literal sense, should diligently explore the occult wisdom, which had
been disguised, by the prudence of antiquity, under the mask of folly
and of fable. [15] The philosophers of the Platonic school, [16]
Plotinus, Porphyry, and the divine Iamblichus, were admired as the most
skilful masters of this allegorical science, which labored to soften
and harmonize the deformed features of Paganism. Julian himself, who was
directed in the mysterious pursuit by Aedesius, the venerable successor
of Iamblichus, aspired to the possession of a treasure, which he
esteemed, if we may credit his solemn asseverations, far above the
empire of the world. [17] It was indeed a treasure, which derived its
value only from opinion; and every artist who flattered himself that he
had extracted the precious ore from the surrounding dross, claimed an
equal right of stamping the name and figure the most agreeable to his
peculiar fancy. The fable of Atys and Cybele had been already explained
by Porphyry; but his labors served only to animate the pious industry of
Julian, who invented and published his own allegory of that ancient and
mystic tale. This freedom of interpretation, which might gratify the
pride of the Platonists, exposed the vanity of their art. Without a
tedious detail, the modern reader could not form a just idea of the
strange allusions, the forced etymologies, the solemn trifling, and
the impenetrable obscurity of these sages, who professed to reveal
the system of the universe. As the traditions of Pagan mythology were
va