earth--the republics, as well as the Macedonian kingdoms founded by
Alexander, have long since ceased to exist. Many centuries--near two
thousand years, have elapsed, since not a vestige remains of all that
ancient greatness and transitory power. If the celebrated battles and
other mighty events of those ages are still known to us; if they still
excite in us a lively interest, it is principally because they have been
delineated with such incomparable beauty, such instructive interest, by
the great classical writers. It is not the republican governments of
Greece, nor the brief and fleeting period of Grecian liberty, which was
so soon succeeded by civil war and anarchy--it is not the universal
empire of Macedon, which was but of short duration, and was soon
swallowed up in the Roman or Parthian domination--it is not these that
mark out the place which Greece occupies in the great whole of universal
history, nor the mighty and important part she has had in the
civilization of mankind. The share allotted to her was the light of
science in its most ample extent, and in all the clear brilliance of
exposition which it could derive from art. It is in this intellectual
sphere only that the Greeks have been gifted with extraordinary power,
and have exerted a mighty influence on after-ages. Plato and Aristotle,
far more than Leonidas and Alexander the Great, contain nearly the sum
and essence of all truly permanent and influential, which the Greeks
have bequeathed to posterity. It is evident that I include under these
great names the whole classical culture which formed the basis of this
Greek science--the general refinement of minds--the fine arts, and above
all, the glorious old poetry of Greece. We have to mention another
department of Greek science, wherein from its natural clearness and
liveliness, its profound observation of man, the most eminent success
was attained. And the pre-eminence consists in this--that historical
art, as well as historical research were originated by the Greeks, and
that both have attained a degree of perfection which has been almost
ever unknown to the Asiatic nations, and which even the moderns have
only imitated by degrees upon the great models of antiquity. The father
of history, Herodotus, has not been without reason compared to Homer, on
account of his manifold charms, and the clearness and fulness of his
narrative. We remain in utter astonishment, when we reflect on the depth
and extent of his knowledge, researches, enquiries, and remarks on the
history and antiquities of the various nations of the earth, and of
mankind in general. The deeper and more comprehensive the researches of
the moderns have been on ancient history, the more have their regard and
esteem for Herodotus increased. The later classical historians display
much rhetoric; but this was natural, when we consider what a mighty
influence rhetoric exerted on public life, and that it had become an
all-ruling power in the state. This false rhetoric, that idle pomp of
words, the death of all genuine poetry and higher art--as the endless
strifes of a false dialectic, are the ruin of all sane and legitimate
science, of all precision of intellect, and soundness of judgment--this
false rhetoric, by the exclusively sophistical turn which it gave to the
public mind and public opinion, accelerated the downfall of government,
and of all public virtues in Greece.
The third category or sphere of Grecian intellect and Grecian life which
I designated after that of divine art, and natural science, and the
varied knowledge of man, was _political rationalism_.[63] I have used
that expression, chiefly in reference to the later ages of the Greek
Republics, as it is the quality which eminently distinguished them from
the Asiatic states, and those of modern Europe.
In the later ages of Athens, and of the other democratic states, the
rationalist principles of freedom and equality were the sole prevailing
and recognized maxims of government. Considered in this historical point
of view, the chief difference between the two principal forms of
government consists in this--that the republic is, or at least tends to
be, the government of Reason; while monarchy is founded on the higher
principles of faith and love. But the distinction lies rather in the
ruling spirit--the moral principle which animates these two governments,
than in their mere outward form. Republics which are founded on ancient
laws and customs, on hereditary rights and usages, on faith in the
sanctity of hereditary right, on attachment to ancestral manners (as was
undoubtedly the case with the Greek republics in the early ages of their
history), such states, so far from being opposed to the true spirit of
monarchy, are, to all essential purposes, of a kindred nature with it.
Such, too, are those happy republics which, content with the narrow
limits of their power and existence, at peace with other states, devoid
of ambition, firmly wedded to their ancient rights and customs, figure
but little on the arena of history, and occupy but small space in the
columns of the gazetteer. In a monarchy, attachment to the hereditary
sovereign and to the royal dynasty is the corner-stone and the firmest
pillar of the state--whole provinces may be conquered, and important
battles may be lost; but while this foundation of love remains
unshaken--while this principle is in active operation, the edifice of
the state will stand unmoved.
The next foundation of monarchy is faith in ancient rights--in the
heritage of ancestral customs and privileges, according to the several
relations of the different classes of the state; and we should beware,
in a monarchial government, not to touch or violate with an incautious
hand, or change without necessity, hereditary rights and usages which
time has consecrated, for such heedless changes shake the very
foundations of the social edifice. When a monarchy is founded on a
written contract (whether it be intended as a sort of treaty of peace,
with some party aspiring to dominion in the state, or be only the
successful experiment of some scientific theory of political
rationalism), such a government, though it may preserve the outward
form, has ceased in all essential points, to be a monarchy according to
the old acceptation of the term. An absolute government, whatever shape
it may assume, whether it take the form of republicanism, and adopt the
rationalist principles of freedom and equality--principles which in the
nature of things, and according to the very constitution of human
reason, are almost ever inseparable from a spirit of progressive
encroachment in foreign policy, (as is sufficiently proved by the
inordinate ambition, the insatiable thirst of power which distinguished
the great republics of antiquity, in proportion as they became more
democratic, and more a prey to anarchy,) or whether the absolute
government assume the lawless and illegitimate sway of a military
despotism--such a government may indeed be established in a sort of
equipoise, circumscribed within tolerably reasonable limits, and
preserved at least in its physical existence by means of such a written
compact as we have spoken of above. But the old Christian state--the
state which is founded in faith and love--can be renovated and
re-established; not by the mere dead letter of any theory, though it
should contain nothing but the pure dogmatic truth--but by faith--by
love--by the religious energy of all the great fundamental principles of
moral life.
END OF LECTURE VIII.
LECTURE IX.
Character of the Romans.--Sketch of their conquests.--On strict
law, and the law of equity in its application to History, and
according to the idea of divine justice.--Commencement of the
Christian dispensation.
Instead of that astonishing variety in the states, the races, the
political constitutions, the manners, styles of art and modes of
intellectual cultivation, which divided from its very origin the social
existence of Greece--a division which gave a more rich and diversified
aspect to Greek civilization--the ancient history of Italy shews us, on
the contrary, how every thing merged more and more in the one, eternal,
imperishable, ever-prosperous, ever-progressive, and at last
all-devouring, city--Rome. The first ages, indeed, of Italy--the
primitive nations that settled that country--such as the Pelasgi, whose
early historical existence is attested by those Cyclopean, or more
properly, Pelasgic walls and constructions still extant there--the
Etruscans, (according to some authors, descended from the more northern
race of Rhoetians) from whom the Romans borrowed so many of their
idolatrous rites and customs--the Sabines and Samnites, the Latins and
the Trojans--lastly the Celts in Northern, and the Greeks in Southern,
Italy--all in their several relations to one another, and in the various
commixture of their origin and progress, open a wide field of intricate
investigation and perplexing research to the historical enquirer. But
from the general point of view taken in universal history, all this
antiquarian learning soon falls into the back-ground, in the presence of
that great central city which quickly absorbs into itself all the
ancient states of Italy, and Italy itself, and which, though originally
composed of many heterogeneous elements--Latin, Sabine and
Etruscan--still was very early moulded into an unity of character--and
whose ulterior growth and progress, slow indeed at first, but soon as
fearfully rapid as it was immeasurably great, principally attracts the
notice of the historical observer. In the later, and still more in the
early, ages of Rome, the national idolatry was less poetically wrought
and adorned than that of the Greeks--it was altogether much simpler,
ruder and more serious than the latter. Even the word _religio_, to take
it in its first signification as a second tie, corresponds to a far more
definite and serious object than can be found in the gay mythology of
the popular religion of the Greeks. Idolatrous rites were closely
interwoven into the whole life of the ancient Romans. As the twins of
Mars, Romulus and Remus, who were suckled by the she-wolf, were called
the founders of the city; so Mars himself was honoured by the Romans as
their real progenitor, and principal national divinity--particularly
under the name of Gradivus, that is to say the swift for battle, or the
strider of the earth. The sacred shields of brass which, on certain
appointed festivals, were borne in the military dances, the Palladium,
the sceptre of the venerable Priam, formed, together with similar relics
of antiquity, the seven holy pledges of the eternal duration and ever
flourishing increase of the seven-hilled city, which was honoured under
three different names; one whereof was ever kept secret--while the other
two referred to its blooming strength and ever enduring power. The
ancient cities of the Greeks, those of the Italian nations, whether akin
to them, or otherwise, possessed indeed their tutelary deities, their
particular sanctuaries, their highly revered Palladium, some ancient
oracles, and certain religious rites and festivals consecrated to their
honour. But it would not be easy to find another example where the
traditionary reverence, we might almost say, the old hereditary
deification of the city, had from the earliest period, taken such deep
root in the minds of men; and where such a formal worship was so
intimately interwoven with manners, customs, and even maxims of state,
as among the Romans. And when an universal monarchy had sprung out from
this single city, it was still that city--it was still eternal Rome that
was ever regarded, not merely as the centre, but as the essence of the
whole--the personified conception of the state--the grand idea of the
empire. The early traditions of the Romans which, though from the
commencement of the city they assume the garb of authentic history, (as
in the pages of Livy for instance,) yet are for a long time to be
regarded mostly as mere traditions,--evince a fact well entitled to our
consideration,--as it serves to show how that strong, inflexible, but
harsh, Roman character, such as the later records of history display,
manifested itself even in the earliest infancy of this people;--it is
this, that among no other nation, did historical recollections even of
the remotest antiquity exert such a powerful influence on life, or
strike so deep a root in the minds of men. Nearly five hundred years had
elapsed since the time of the elder Brutus, when, in the Roman world now
so mightily changed, a citizen appealed to the second Brutus in these
words--"Brutus, thou sleepest"--as if to urge him to that deed which the
first had perpetrated on the proud Tarquin, and by which that celebrated
name had become identified with the idea of a bold deliverer. An ardent
hatred towards all kings, and towards royalty itself, which from that
period remained ever deeply fixed in the Roman mind, characterised this
people even in the most ancient period of their history. Not only in the
remarks and reflections of the later Roman historians on the first ages
of Rome, but in facts themselves, as in the case of Spurius Cassius, we
may trace the natural concomitant of this hatred--a passionate jealousy
of all powerful party-chiefs, and democratic leaders, who were, perhaps
suspected, or probably convicted of aspiring to supreme power in the
state, and aiming at the establishment of tyranny--as if the Romans had
even then a clear presentiment of the inevitable fate that awaited an
empire like theirs, and of the quarter whence their ruin would proceed.
Even in the first ages, the Patricians and Plebeians appear on the
historical arena, not only as separate classes, such as existed in
almost all ancient states, and between whom no matrimonial ties could be
formed originally at Rome; but as political parties, in a state of
mutual hostility, each of which strove to obtain the ascendancy in the
forum and in the state.
The old Romans of these early times were strangers to those various
systems of legislation, those rhetorical treatises of jurisprudence,
conceived mostly on democratic principles, or to those opposite
political theories composed in an aristocratic spirit, which the Greeks
then possessed in such abundance. On the contrary, the Romans manifested
even then, in the primitive period of their existence, a deep,
perspicacious, practical sense, and a mighty political instinct, which
showed itself in their first institutions of state. Even in the first
idea of the Tribunate--as a regular mode of popular representation--an
element of opposition introduced into the very constitution of the
state--there was contained the germ of that mighty political power and
action, which afterwards a man of energetic character, like Tiberius
Gracchus, knew how to exert. This power, had it been kept within due
limits, might have proved most beneficial to the community; and a single
man, endowed with such a character, and animated by the same spirit of a
true patriotic opposition, has often accomplished more at Rome, than
whole parliaments in modern free states. The authority of the Censor,
negative and restrictive in itself, but still not merely judicial--and
which over the conduct of persons was very extensive--the exceptional
institution of the Dictatorship, in the early ages of Rome by no means
so dangerous--were so many just, and practical political discoveries of
the Romans, which evince their statesman-like genius, and which even in
later times, among other nations, and under various forms, have served
as real and effectual elements in the constitution of states.
The interest of those two parties--the Plebeians and the
Patricians--concurred fully but in one point--the desire which both had
of constantly invading the neighbouring nations, and obtaining landed
possessions for themselves, in the conquests they made for the state.
The Plebeians ever and again cherished the hope of being able to obtain
for their profit, and that of the poorer citizens, a sort of
distribution of the state-lands won in war. But as the Patricians were
mostly invested with all the high offices and dignities in war as well
as peace, they knew how to turn all the opportunities of conquest to
their best advantage, however much they might on particular occasions
postpone their private interests as individuals to the general interests
of the state. Although, so long as their ancient principles
remained unchanged, the Romans were distinguished for the utmost
disinterestedness in regard to their country, and for great simplicity
of manners, and even frugality in private life, they were in all their
foreign enterprises, even in the earliest times, exceedingly covetous of
gain, or rather of land; for it was in land, and the produce of the
soil, that their principal, and almost only wealth consisted. The old
Romans were a thoroughly agricultural people; and it was only at a later
period that commerce, trades and arts were introduced among them; and
even then they occupied but a subordinate place. Agriculture was even
highly honoured by the Romans; and while almost all the celebrated, and
in general, most of the proper, names among the Greeks were derived from
gods and heroes, and had a poetical lustre, and glorious significancy,
it is a circumstance characteristic of the Romans, that the names of
many of their most distinguished families, such as Fabius, Lentulus,
Piso, Cicero and many others were taken from agriculture, and from
vegetables; while others again, as Secundus, Quintus, Septimus, and
Octavius, are tolerably prosaic, and are derived from the numbers of the
old popular reckoning. The science of agriculture forms one of the few
subjects on which the Romans produced writers truly original. That of
jurisprudence, in which they were most at home, which they cultivated
with peculiar care, and which they very considerably enlarged, had its
foundation in the written laws of the primitive period of their history;
and in their elder jurisprudence, the Agrarian system very evidently
prevails. As a robust, agricultural people, they were eminently fitted
for military service; and in practised vigour and constancy under every
privation, the Roman infantry with the vigorous masses of its legion,
surpassed all military bodies that have ever been organized.