30 



But, says Schneider, these lines are addressed to M. Aurelius 

 and his son Commodus, lu confirmation of his opinion, he quotes 

 the following lines, and it must be acknowledged, they favour his 

 opinion more than any other of his arguments : 



AXX« (TV (jt,oi, K»§Tiim-ffo\tir(niyj:i)v (^uffiXim, 

 Avrog t' Avravtve x.a,i vnog tiyct^iov Kti^, 

 Yl^o(p^ong ucrccioirs. 



Lib. iv. v. 4. 



This is a serious difficulty. The only solution I can offer, without 

 concurring with Schneider, is the following, and the learned reader 

 may judge of its validity. Caracalla had a son by his 

 wife Plautiua. Both the mother and her child became 

 objects of the tyrant's hatred and persecution. But, notwith- 

 standing, might not the poet have intended a compliment to 

 the father, in thus invoking the patronage of his son, though an 

 infant, who might be regarded as successor, or heir apparent, to 

 the empire ? 



As to any argument founded on the style of the two poems, I 

 thmk it decidedly against the hypothesis of Schneider. The style 

 of each contains as strong evidence as the most incredulous critic 

 can require, that one pen was the writer of both : for in botli do 

 we not only meet the same images and sentiments, clothed in 

 nearly the same expressions, but the same train of thought and 

 mode of illustration ? These resemblances are not casual, nor like 

 the imitations of one poet from another ; but they exhibit the 

 same disposition and complexion of thought diffused through dif- 

 ferent topics, in such a manner as evinces them to be emanations 

 of an individual mind. Each discovers that the author of the one 

 possessed a familiar knowledge of the subject of the other. The 



