of inquiry, albeit one of the most difficult.* This was followed by the Homeric and Hesiodic schemes, which, agreeing on the whole, vary in the details. So great was the change produced by the supervention of this new system, and so potent an influence did it exercise on the subsequent religion of Greece, that Herodotus has not scrupled to say, that these two poets formed the national mythology of their country. During its development, however, new deities, as Bacchus, Hercules, etc.,† were introduced, and new elements combined with it. Most of these came from the East, and gave rise to the disgusting rites of a sensual and allegorical worship, of which no traces are to be found either in the high transcendentalism of Orpheus and Musæus, or the simple theology of the Pelasgic race. Then followed the era of the philosophers, each of whom constructed his own interpretation of the mythology, and the rites already existing: and, while he encouraged as a civil duty the observance of the prescribed ceremonies, and an outward reverence for what was established, taught by his esoteric doctrines the virtual abrogation of the whole creed. The consequence was, a mere formal and ceremonial respect for the religion of the country, attended with the most sensual and degrading rites on the part of the people; and, on the part of the philosophers, a purely speculative belief, and the inculcation, not the practice, of the moral duties of their schools. How dissimilar the Greek religion must have been at these several periods, will be at once apparent; yet our classical dictionaries, our ancient histories, our Greek and Roman antiquities, and even the annotations of distinguished and learned commentators, have seldom taken cognizance of these vast changes, but have massed into one confused olla podrida the

* To illustrate this, we will take the instance of Neptune, whom we have termed Pelasgic above. The contest between Neptune and Minerva for the tutelage of Athens, is well known. In this case he was defeated. He contended with her for the possession of Trazene,-the country was divided between them. Paus. Arg. p. 73, 1. 3. Ed. Xyland and Sylburg. 1583. He claimed Argolis against Juno, and was defeated again. Arg. p. 58, 1. 10, p. 64, 1. 40. Delphi was sacred to him before it was to Apollo. Arg. p. 76, 1. 1. These instances point to the conclusion that he was a Pelasgic divinity, and not originally a marine god.

R. Payne Knight. Symb. Lang, Anc. Art and Mythology, § 188, and Herodot. lib. 2, c. cxlvi. there cited.

The systematic allegorizing of the Greek Mythology, belongs to the Alexandrine school. Heyne. Hom. II. vol. 8, p. 579; but read the whole of that instructive essay. Excursus. 3, ad lib. 23.

peculiarities of them all. As if what was true of one age must necessarily be true of the others.

It were much to be desired, that some learned German would do for the early history of Greece, what Niebuhr has so ably done for that of Rome. There is an equal necessity for it; and, if the materials be more scanty in quantity, they are infinitely richer in quality. To trace the origin of its civilization; to determine whether it were spontaneous or exotic; and if exotic, in what proportions from the North, from Asia, and from Egypt; to discover the beginning of its arts, and the commencement of its literature; to detect the cradles of its religion, the fountains whence it flowed, the eras, the causes, and the nature of its changes;—is certainly a more promising enterprize, than to tread the thorny. paths which the great Niebuhr had to struggle over. In Greece, such an attempt would instantly be synthetic :-it would be re-construction and new-creation from the outset ; while Niebuhr had to throw down such a congeries of rubbish before he could approach the main design of his life, that life itself failed him, while he had not well commenced the better portion of his labours. The history of Rome has never yet been written, but what shall we say of the history of Greece? If the want now pointed out should ever be supplied, the history of Mythology would occupy a conspicuous place in it, and would be especially useful in removing the false lights which now dazzle or mislead us in the consideration of the Roman religion, and would incalculably facilitate its due appreciation.

After this long détour, we are at length brought back to our subject. We have already seen how completely State policy entered into the hieratic system of Rome, and how thoroughly syncretistic was the Roman religion. The natural consequences of these incidents flowed from them. The priests themselves disregarded their creed, and made religion the mere instrument of political jugglery: they had no enthusiastic reverence for it, no heartfelt belief in it; and, though it was long powerful, as a State engine, over the

We have already quoted in a previous note the remark of Scævola and Varro which illustrates this. The celebrated classification of all religions by Scævola, is another proof. Montesquieu. Pol. des Rom. etc. Cudworth Int. Syst. Univ. The philosophical treatises of Cicero-himself of the augural college-is another evidence: and a fourth is furnished by the speech of Cæsar-a Pontifex Maximus-in Sallust.

ignorant and superstitious multitude, yet even they gradually learnt to sneer at its insincerity, and it had become a hollow inanity in the time of the early emperors. The Roman religion was never, at least within the age of history, truly a creed-it was never more than a superstition; and hence, was entirely devoid of that engrossing influence on the heart, which flows from any system thoroughly believed, however corrupt it may be. It was, accordingly, human in its character and human in its tendencies, and may be well regarded as one of the component parts of a grand political device. It was simply a complex collection of human ordinances, and as such it was obeyed. Michelet has well observed, that the formularies of the augurs were veritable legal contracts between man and the deities ;*-entered into by parties considering themselves as executing a legal instrument, and standing in the same reciprocal relation to each other, as equally bound by its stipulations. And again, he remarks that the Italian brings God from heaven to earth, materializes him, and moulds his attributes at pleasure. Read ancient Roman for Italian, and the doctrine remains equally true, affording only another example of the minute articulations, and intimate analogies, which unite the modern Papacy to the mighty Rome of old time.

There was no greater disparity in Greece, between the innumerable mysteries† and abominations of the later periods, and the simplicity of the Pelasgic creed, than there was between the heterogeneous compound which the Romans of the Greek era affected to believe, and the agricultural worship of the primitive times. But, though this system became extinct, and gave place to a less pure, as being a less sincere theology, the agricultural habits from which it had sprung long retained the greatest influence over the fortunes of the city. The Festival of Pales was celebrated down to the empire, although it might have lost much of its original form and significance. But less problematic evidence is furnished by the known facts of Roman history.

"Sa divination des Etrusques était un art de surprendre aux dieux la connaissance des intérêts de la terre, une partie de la politique et de la jurisprudence. Les prières et les formules augurales sont de véritables contrats avec les deux. L'augure ne craint pas de fatiguer les dieux d'interrogations et de stipulations nouvelles." Michelet. Int. Hist. Univ.

+ Vide Pausan. passim.

: Anthon's Archæological Dictionary. Tit. Palilia.

The Romans were eminently an agricultural people.* Out of thirty-five tribes, only four were Urbanæ, or city tribes. The forms of law were symbolized, even in the age of Cicero, in such a manner, as still to indicate distinctly this original impress. All the great Romans were planters :Cincinnatus, Dentatus, Fabricius, etc., lived entirely from the produce of their farms. We would mention the elder Cato, if we did not entertain such a hearty contempt for the niggardly character of the celebrated Censor. The choice residences of Lucullus, Sylla, Cicero, Hortensius, the Scipios, etc., were their country villas:-and every fact in the domestic and private archæology of Rome, clearly attests the existence of this agricultural spirit. The unhealthiness of the city might operate, to a considerable extent, in the production of this result: but its reality is undeniable, and it is to the fact itself, and not to its explication, that we look at present.

From this agricultural life flowed the strong conservative principles of the Roman State. The residents of the country are usually holders of property, or have interests identified with theirs. This property is of the most certain and permanent form, but it is also the most certain to be injured by rash or injudicious legislation. Hence, at all times, the landholders, the agricultural portion of the community,have formed the conservative element in long-settled States, and have been the party most averse to change.

From the same cause arose, also, the private purity and remarkable simplicity of the early Romans. They were not subjected to the corrupting influences of a large city, where all rank and noxious weeds grow with a luxuriant and hot-bed vegetation: where vice multiplies itself and

* Michelet. Hist. Rép. Rom. liv. i., c. ii. The classical scholar will remember the story of Cincinnatus so beautifully told by Livy-lib. 3, c. 26; the praise of agriculture in Cicero-De Senect. c. 16; and the apostrophe in Virgil's Georgics. Compare Taylor's Nat. Hist. Soc. vol. 2, p. 112. + See the Orations of Cicero, and particularly his legal arguments. The true character of Cato is ably exhibited by Michelet. Hist. Rép. Rom. liv. 2, c. 6.

§ The climatic, geographical and geological features of Rome, are set forth in Michelet. Hist. Rép. Rom. Int. c. 1-liv. 2, c. 1; and in the Eclaircissements to the chapter first cited. There are many passages in Livy, which indicate this unhealthiness.

The magnitude and nature of the change in the national character, is illustrated by Sallust. Conj. Cat. c. 10, c. 20. Bell. Jug. c. xli., c. viii., c. XXXV., and Livy. lib. i., Præf.

imbibes aliment by the continual contact with the vicious in an aggregated body; and where it acquires immunity, or learns shamelessness, from the frequency of crime, or the number of criminals. Hence, too, that sober common sense, that practical intellect, that fearless and noble independence, which the unfortunate concomitants of metropolitan life almost exclude from the city. To which may be added the hardy frame, braced by a pure atmosphere, and strengthened by the invigorating labours of the husbandman,-the manliness, the courage, the personal prowess, which are drawn from the hearty sports of the country, and that individual moderation which the mere adventurer can never display. No labour was too great, no enterprize too arduous, for such men, for they carried into a campaign the qualities they had fostered in their fields.* Such are only a few of the more prominent advantages resulting from the agricultural habits of the Romans. That there were disadvantages is undeniable. The plebs were unrestrained by the presence of the better class; agitation became more frequent and less promptly resisted; secret machinations more easily produced their fruit, and less encouragement was given to industry.

These were certainly disadvantages, for they tended to undermine the original constitution of the State, and to defeat the designs of its founders; yet it was by its gradual modification and subsequent overthrow, that the colossal scheme of Roman greatness was effected. The last, however, of those which we have mentioned, was of less political importance, as the mechanic arts were always held in sovereign contempt among the Romans,† as they were with the Greeks, and ordinarily entrusted to slaves. No encouragement was given to commerce, and the want of this source of wealth rendered the Romans a horde of banditti. War, agriculture, politics, were alone left open for the career of the ardent, the ambitious, or the noble,-too strait a field for

* “Igitur talibus viris non labos insolitus, non locus ullus asper, aut arduus erat, non armatus hostis formidolosus; virtus omnia domuerat. Sed gloriæ maxumum certamen apud ipsos erat," etc. Sallust. Conj. Cat. c. 7. + Cic. De Off. lib. i., c. xlii., § 150. Aristot. Pol. lib. viii., c. ii.—Rhet. lib. i., c. ix. A striking exemplification of this aversion to mechanic arts, is furnished by Alexander Aphrodisiensis, (Schol. Aristot. Met. p. 521, col. a. Ed. Bekker and Brandis,) who considers the knowledge of any process as more praiseworthy than its application.

See the long catalogue of servile occupations (304) in Boyd's Adams' Rom. Ant. p. 35.

§ Montesquieu. Grandeur et Décadence des Romains, c. 1.