and in each were always re-produced the same phenomena; so that we shall ever find that the Roman was thoroughly the counterpart of Rome. He was in miniature what his nation was on a colossal scale. Thus, the character of moral greatness which appertained to the State, communicated itself to the citizen. As the nation absorbed into itself, intensified, and developed all the then known capacities of human society,* so the individual Roman exhibited the sublimation and highest possible expression of the varied features of our common nature, depurated to such a degree, that the humanity so exalted appears almost superhuman. Hence, the Roman, as a man, has little hold upon our sympathies: for the delicate links that bind us to our fellows, are formed by the weaknesses of our nature, rather than by its strength. And it is in perfect analogy with this, that, although we regard with the most profound veneration the connected story of the Roman people, we have no great partiality for them in the particular instances which compose its details. In almost all the wars of Rome, we are inclined to side with her enemies: we admire Fabricius, but we sympathise with Pyrrhus; we admire the Romans, but we sympathise with the Samnites; we admire the Scipios and Marius, we sympathise with Hannibal and Jugurtha. And yet, our knowledge of these several struggles is drawn from the partial narratives of Roman authors, and in all of them the Roman was the nobler cause.

We may readily determine the reasons which account for this want of sympathy for the Romans, and we shall find it the same in the citizen and in the nation. It arises from the essential selfishness of the Roman character: for, as "love begetteth love," so the absence of it will produce indifference or distrust. This selfishness of the Roman was every where manifested, it revealed itself equally in his public and his private life. The political frame-work of his government,his legislation, his jurisprudence,-his diplomatic treatment of all other nations, his colonial, or rather provincial system,-exhibit in its utmost intensity the disposition to sacrifice all justice, all principle, all right, all mercy, to the aggran

"The ancient history of Italy shows us how every thing merged more and more in the one, eternal, imperishable, ever-prosperous, ever-progressive, and at last all-devouring city-Rome."

[F. Schlegel. Phil. Hist., Lect. ix.

dizement of Rome.* So, in the citizen, the higher principles of human conduct are totally disregarded; his sole rule of action is his sense of what will be of interest to the State or to himself. There was no warmth, no kindliness, no genuine, heartiness in the man. The proportions in which he was moulded might be as perfect as the finest specimens from the chisel of Phidias and Praxiteles, but he remained just as cold, as callous, and as impenetrable. From his cradle to his grave, the Roman was a machine, acting for one definite purpose, and immolating all the softer features of humanity to the attainment of this one object,—the elevation of himself in connection with the advancement of the State. Coleridge has quaintly conceived the old Roman to have been the beau idéal of a gentleman; but he was a gentleman merely in externals, for there was no abnegation of self, except for the benefit of Rome. Thus, all the relations of his being were political. The only plants that bloomed in the Eternal City, were public politics and private policy. These diffused themselves, in ancient times, into all the developments of their national, social and domestic character:—and, from this source, the same spirit has migrated, by a species of perceptible metempsychosis, even into the Christian Church of the Romish Hierarchy.

If, then, we determine the national peculiarities, the transition is natural and easy to the characteristic features of the citizen or, we may say rather that it is unnecessary, for the one is the fac-simile of the other. Thus, we are enabled to combine into one inquiry two distinct subjects of inves tigation, which might otherwise have demanded separate discussion.

* Lest this censure may appear too strong, especially when contrasted with the ordinary language of indiscriminate praise, bestowed upon the Romans, we would cite the remark of Frederick Schlegel, who was undoubtedly learned, ingenious and sound in his details, whatever we may think of his theory of history. "There can be no doubt that if the Roman history were divested of its accustomed rhetoric, of all the patriotic maxims and trite sayings of politicians, and were presented with strict and minute accuracy in all its living reality, every humane mind would be deeply shocked at such a picture of tragic truth, and penetrated with the profoundest detestation and horror." Phil. Hist., Lect. ix.-vol. i., p. 20.” Am. ed., and see both before and after.

† See in the letters of Cicero the very different terms in which he speaks of Cæsar, Brutus, etc., when he writes to them, and when he writes about them. Yet Cicero was not insincere for a Roman, and he was certainly purer than the most of his countrymen.

+ Satyrane's Letters.

*

It will only be necessary for those at all conversant with Roman history and archæology, to reflect for a single moment, in order to be assured that the key-note to the national character is to be found in the political and religious systems. These form the prominent and distinguishing traits of this people, and all their other peculiarities may either be proved to be included under them, or may readily be referred to the direct or indirect action of their moulding influence. The Romans were, outwardly at least, a very religious and even superstitious people. They were, in a high degree, the Pharisees of the Gentile world; they had the same sanctimonious observance of prescribed rites, the same professed respect for old and musty traditions, and the same moral ossification of the heart, which characterized those Jewish Rabbis.† The minutest ceremonies of religion were punctiliously performed by the Romans: the most antiquated legends were blindly reverenced:‡ and the dogmas of an anomalous hierocracy, were long the unresisted yoke by which the mass of the people were held in the strictest subjection. But, in Rome, religion was itself political: if it had a continual influence over the public transactions of the State, and the private habits of the citizens, it was still more powerfully, in its turn, reacted upon by these. That the reign of Romulus preceded that of Numa, would be strictly true as an interpretation symbolically of the political phenomena, whether Romulus and Numa had any real existence or not. The political system was first in honour and influence as in time: the religious was superadded to it, and intertwined in the closest manner with it. All the dignities of the priesthood were, during the earlier periods, in the hands of a dominant aristocracy,-not of patricians separated from the world, and specially set apart from their fellows for the ministrations of the temple; but of men who, as statesmen and as soldiers, had already distinguished them

* Polybius well called the Roman religion, superstition. Such, indeed, is the strict meaning of the Latin word religio.

+ The tenets, habits and character of the Pharisees are concisely stated in Horne's Int. Crit. Stud.-Script. Pt. 3, c. 6, sect. ii., § 1.

Hence, among the Romans, the frequent use and deep significance of the phrase, "more majorum:" hence, also, the expression, "sacra perpetua." Cic. De Legg. lib. ii., c. xviii., § 45-see c. viii., §§ 19, 20, and compare Herder Phil. Hist. B. xiv., c. ii. Montesquieu goes so far as to say, that so great was the superstitious credulity in this respect, that the more incredible any thing appeared, the more certainly divine did they esteem it. Pol. des Rom. dans la Religion.

selves in active life," and who, after the expiration of their term of religious office, laid aside the sacred symbols, and returned to their former secular employments, if they had ever abandoned them. In those instances, indeed, in which the sacerdotal dignity was held for life, as in the case of the pontiffs, this complete intermixture of civil and religious functions was still more forcibly exemplified; for, along with their pontifical office, they might discharge any other civil or military duty, which was not manifestly inconsistent with it. Thus, A. U. C. 547, P. Licinius Crassus was elected Consul while Pontifex Maximus.§ Again, no important business could be transacted, without first taking the auspices: hence, the consul or commander of an army was always invested with the auspicia, or right of taking the auspices, together with the imperium, or civil and military authority. At all public meetings, the augurs were required to discover and declare the will of the gods; and empowered to postpone, by a single formula, the comitia already assembled, or even to annul their proceedings afterwards. The superstitious importance attached by the Romans, may be exemplified by a reference to the classic pages of Livy, and to the remarkable case of Clodius and his sister. Be it remembered, too, that both the Pontificatus and the Auguratus were among the highest offices in the State; and anciently confined to the patricians alone.** Afterwards, indeed, they were both thrown open to the plebeians, and then the Augurship lost much of its pristine dignity and importance. But, in the earlier ages, the influence of reli

* See Sigonius and Drakenborch on Liv. lib. iv., c. liv. § 5.

+ Montesquieu uses the broad assertion, that "toutes les cérémonies religieuses passoient par les mains des magistrats." Pol. des Rom. etc. + See Adams' Rom. Antiq.-Anthon's Archæolog. Dict.

§ Liv. lib. xxviii., c. xxxviii. § 12. The same thing took place with another Pontifex Maximus of the same name, A. U. C.621. Freinshem. Supple. lib. 24, c. 29.

Consult Montesquieu. Pol. des Rom. etc., and see any work on Rom. Antiq.

Valer. Max. lib. i., c. iv. Freinshem. Suppl. lib. ix., c. xxi.-xl. xlvii. A somewhat similar story is related of Flaminius. Cic. De Div. lib. i., c. XXXV., § 77.

** "Interroganti tribuno cur plebeium consulem fieri non oporteret? respondit, quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet." Liv. lib. iv., c. vi., §§ 1, 2, cf. Liv. lib. vi., c. xli. § 5-x. c. viii. § 9. Dion. Hal. lib. ii.

++ The Ogulnian Law first gave this privilege to the plebeians, A. U. C. 454. Liv. x., c. vi-ix. But Coruncanius, A. U. C. 500, was the first plebeian Pontifex Maximus. Adams' Rom. Antiq. p. 154. Liv. Epit. lib. 18.

gion was felt and recognized in all the transactions of the Roman republic, and was at all times intimately blended with the political system.*

Strange as it may seem, this peculiar organization of the Roman religion did not give rise, strictly speaking, to any pure hierocracy. Religion was not, by itself, the supreme power in the State, but was throughout subservient to the political institutions of the country. This followed necessarily from the organization of the sacred colleges, which, as above remarked, did not compose a distinct class, but were filled up, by co-optation, indiscriminately from the body of the patricians, without their members losing by the new appointment a single privilege which they might otherwise possess. During the whole of the Roman history, the priesthood never appears in the ascendancy as the dominant class it always exhibits itself as an effective instrument, guided by the patricians, to secure the interests of their own body. It formed the grand conservative element in the Roman polity, enforcing the observance of the old and time-honoured institutions, opposing change, resisting the progress of the popular movement, and strengthening the measures adopted by the aristocracy for the accomplishment of the same end. Had the sacerdotal bodies been differently constituted, they might have transformed Rome into an Oriental hierocracy. For a long period, they had all the elements of power in their own hands. They themselves elected the members of their sacred colleges, with few interruptions, down to the time of the Emperors:|| no public business could be transacted without the auspices, and these required the intervention of the augurs, or those temporarily invested with the potestas auguralis: they had plenary jurisdiction over all religious matters, and were

Freinshem. Suppl. lib. 8, c. xlviii. The decline of the Augurship is alluded to, Cic. De Legg. lib. ii., c. 13, § 33-De Div. lib. i., c. 15, § 28.

*Tout droit e'tait dans la religion, et dependait des augures. Michelet. Hist. Rep. Rom. lib. i., c. ii.

+ Michelet remarks of the old Roman and the modern Italian: "Il fait de la religion, et souvent de bonne foi, un objet de gouvernement. Elle lui apparaît dans tous les siècles sous un point de vue d'utilité pratique." Int. Hist. Univ.

+ Anthon's Arch. Dict. which we have frequently consulted to confirm our views.

The Lex Domitia, A. U. C. 650, transferred the election of priests to the Comitia: this was abrogated by Sylla, A. U. C. 673; but its main provisions revived, A. U. C. 691.