LORD'S LECTURES

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY, VOLUME III

ANCIENT ACHIEVEMENTS. 

BY JOHN LORD, LL. D. , AUTHOR OF "THE OLD ROMAN WORLD, " "MODERN EUROPE, "ETC. , ETC. 

CONTENTS. 

GOVERNMENTS AND LAWS. 

GREEK AND ROMAN JURISPRUDENCE. 

Governments and lawsOriental lawsPriestly jurisprudenceThe laws of LycurgusThe laws of SolonCleisthenesThe Ecclesia at AthensStruggle between patricians and plebeians at RomeTribunes of the peopleRoman citizensThe Roman senateThe Roman constitutionImperial powerThe Twelve TablesRoman lawyersJurisprudence under emperorsLabeoCapitoGaiusPaulusUlpianJustinianTribonianCode, Pandects, and InstitutesRoman citizenshipLaws pertaining to marriageExtent of paternal powerTransfer of propertyContractsThe courtsCrimesFinesPenal statutesPersonal rightsSlaverySecurity of propertyAuthorities

THE FINE ARTS. 

ARCHITECTURE, SCULPTURE, PAINTING. 

Early architectureEgyptian monumentsThe Temple of KarnakThe pyramidsBabylonian architectureIndian architectureGreek architectureThe Doric orderThe ParthenonThe Ionic orderThe Corinthian orderRoman architectureThe archVitruviusGreek sculpturePhidiasStatue of ZeusPraxitelesScopasLysippusRoman sculptureGreek paintersPolygnotusApollodorusZeuxisParrhasiusApellesThe decline of artAuthorities

ANCIENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. 

ASTRONOMY, GEOGRAPHY, ETC. 

Ancient astronomyChaldaean astronomersEgyptian astronomyThe Greek astronomersThalesAnaximenesAristarchusArchimedesHipparchusPtolemyThe Roman astronomersGeometryEuclidEmpirical scienceHippocratesGalenPhysical scienceGeographyPlinyEratosthenesAuthorities

MATERIAL LIFE OF THE ANCIENTS. 

MECHANICAL AND USEFUL ARTS. 

Mechanical artsMaterial life in EgyptDomestic utensilsHouses and furnitureEntertainmentsGlass manufactureLinen fabricsPaper manufactureLeather and tannersCarpenters and boat-buildersAgricultureField sportsOrnaments of dressGreek artsRoman luxuriesMaterial wondersGreat citiesCommerceRoman roadsAncient RomeArchitectural wondersRoman monumentsRoman spectaclesGladiatorial showsRoman triumphsAuthorities

THE MILITARY ART. 

WEAPONS, ENGINES, DISCIPLINE. 

The tendency to violence and warEarly warsProgress in the art of warSesostrisEgyptian armiesMilitary weaponsChariots of warPersian armies, CyrusGreek warfareSpartan phalanxAlexander the GreatRoman armiesHardships of Roman soldiersMilitary disciplineThe Roman legionImportance of the infantryThe cavalryMilitary enginesAncient fortificationsMilitary officersThe praetorian cohortRoman campsConsolidation of Roman powerAuthorities

CICERO. 

ROMAN LITERATURE. 

Condition of Roman society when Cicero was bornHis education and precocityHe adopts the profession of the lawHis popularity as an oratorElected Quaestor; his AedileshipProsecution of VerresHis letters to Atticus; his vanityHis Praetorship; declines a provinceHis Consulship; conspiracy of CatilineBanishment of Cicero: his weakness; his recallHis law practice; his eloquenceHis provincial governmentHis return to RomeHis fears in view of the rivalry between Caesar and PompeySides with PompeyDeath of Tullia and divorce of TerentiaSecond marriage of CiceroLiterary labors: his philosophical writingsHis detestation of ImperialismHis philippics against AntonyHis proscription, flight, and deathHis great servicesCharacter of his eloquenceHis artistic excellence of styleHis learning and attainments; his characterHis immortal legacyAuthorities

CLEOPATRA. 

THE WOMAN OF PAGANISM. 

Why Cleopatra represents the woman of PaganismGlory of Ancient RomePaganism recognizes the body rather than the soulAncestors of CleopatraThe wonders of AlexandriaCleopatra of Greek originThe mysteries of Ancient EgyptEarly beauty and accomplishments of CleopatraHer attractions to CaesarHer residence in RomeHer first acquaintance with AntonyThe style of her beautyHer characterCharacter of AntonyAntony and Cleopatra in CiliciaMagnificence of CleopatraInfatuation of AntonyMotives of CleopatraAntony's gifts to CleopatraIndignation of the RomansAntony gives up his Parthian expeditionReturns to AlexandriaContest with OctaviusBattle of ActiumWisdom of OctaviusDeath of AntonySubsequent conduct of CleopatraNature of her love for AntonyImmense sacrifices of AntonyTragic fate of CleopatraFrequency of suicide at RomeImmorality no bar to social position in Greece and RomeDulness of home in Pagan antiquityDrudgeries of womenInfluence of women on menPaganism never recognized the equality of women with menIt denied to them educationConsequent degradation of womenPaganism without religious consolationDid not recognize the value of the soulAnd thus took no cognizance of the higher aspirations of manThe revenge of woman under degradationWomen, under Paganism, took no interest in what elevates societyMen, therefore, fled to public amusementsNo true society under PaganismSociety only created by Christianity

PAGAN SOCIETY. 

GLORY AND SHAME. 

Glories of the ancient civilizationA splendid external deceptionMoral evilsImperial despotismProstration of libertiesSome good emperorsDisproportionate fortunesLuxurious livingGeneral extravagancePride and insolence of the aristocracyGibbon's description of the noblesThe plebeian classHopelessness and disgrace of povertyPopular superstitionsThe slavesThe curse of slaveryDegradation of the female sexBitter satires of JuvenalGames and festivalsGladiatorial showsGeneral abandonment to pleasureThe bathsGeneral craze for money-makingUniversal corruptionSaint Paul's estimate of Roman vicesDecline and ruin a logical necessityThe Sibylline prophecyAuthorities

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME III. 

Cleopatra Tests the Poison which She Intends for HerOwn Destruction on Her Slaves. .. . _Frontispiece__After the painting by Alexander Cabanel_. 

Justinian Orders the Compilation of the Pandects_After the painting by Benjamin Constant_. 

The Temple of Karnak_After a photograph_. 

The Laocoön_After the photograph from the statue in the Vatican, Rome_. 

The Death of Archimedes_After the painting by E. Vimont_. 

Race of Roman Chariots_After the painting by V. Checa_. 

Sale of Slaves in a Roman Camp_After the painting by R. Coghe_. 

Marcus Tullius Cicero_From the bust in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence_. 

Cleopatra Obtains an Interview with Caesar_After the painting by J. L. Gerome_. 

Death of Cleopatra_After the painting by John Collier_. 

A Roman Bacchanal_After the painting by W. Kotarbinski_. 

GOVERNMENTS AND LAWS. 

GREEK AND ROMAN JURISPRUDENCE. 

624 B. C. -550 A. D. 

There is not much in ancient governments and laws to interest us, exceptsuch as were in harmony with natural justice, and were designed for thewelfare of all classes in the State. A jurisprudence founded on theedicts of absolute kings, or on the regulations of a priestly caste, isnecessarily partial, and may be unenlightened. But those laws which aregradually enacted for the interests of the whole body of thepeople, --for the rich and poor, the powerful and feeble alike, --havegenerally been the result of great and diverse experiences, runningthrough centuries, the work of wise men under constitutional forms ofgovernment. The jurisprudence of nations based on equity is a growth ordevelopment according to public wants and necessities, especially incountries having popular liberty and rights, as in England and theUnited States. 

We do not find in the history of ancient nations such a jurisprudence, except in the free States of Greece and among the Romans, who had anatural genius or aptitude for government, and where the people had apowerful influence in legislation, until even the name of liberty wasnot invoked. 

Among the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians the only laws were theedicts of kings or the regulations of priests, mostly made with a viewof cementing their own power, except those that were dictated bybenevolence or the pressing needs of the people, who were ground downand oppressed, and protected only as slaves were once protected in theSouthern States of America. Wise and good monarchs doubtless issueddecrees for the benefit of all classes, such as conscience or knowledgedictated, whenever they felt their great responsibilities, as in some ofthe absolute monarchies of Europe; but they never issued their decreesat the suggestions or demands of those classes for whom the laws weremade. The voice of the people was ignored, except so far as it moved thepity or appealed to the hearts and consciences of their rulers; thepeople had, and claimed, no _rights_. The only men to whom rulerslistened, or by whom they were controlled, were those whom they chose ascounsellors and ministers, who were supposed to advise with a view tothe sovereign's benefit, and that of the empire generally. 

The same may be said in general of other Oriental monarchies, especially when embarked in aggressive wars, where the will of themonarch was supreme and unresisted, as in Persia. In India and China thegovernment was not so absolute, since it was checked by feudatoryprinces, almost independent like the feudal barons and dukes ofmediaeval Europe. 

Nor was there probably among Oriental nations any elaborate codificationof the decrees and laws as in Greece and Rome, except by the priests fortheir ritual service, like that which marked the jurisprudence of theIsraelites. There were laws against murder, theft, adultery, and otheroffences, since society cannot exist anywhere without such laws; butthere was no complicated jurisprudence produced by the friction ofcompeting classes striving for justice and right, or even for theinterests of contending parties. We do not look to Egypt or to China forwise punishment of ordinary crimes; but we do look to Greece and Rome, and to Rome especially, for a legislation which shall balance thecomplicated relations of society on principles of enlightened reason. Moreover, those great popular rights which we now most zealously defendhave generally been extorted in the strife of classes and parties, sometimes from kings, and sometimes from princes and nobles. Where therehas been no opposition to absolutism these rights have not been secured;but whenever and wherever the people have been a power they haveimperiously made their wants known, and so far as they have beenreasonable they have been finally secured, --perhaps after angryexpostulations and, disputations. 

Now, it is this kind of legislation which is remarkable in the historyof Greece and Rome, secured by a combination of the people against theruling classes in the interests of justice and the common welfare, andfinally endorsed and upheld even by monarchs themselves. It is from thislegislation that modern nations have learned wisdom; for a permanent lawin a free country may be the result of a hundred years of discussion orcontention, --a compromise of parties, a lesson in human experience. Asthe laws of Greece and Rome alone among the ancients are rich in moralwisdom and adapted more or less to all nations and ages in the strugglefor equal rights and wise social regulations, I shall confine myself tothem. Besides, I aim not to give useless and curious details, but toshow how far in general the enlightened nations of antiquity madeattainments in those things which we call civilization, and particularlyin that great department which concerns so nearly all humaninterests, --that of the regulation of mutual social relations; and thisby modes and with results which have had their direct influence upon ourmodern times. 

When we consider the native genius of the Greeks, and their marvellousachievements in philosophy, literature, and art, we are surprised thatthey were so inferior to the Romans in jurisprudence, --although in theearly days of the Roman republic a deputation of citizens was sent toAthens to study the laws of Solon. But neither nations nor individualsare great in everything. Before Solon lived, Lycurgus had given laws tothe Spartans. This lawgiver, one of the descendants of Hercules, wasborn, according to Grote, about eight hundred and eighty years beforeChrist, and was the uncle of the reigning king. There is, however, nocertainty as to the time when he lived; it was probably about the periodwhen Carthage was founded by the Phoenicians. He instituted the Spartansenate, and gave an aristocratic form to the constitution. But thesenate, composed of about thirty old men who acted in conjunction withthe two kings, did not differ materially from the council of chiefs, orold men, found in other ancient Grecian States; the Spartan chiefssimply modified or curtailed the power of the kings. In the course oftime the senate, with the kings included in it, became the governingbody of the State, and this oligarchical form of government lastedseveral hundred years. We know but little of the especial laws given byLycurgus. We know the distinctions of society, --citizens and helots, and their mutual relations, --the distribution of lands to check luxury, the public men, the public training of youth, the severe discipline towhich all were subjected, the cruelty exercised towards slaves, theattention given to gymnastic exercises and athletic sports, --in short, the habits and customs of the people rather than any regular system ofjurisprudence. Lycurgus was the trainer of a military brotherhood ratherthan a law-giver. Under his régime the citizen belonged to the Staterather than to his family, and all the ends of the State were warlikerather than peaceful, --not looking to the settlement of quarrels onprinciples of equity, or a development of industrial interests, whichare the great aims of modern legislation. 

The influence of the Athenian Solon on the laws which affectedindividuals is more apparent than that of the Spartan Lycurgus, theearliest of the Grecian legislators. But Solon had a predecessor inAthens itself, --Draco, who in 624 was appointed to reduce to writing thearbitrary decisions of the archons, thus giving a form of permanent lawand a basis for a court of appeal. Draco's laws were extraordinarilysevere, punishing small thefts and even laziness with death. Theformulation of any system of justice would have, as Draco's did, abeneficial influence on the growth of the State; but the severity ofthese bloody laws caused them to be hated and in practice neglected, until Solon arose. Solon was born in Athens about 638 B. C. , andbelonged to the noblest family of the State. He was contemporary withPisistratus and Thales. His father having lost his property, Solonapplied himself to merchandise, --always a respectable calling in amercantile city. He first became known as a writer of love poems; thencame into prominence as a successful military commander of volunteerforces in a disastrous war; and at last he gained the confidence of hiscountrymen so completely that in a period of anarchy, distress, andmutiny, --the poor being so grievously oppressed by the rich that a sixthpart of the produce of land went to the landlord, --he was chosen archon, with authority to revise the laws, and might have made himself king. Heabolished the custom of selling the body of a debtor for debt, and evenannulled debts in a state of general distress, --which did not please therich, nor even the poor, since they desired a redivision of lands suchas Lycurgus had made in Sparta. He repealed the severe laws of Draco, which inflicted capital punishment for so many small offences, retainingthe extreme penalty only for murder and treason. In order further topromote the interests of the people, he empowered any man whatever toenter an action for one that was injured. He left the great offices ofstate, however, in the hands of the rich, giving the people a share inthose which were not so important. He re-established the council of theAreopagus, composed of those who had been archons, and nine wereappointed annually for the general guardianship of the laws; but heinstituted another court or senate of four hundred citizens, for thecognizance of all matters before they were submitted to the highercourt. Although the poorest and most numerous class were not eligiblefor office, they had the right of suffrage, and could vote for theprincipal officers. It would at first seem that the legislation of Solongave especial privileges to the rich, but it is generally understoodthat he was the founder of the democracy of Athens. He gave theAthenians, not the best possible code, but the best they were capable ofreceiving. He intended to give to the people as much power as wasstrictly needed, and no more; but in a free State the people continuallyencroach on the privileges of the rich, and thus gradually the chiefpower falls into their hands. 

Whatever the power which Solon gave to the people, and however greattheir subsequent encroachments, it cannot be doubted that he was thefirst to lay the foundations of constitutional government, --that is, onein which the people took part in legislation and in the election ofrulers. The greatest benefit which he conferred on the State was in thelaws which gave relief to poor debtors, those which enabled people toprotect themselves by constitutional means, and those which prohibitedfathers from selling their daughters and sisters for slaves, --anabomination which had long disgraced the Athenian republic. 

Some of Solon's laws were of questionable utility. He prohibited theexportation of the fruits of the soil in Attica, with the exception ofolive-oil alone, --a regulation difficult to be enforced in a mercantileState. Neither would he grant citizenship to immigrants; and he releasedsons from supporting their parents in old age if the parents hadneglected to give them a trade. He encouraged all developments ofnational industries, knowing that the wealth of the State depended onthem. Solon was the first Athenian legislator who granted the power oftestamentary bequests when a man had no legitimate children. Sonssucceeded to the property of their parents, with the obligation ofgiving a marriage dowry to their sisters. If there were no sons, thedaughters inherited the property of their parents; but a person who hadno children could bequeath his property to whom he pleased. Solonprohibited costly sacrifices at funerals; he forbade evil-speaking ofthe dead, and indeed of all persons before judges and archons; hepronounced a man infamous who took part in a sedition. 

When this enlightened and disinterested man had finished his work oflegislation, 494 B. C. , he visited Egypt and Cyprus, and devoted hisleisure to the composition of poems. He also, it is said, when aprisoner in the hands of the Persians, visited Croesus, the rich king ofLydia, and gave to him an admonitory lesson on the vicissitudes of life. After a prolonged absence, Solon returned to Athens about the time ofthe usurpation of his kinsman Peisistratus (560 B. C. ), who, however, suffered the aged legislator and patriot to go unharmed, and evenallowed most of his laws to remain in force. 

The constitution and laws of Athens continued substantially for about ahundred years after the archonship of Solon, when the democratic partyunder Cleisthenes gained complete ascendency. Some modification of thelaws was then made. The political franchise was extended to all freenative Athenians. The command of the military forces was given to tengenerals, one from each tribe, instead of being intrusted to one of thearchons. The Ecclesia, a formal assembly of the citizens, met morefrequently. The people were called into direct action as _dikasts_, orjurors; all citizens were eligible to the magistracy, even to thearchonship; ostracism, --which virtually was exile withoutdisgrace, --became a political necessity to check the ascendency ofdemagogues. 

Such were the main features of the constitution and jurisprudence ofAthens when the struggle between the patricians and plebeians of Romebegan, to which we now give our attention. It was the real beginning ofconstitutional liberty in Rome. Before this time the government was inthe hands either of kings or aristocrats. The patricians weredescendants of the original Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan families; theplebeians were the throng of common folk brought in by conquest or laterimmigration, --mostly of Latin origin. The senate was the ruling powerafter the expulsion of the kings, and senators were selected from thegreat patrician families, who controlled by their wealth and influencethe popular elections, the army and navy, and all foreign relations. Consuls, the highest magistrates, who commanded the armies, wereannually elected by the people; but for several centuries the consulsbelonged to great families. The constitution was essentiallyaristocratic, and the aristocracy was based on wealth. Power was in thehands of nobles, whether their ancestors were patricians or plebeians, although in the early ages of the Republic they were mostly patriciansby birth. But with the growth of Rome new families that were notdescended from the ancient tribes became prominent, --like the Claudii, the Julii, and the Servilii, --and were incorporated with the nobility. There are very few names in Roman history before the time of Mariuswhich did not belong to this noble class. The _plebs_, or common people, had at first no political privileges whatever, not even the right ofsuffrage, and were not allowed to marry into patrician rank. Indeed, they were politically and socially oppressed. 

The first great event which gave the plebs protection and politicalimportance was the appointment of representatives called "tribunes ofthe people, "--a privilege extorted from the patricians. The tribunes hadthe right to be present at the deliberations of the senate; theirpersons were inviolable, and they had the power of veto over obnoxiouslaws. Their power continually increased, until they were finally electedfrom the senatorial body. In 421 B. C. The plebs had gained sufficientinfluence to establish the _connubium_, by which they were allowed tointermarry with patricians. In the same year they were admitted to thequaestorship, which office entitled the possessor to a seat in thesenate. The quaestors had charge of the public money. In 336 B. C. Theplebeians obtained the praetorship, a judicial office. 

In the year 286 B. C. The distinctions vanished between plebeians andpatricians, and the term _populus_ instead of _plebs_, was applied toall Roman people alike. Originally the _populus_ comprised strictlyRoman citizens, those who belonged to the original tribes, and who hadthe right of suffrage. When the plebeians obtained access to the greatoffices of the state, the senate represented the whole people as itformerly represented the _populus_, and the term _populus_ was enlargedto embrace the entire community. 

The senate was an august body, and was very powerful. It was bothjudicial and legislative, and for several centuries was composed ofpatricians alone. Its members always belonged to the aristocracy, whether of patrician or plebeian descent, and were supposed to be rich. Under Augustus it required one million two hundred thousand sestercesannually to support the senatorial dignity. The senate, the members ofwhich were chosen for life, had the superintendence of matters ofreligion and foreign relations; it commanded the levies of troops; itregulated duties and taxes; it gave audience to ambassadors; itdetermined upon the way that war should be conducted; it decreed to whatprovinces governors should be sent; it declared martial law in theappointment of dictators; and it decreed triumphs to fortunate generals. The senators, as a badge of distinction, wore upon their tunics a broadpurple stripe, and they had the privilege of the best seats in thetheatres. Their decisions were laws _(leges). _ A large part of them hadheld curule offices, which entitled them to a seat in the senate forlife. The curule officers were the consuls, the praetors, the aediles, the quaestors, the tribunes; so that an able senator was sure of a greatoffice in the course of his life. A man could scarcely be a senatorunless he had held a great office, nor could he often have held a greatoffice unless he were a senator. Thus it would seem that the Romanconstitution for three hundred years after the expulsion of the kingswas essentially aristocratic. The _plebs_ had but small considerationtill the time of the Gracchi. 

But after the institution of tribunes a change in the constitutiongradually took place, so that it was neither aristocratic nor popularexclusively, but was composed of both elements, and was a system ofbalance of power between the various classes. The more complete thebalance of power, the closer is the resemblance to a constitutionalgovernment. When one class acted as a check against another class, asgradually came to pass, until the subversion of liberties by successfulgenerals, the senate, the magistrates, and the people in theirassemblies shared between them the political power, but the senate had apreponderating influence. The judicial, the legislative, and theexecutive authority was as well defined in Roman legislation as it is inEnglish or American. No person was above the authority of the laws; noone class could subvert the liberties and prerogatives of anotherclass, --even the senate could not override the constitution. Theconsuls, elected by the centuries, presided over the senate and over theassemblies of the people. There was no absolute power exercised at Romeuntil the subversion of the constitution, except by dictators chosen bythe senate in times of imminent danger. Nor could senators elect membersof their own body; the censors alone had the right of electing from theex-magistrates, and of excluding such as were unworthy. The consulscould remain in office but a year, and could be called to account whentheir terms of office had expired. The tribunes of the people ultimatelycould prevent a consul from convening the senate, could seize a consuland imprison him, and could veto an ordinance of the senate itself. Thenobles had no exclusive privilege like the feudal aristocracy ofmediaeval Europe, although it was their aim to secure the highmagistracies to the members of their own body. The term _nobilitas_implied that some one of a man's ancestors had filled a curulemagistracy. A patrician, long before the reforms of the Gracchi, hadbecome a man of secondary importance, but the nobles were aristocrats tothe close of the republic, and continued to secure the highest offices;they prevented their own extinction by admitting into their ranks thosewho distinguished themselves, --that is, exercising their influence inthe popular elections to secure the magistracies from among themselves. 

The Roman constitution then, as gradually developed by the necessitiesand crises that arose, which I have not space to mention, was awonderful monument of human wisdom. The nobility were very powerful fromtheir wealth and influence, but the people were not ground down. Therewere no oppressive laws to reduce them to practical slavery; what rightsthey gained they retained. They constantly extorted new privileges, until they were sufficiently powerful to be courted by demagogues. Itwas the demagogues, generally aristocratic ones, like Catiline andCaesar, who subverted the liberties of the people by buying votes. Butfor nearly five hundred years not a man arose whom the Roman peoplefeared, and the proud symbol "SPQR, " on the standards of the armies ofthe republic, bore the name of the Roman Senate and People to the endsof the earth. 

When, however, the senate came to be made up of men whom the greatgenerals selected; when the tribunes played into the hands of the verymen they were created to oppose; when the high-priest of a people, originally religious, was chosen politically and without regard to moralor religious consideration; when aristocratic nobles left their ownranks to steal the few offices which the people controlled, --then theconstitution, under which the Romans had advanced to the conquest of theworld, became subverted, and the empire was a consolidated despotism. 

Under the emperors there was no constitution, since they combined intheir own persons all the great offices of state, and controlled thesenate, the army, the tribunals of the law, the distant provinces, thecity itself, and regulated taxes and imposed burdens as they pleased. The senate lost its independence, the courts their justice, the army itsspirit, and the people their hopes. And yet the old forms remained; thesenate met as in the days of the Gracchi, and there were consuls andpraetors as before. 

However much we may deplore the subversion of the Roman constitution andthe absolute reign of the emperors, in which most historians see apolitical necessity, there was yet under these emperors, whether good orbad, the reign of law, the bequest of five hundred years' experience. The emperors reigned despotically, but under the forms of legislation. Nor did they attempt to subvert laws which did not interfere with theirown political power. What is called jurisprudence they even improved, asthat later imperial despot Napoleon gave a code to the nation he ruled. It is this science of jurisprudence, for which the Romans had a genius, that gives them their highest claim to be ranked among the benefactorsof mankind. They created legal science. Its aim was justice, --equity inthe relations between man and man. This was the pride of the Romanworld, even under the rule of tyrants and madmen, and this has survivedall the calamities of fifteen hundred years. The Roman laws--founded bythe Republic, but symmetrically completed by the Empire--have morepowerfully affected the interests of civilization than have thephilosophy and arts of Greece. Roman jurisprudence was not perfectlydeveloped until five hundred years after the Christian era, whenJustinian consolidated it into the Code, the Pandects, and theInstitutes. The classical jurists, like Gaius, Ulpian, and Paulus, mayhave laid the foundation, but the superstructure was raised under theauspices of the imperial despots. 

The earliest code of Roman laws was called the Twelve Tables, framedfrom the report of the commissioners sent to Athens and other GreekStates, to collect what was most useful in their legal systems. The lawsof the Twelve Tables were the basis of all the Roman laws, civil andreligious. But the edicts of the praetors, who were the great equityjudges as well as the common-law magistrates, proclaimed certain changeswhich custom and the practice of the courts had introduced; and these, added to the _leges populi_, or laws proposed by the consul and passedby the centuries, the _plebiscita_, or laws proposed by the tribunesand passed by the tribes, and the _senatus consulta, _ or decrees of thesenate, gradually swelled the laws to a great number. Three thousandengraved plates of brass containing these various laws were deposited inthe capitol. 

Subtleties and fictions were in the course of litigations introduced bythe lawyers to defeat the written statutes, and jurisprudence becamecomplicated as early as the time of Cicero. Even the opinions of eminentlawyers were adopted by the legal profession as authoritative, and wererecognized by the courts. The evils of a complicated jurisprudence wereso evident in the seventh century of the city, that Q. Mucius Scaevola, a great lawyer, when consul, published a scientific elaboration of thecivil law. Cicero studied law under him, and his contemporaries, Varusand Aelius Gallus, wrote learned treatises, from which extracts appearin the Digest made under the Emperor Justinian, 528 A. D. Julius Caesarcontemplated a complete revision of the laws, but did not live longenough to carry out his intentions. His legislation, so far as hedirected his mind to it, was very just. Among other laws established byhim was one which ordained that creditors should accept lands as paymentfor their outstanding debts, according to the value determined bycommissioners. In his time the relative value of money had changed, andwas greatly diminished. The most important law of Augustus, deserving ofall praise, was that which related to the manumission of slaves; but hedid not interfere with the social relations of the people after he haddeprived them of political liberty. He once attempted, by his _LexJulia_, to counteract the custom which then prevailed, of abstainingfrom legal marriage and substituting concubinage instead, by which thefree population declined; but this attempt to improve the morals of thepeople met with such opposition from the tribes and centuries that thenext emperor abolished popular assemblies altogether, which Augustus hadfeared to do. The senate in the time of the emperors, composed chieflyof lawyers and magistrates, and entirely dependent upon them, became thegreat fountain of law. By the original constitution the people were thesource of power, and the senate merely gave or refused its approbationto the laws proposed; but under the emperors the _comitia_, or popularassemblies, disappeared, and the senate passed decrees which had theforce of laws, subject to the veto of the Emperor. It was not until thetime of Septimus Severus and Caracalla (second century A. D. ) that thelegislative action of the senate ceased, and the edicts and rescripts ofemperors took the place of all legislation. 

The golden age of Roman jurisprudence was from the birth of Cicero tothe reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, 222 A. D. ; before this periodit was an occult science, confined to praetors, pontiffs, and patricianlawyers. But in the latter days of the republic law became thefashionable study of Roman youth, and eminent masters arose. The firstgreat lawyer who left behind him important works was Q. Mucius Scaevola, who wrote a treatise in eighteen books on the civil law. "He was, " saysCicero, "the most eloquent of jurists and the most learned of orators. "This work, George Long thinks, had a great influence on contemporariesand on subsequent jurists, who followed it as a model. It is the oldestwork from which there are any excerpts in the Digest. 

Servius Sulpicius, the friend of Cicero and his fellow-student inoratory, surpassed his teachers Balbus and Gallus, and was the equal inreputation of the great Mucius Scaevola, the Pontifex Maximus, who saidit was disgraceful for a patrician and a noble to be ignorant of the lawwith which he had to do. Cicero ascribes the great superiority ofServius as a lawyer to the study of philosophy, which disciplined anddeveloped his mind, and enabled him to deduce his conclusions from hispremises with logical precision. He left behind him one hundred andeighty treatises, and had numerous pupils, among whom A. Ofilius andAlfenus Varus, Cato, Julius Caesar, Antony, and Cicero were greatlawyers. Labeo, in the time of Augustus, wrote four hundred books onjurisprudence, spending six months in the year in giving instruction tohis pupils and in answering legal questions, and the other six months inthe country in writing books. Like all the great Roman jurists, he wasversed in literature and philosophy, and so devoted to his professionthat he refused political office. His rival Capito was equally learnedin all departments of the law, and left behind him as many treatises asLabeo. These two jurists were the founders of celebrated schools, likethe ancient philosophers, and each had distinguished followers. Gaius, who flourished in the time of the Antonines, was a great legalauthority; and the recent discovery of his Institutes has revealed theleast mutilated fragment of Roman jurisprudence which exists, and one ofthe most valuable, which sheds great light on ancient Roman law; it wasfound in the library of Verona. No Roman jurist had a higher reputationthan Papinian, who was praefectus praetorio under Septimius Severus (193A. D. ), --an office which made him second only to the Emperor, a sort ofgrand vizier, whose power extended over all departments of the State; hewas beheaded by Caracalla. The great commentator Cujacius declares thathe was the first of all lawyers who have been, or who are to be; that noone ever surpassed him in legal knowledge, and no one will ever equalhim. Paulus was his contemporary, and held the same office as Papinian. He was the most fertile of Roman law-writers, and there is more takenfrom him in Justinian's Digest than from any other jurist, exceptUlpian. There are two thousand and eighty-three excerpts from thiswriter, --one sixth of the whole Digest. No legal writer, ancient ormodern, has handled so many subjects. In perspicuity he is said to beinferior to Ulpian, one of the most famous of jurists, who was hiscontemporary. Ulpian has also exercised a great influence on modernjurisprudence from the copious extracts of his writings in the Digest. He was the chief adviser of Alexander Severus, and like Paulus waspraefectus praetorio. The number of excerpts in the Digest from him issaid to be two thousand four hundred and sixty-two, and they form athird part of it. Some fragments of his writings remain. The last of thegreat civilians associated with Gaius, Papinian, Paulus, and Ulpian, asoracles of jurisprudence, was Modestinus, who was a pupil of Ulpian. Hewrote both in Greek and Latin. There are three hundred and forty-fiveexcerpts in the Digest from his writings, the titles of which show theextent and variety of his labors. 

These eminent lawyers shed great glory on the Roman civilization. In theearliest times men sought distinction on the fields of battle, but inthe latter days of the republic honor was conferred for forensicability. The first pleaders of Rome were not jurisconsults, butaristocratic "patrons, " who looked after their "clients, "--men of lowersocial grade, who in return for protection and assistance renderedservice, sometimes political by voting, sometimes pecuniary, sometimesmilitary. But when law became complicated, a class of men arose tointerpret it. These men were held in great honor, and reached by theirservices the highest offices, --like Cicero and Hortensius. Noremuneration was given originally for forensic pleading beyond theservices which the client gave to a patron, but gradually the practiceof the law became lucrative. Hortensius, as well as Cicero, gained animmense fortune; he had several villas, a gallery of paintings, a largestock of wines, parks, fish-ponds, and aviaries. Cicero had villas inall parts of Italy, a house on the Palatine with columns of Numidianmarble, and a fortune of twenty millions of sesterces, equal to eighthundred thousand dollars. Most of the great statesmen of Rome in thetime of Cicero were either lawyers or generals. Crassus, Pompey, P. Sextus, M. Marcellus, P. Clodius, Asinius Pollio, C. Cicero, M. Antonius, Julius Caesar, Caelius, Brutus, Catullus, were all celebratedfor their forensic efforts. Candidates for the bar studied four yearsunder a distinguished jurist, and were required to pass a rigorousexamination. The judges were chosen from members of the bar, as well asin later times the senators. The great lawyers were not only learned inthe law, but possessed great accomplishments. Varro was a lawyer, andwas the most learned man that Rome ever produced. But under the emperorsthe lawyers were chiefly distinguished for their legal attainments, likePaulus and Ulpian. 

During this golden age of Roman jurisprudence many commentaries werewritten on the Twelve Tables, the Perpetual Edict, the Laws of thePeople, and the Decrees of the senate, as well as a vast mass oftreatises on every department of the law, most of which have perished. The Institutes of Gaius, already mentioned, are the most valuable thatremain, and have thrown great light on some important branchespreviously involved in obscurity. Their use in explaining the Institutesof Justinian is spoken of very highly by Mackenzie, since the latter aremainly founded on the long-lost work of Gaius. The great lawyers whoflourished from Trajan to Alexander Severus, like Gaius, Ulpian, Paulus, Papinian, and Modestinus, had no successors who can be compared withthem, and their works became standard authorities in the courts of law. 

After the death of Alexander Severus, 235 A. D. , no great accession wasmade to Roman law until Theodosius II. , 438 A. D. , caused theconstitutions, from Constantine to his own time, to be collected andarranged in sixteen books. This was called the Theodosian Code, whichin the West was held in high esteem. It was very influential among theGermanic nations, serving as the chief basis of their early legislation;it also paved the way for the more complete codification that followedin the Justinian Code, which superseded it. 

To Justinian belongs the immortal glory of reforming the jurisprudenceof the Romans. "In the space of ten centuries, " says Gibbon, "theinfinite variety of laws and legal opinions had filled many thousandvolumes, which no fortune could purchase, and no capacity could digest. Books could not easily be found, and the judges, poor in the midst ofriches, were reduced to the exercise of their illiterate discretion. "The emperors had very early begun to issue ordinances, under theauthority of the various offices gathered into their hands; and these, together with the answers to appeals from the lower courts made to theemperors directly, or to the sort of supreme court which theyestablished, were called _imperial constitutions_ and _rescripts_. Justinian determined to unite in one body all the rules of law, whatevermay have been their origin; and in the year 528 appointed tenjurisconsults, among whom was the celebrated Tribonian, to select andarrange the imperial constitutions and rescripts, leaving out what wasobsolete or useless or contradictory, and to make such alterations asthe circumstances required. This was called the _Code_, divided intotwelve books, and comprising the constitutions from Hadrian toJustinian. It was published in fourteen months after it was undertaken. 

Justinian thereupon authorized Tribonian, then quaestor, _vir magnificusmagisteria dignitate inter agentes decoratus, _--"for great titles werenow given to the officers of the crown, "--to prepare, with theassistance of sixteen associates, a collection of extracts from thewritings of the most eminent jurists, so as to form a body of law forthe government of the empire, with power to select and omit and alter;and this immense work was done in three years, and published under thetitle of Digest, or Pandects. Says Lord Mackenzie:

"All the judicial learning of former times was laid under contributionby Tribonian and his colleagues. Selections from the works ofthirty-nine of the ablest lawyers, scattered over two thousand separatetreatises, were collected in one volume; and care was taken to informposterity that three millions of lines were abridged and reduced inthese extracts to the modest number of one hundred and fifty thousand. Among the selected jurists only three names belonged to the age of therepublic, --the civilians who flourished under the first emperors areseldom appealed to; so that most of the writers whose works havecontributed to the Pandects lived within a period of one hundred years. More than a third of the whole Pandects is from Ulpian, and next to himthe principal writers are Paulus, Papinian, Salvius Julianus, Pomponius, Q. Cervidius Scaevola, and Gaius. Though the variety of subjects isimmense, the Digest has no claims to scientific arrangement. It is avast cyclopedia of heterogeneous law badly arranged; everything isthere, but everything is not in its proper place. "

Neither the Digest nor the Code was adapted to elementary instruction;it was therefore necessary to prepare a treatise on the principles ofRoman law. This was intrusted to Tribonian and two professors, Theophilus and Dorotheus. It is probable that Tribonian merelysuperintended the work, which was founded chiefly on the Institutes ofGaius, divided into four books. It has been universally admired for itsmethod and elegant precision. It was intended merely as an introductionto the Pandects and the Code, and was entitled the Institutes. 

The _Novels_, or _New Constitutions, of Justinian_ were subsequentlypublished, being the new ordinances of the Emperor and the changes hethought proper to make, and were therefore of high authority. The Code, Pandects, Institutes, and Novels of Justinian comprise the Roman law asreceived in Europe, in the form given by the school of Bologna, and iscalled the "Corpus Juris Civilis. " Savigny says:--

"It was in that form that the Roman law became the common law of Europe;and when, four centuries later, other sources came to be added to it, the _Corpus Juris_ of the school of Bologna had been so universallyreceived, and so long established as a basis of practice, that the newdiscoveries remained in the domain of science, and served only for thetheory of the law. For the same reason, the Ante-Justinian law isexcluded from practice. "

After Justinian the old texts were left to moulder as useless thoughvenerable, and they have nearly all disappeared. The Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes were declared to be the only legitimate authority, and alone were admitted to the tribunals or taught in the schools. Therescripts of the early emperors recognized too many popular rights tosuit the despotic character of Justinian; and the older jurists, likethe Scaevolas, Sulpicius, and Labeo, were distasteful from theirsympathy with free institutions. Different opinions have been expressedby the jurisconsults as to the merits of the Justinian collection. Bysome it is regarded as a vast mass of legal lumber; by others, as abeautiful monument of human labor. After the lapse of so many centuriesit is certain that a large portion of it is of no practical utility, since it is not applicable to modern wants. But again, no one doubtsthat it has exercised a great and good influence on moral and politicalscience, and introduced many enlightened views concerning theadministration of justice as well as the nature of civil government, andthus has modified the codes of the Teutonic nations that sprang up onthe ruins of the old Roman world. It was used in the Greek empire untilthe fall of Constantinople. It never entirely lost authority in Italy, although it remained buried for centuries, till the discovery of theFlorentine copy of the Pandects at the siege of Amalfi in 1135. PeterValence, in the eleventh century, made use of it in a law-book which hepublished. 

With the rise of the Italian cities, the study of Roman law revived, andBologna became the seat from which it spread over Europe. In thesixteenth century the science of theoretical law passed from Italy toFrance, under the auspices of Francis I. , when Cujas, or Cujacius, became the great ornament of the school of Bourges and the greatestcommentator on Roman law until Dumoulin appeared. Grotius, in Holland, excited the same interest in civil law that Dumoulin did in France, followed by eminent professors in Leyden and the German universities. Itwas reserved for Pothier, in the middle of the eighteenth century, toreduce the Roman law to systematic order, --one of the most gigantictasks that ever taxed the industry of man. The recent discoveries, especially that made by Niebuhr of the long-lost work of Gaius, havegiven a great impulse to the study of Roman law in Germany; and to thisimpulse no one has contributed so greatly as Savigny of Berlin. 

The great importance of the subject demands a more minute notice of theprinciples of the Roman law than the limits of this work properly allow. I shall therefore endeavor to abridge what has been written by eminentauthorities, taking as a basis the late work of Lord Mackenzie and thelearned and interesting essay of Professor Maine. 

The Institutes of Justinian began with the law of persons, recognizingthe distinction of ranks. All persons are capable of enjoying civilrights, but not all in the same degree. Greater privileges are allowedto men than to women, to freemen than to slaves, to fathers thanto children. 

In the eye of the law all Roman citizens were equal wherever they lived, whether in the capital or the provinces. Citizenship embraced bothpolitical and civil rights. Political rights had reference to the rightof voting in the comitia; but this was not considered the essence ofcitizenship, which was the enjoyment of the _connubium_, and_commercium_. By the former the citizen could contract a valid marriageand acquire the rights resulting from it, particularly the paternalpower; by the latter he could acquire and dispose of property. Citizenship was acquired by birth and by manumission; it was lost when aRoman became a prisoner of war, or had been exiled for crime, or becamea citizen of another State. An unsullied reputation was required by lawfor a citizen to exercise his rights to their full extent. 

The Roman jurists acknowledged all persons originally free by naturallaw; and while they recognized slavery, they ascribed the power ofmasters entirely to the law and custom of nations. Persons taken in warwere considered at the absolute control of their captors, and weretherefore, _de facto_, slaves; the children of a female slave followedthe condition of their mother, and belonged to her master. But masterscould manumit their slaves, who thus became Roman citizens with somerestrictions. After the emancipation of a slave, he was bound to rendercertain services to his former master as patron, and if the freedmandied intestate his property reverted to his patron. 

Marriage was contracted by the simple consent of the parties, though inearly times equality of condition was required. The _lex Canuleia_, A. U. C. 309, authorized connubium between patricians and plebeians, andthe _lex Julia_, A. U. C. 757, allowed it between freedmen and freeborn. By the _conventio in manum_, a wife passed out of her family into thatof her husband, who acquired all her property; without it, the womanremained in the power of her father, and retained the free dispositionof her property. Polygamy was not permitted; and relationship withincertain degrees rendered the parties incapable of contracting marriage. (These rules as to forbidden degrees have been substantially adopted inEngland. ) Celibacy was discouraged. Concubinage was allowed, if a manhad not a wife, and provided the concubine was not the wife of anotherman; this heathenish custom was abrogated by Justinian. The wife wasentitled to protection and support from her husband, and she retainedher property independent of him. On her marriage the father gave hisdaughter a dowry in proportion to his means, the management of which, with its usufruct during marriage, belonged to the husband; but he couldnot alienate real estate without the wife's consent, and on thedissolution of marriage the _dos_ reverted to the wife. Divorce existedin all ages at Rome, and was very common at the beginning of the empire;to check its prevalence, laws were passed inflicting severe penalties onthose whose bad conduct led to it. Every man, whether married or not, could adopt children under certain restrictions, and they passedentirely under paternal power. But the marriage relation among theRomans did not accord after all with those principles of justice whichwe see in other parts of their legislative code. The Roman husband, likethe father, was a tyrant. The facility of divorce destroyed mutualconfidence, and inflamed every trifling dispute; for a word or amessage or a letter or the mandate of a freedman was quite sufficient tosecure a separation. It was not until Christianity became the religionof the empire that divorce could not be easily effected without a justcause. This facility of divorce was a great stigma on the Roman laws, and the degradation of woman was the principal consequence. But womannever was honored in any Pagan land, although her condition at Rome wasbetter than it was at Athens. She always was regarded as a possessionrather than as a person; her virtue was mistrusted, and her aspirationswere scorned; she was hampered and guarded more like a slave than theequal companion of man. But the progress of legislation, as a whole, wasin her favor, and she continued to gain new privileges until the fall ofthe empire. The Roman Catholic Church regards marriage as one of thesacraments, and through all the Middle Ages and down to our own day thegreat authority of the Church has been one of the strongest supports ofthat institution, as necessary to Christianity as to civilization. WeAmericans have improved on the morality of Jesus, of the early and laterChurch, and of the great nations of modern Europe; and in many of ourStates persons are allowed to slip out of the marriage tie about aseasily as they get into it. 

Nothing is more remarkable in the Roman laws than the extent ofpaternal power. It was unjust, and bears the image of a barbarous age. Moreover, it seems to have been coeval with the foundation of the city. A father could chastise his children by stripes, by imprisonment, byexile, by sending them to the country with chains on their feet. He waseven armed with the power of life and death. "Neither age nor rank, "says Gibbon, "nor the consular office, could exempt the most illustriouscitizen from the bonds of filial subjection. Without fear, though notwithout danger of abuse, the Roman legislators had reposed unboundedconfidence in the sentiments of paternal love, and the oppression wastempered by the assurance that each generation must succeed in its turnto the awful dignity of parent and master. " By an express law of theTwelve Tables a father could sell his children as slaves. But the abuseof paternal power was checked in the republic by the censors, andafterward by emperors. Alexander Severus limited the right of the fatherto simple correction, and Constantine declared the father who shouldkill his son to be guilty of murder. The rigor of parents in referenceto the disposition of the property of children was also graduallyrelaxed. Under Augustus, the son could keep absolute possession of whathe had acquired in war; under Constantine, he could retain any propertyacquired in the civil service, and all property inherited from themother could also be retained. In later times, a father could not givehis son or daughter to another by adoption without their consent. Thusthis _patria potestas_ was gradually relaxed as civilization advanced, though it remained a peculiarity of Roman law to the latest times, andwas severer than is ever seen in the modern world. Fathers were bound tomaintain their children when they had no separate means to supply theirwants, and children were also bound to maintain their parents if inwant. These reciprocal duties, creditable to the Roman lawgivers, arerecognized in the French Code, but not in the English, which alsorecognizes the right of a father to bequeath his whole estate tostrangers, --a thing which Roman fathers had not power to do. The agewhen children attained majority among the Romans was twenty-five years. Women were condemned to the perpetual tutelage of parents, husbands, orguardians, as it was supposed they never could attain to the age ofreason and experience. The relation of guardian and ward was strictlyobserved by the Romans. They made a distinction between the right togovern a person and the right to manage his estate, although the tutoror guardian could do both. If the pupil was an infant, the tutor couldact without the intervention of the pupil; if the pupil was above sevenyears of age, he was considered to have an imperfect will. The youthceased to be a pupil, if a boy, at fourteen; if a girl, at twelve. Thetutor managed the estate of the pupil, but was liable for lossoccasioned by bad management. He could sell movable property whenexpedient, but not real estate, without judicial authority. The tutornamed by the father was preferred to all others. 

The Institutes of Justinian pass from persons to things, or the lawrelating to real rights; in other words, that which pertains toproperty. Some things common to all, like air, light, the ocean, andthings sacred, like temples and churches, are not classed as property. 

Two things were required for the transfer of property, for it is theessence of property that the owner of a thing should have the right totransfer it, --first, the consent of the owner to transfer the thing uponsome just ground; and secondly, the actual delivery of the thing to theperson who is to acquire it. Movables were presumed to be the propertyof the possessors, until positive evidence was produced to the contrary. A prescriptive title to movables was acquired by possession for oneyear, and to immovables by possession for two years. Undisturbedpossession for thirty years constituted in general a valid title. 

When a Roman died, his heirs succeeded to all his property by hereditaryright. If he left no will, his estate devolved upon his relatives in acertain order prescribed by law. The power of making a testament onlybelonged to citizens above puberty. Children under the paternal powercould not make a will. Males above fourteen and females above twelve, when not under power, could make wills without the authority of theirguardian; but pupils, lunatics, prisoners of war, criminals, and variousother persons were incapable of making a testament. The testator coulddivide his property among his heirs in such proportions as he saw fit;but if there was no distribution, all the heirs participated equally. Aman could disinherit either of his children by declaring his intentionsin his will, but only for grave reasons, --such as grievously injuringhis person or character or feelings, or attempting his life. No will waseffectual unless one or more persons were appointed heirs to representthe deceased. Wills were required to be signed by the testator, or someperson for him, in the presence of seven witnesses who were Romancitizens. If a will was made by a parent for distributing his propertysolely among his children, no witnesses were required; and the ordinaryformalities were dispensed with among soldiers in actual service, andduring the prevalence of pestilence. The testament was opened in thepresence of the witnesses, or a majority of them; and after they hadacknowledged their seals a copy was made, and the original was depositedin the public archives. 

According to the Twelve Tables, the powers of a testator in disposingof his property were unlimited; but in process of time, laws wereenacted to restrain immoderate or unnatural bequests. By the Falcidianlaw, in the time of Augustus, no one could leave in legacies more thanthree fourths of his estate, so that the heirs could inherit at leastone fourth. Again, a law was passed by which the descendants wereentitled to one third of the succession, and to one half if there weremore than four. In France, if a man die leaving one lawful child, he candispose of only half his estate by will; if he leaves two children, hecan dispose only of one third; if he leaves three or more children, thenhe can dispose by will of only one fourth of his estate. In England, aman can disinherit both his wife and children. These, and many othermatters, --bequests in trust, succession of men dying intestate, heirs atlaw, etc. , --were regulated by the Romans in ways on which our modernlegislators have improved little or none. 

In the matter of contracts the Roman law was especially comprehensive, and the laws of France and Scotland are substantially based upon theRoman system. The Institutes of Gaius and Justinian distinguish foursorts of obligations, --_aut re, aut verbis, aut literis, aut consensu_. Gibbon, in his learned chapter, prefers to consider the specificobligations of men to each other under promises, benefits, andinjuries. Lord Mackenzie treats the subject in the order of theInstitutes:--

"Obligations contracted _re_--by the intervention of _things_--arecalled by the moderns real contracts, because they are not perfectedtill something has passed from one party to another. Of this descriptionare the contracts of loan, deposit, and pledge, --security forindebtedness. Till the subject is actually lent, deposited, or pledged, it does not form the special contract of loan, deposit, or pledge. "

Next to the perfection of contracts by _re_, --the intervention ofthings, --were obligations contracted by _verbis_, spoken _words_, and by_literis_, or writings. The _verborum obligatio_ was contracted byuttering certain words of formal style, --an interrogation being put byone party, and an answer given by the other. These stipulations werebinding. In England all guarantees must be in writing. 

The _obligatio literis_ was a written acknowledgment of debt, chieflyemployed when money was borrowed; but the creditor could not sue upon anote within two years from its date, without being called upon also toprove that the money was in fact paid to the debtor. 

Contracts perfected by consent, _consensu_, had reference to sale, hiring; partnership, and mandate, or orders to be carried out by agents. All contracts of sale were good without writing. 

Acts which caused damage to another opened a new class of cases. Thelaw obliged the wrong-doer to make reparation, and this responsibilityextended to damages arising not only from positive acts, but fromnegligence or imprudence. In cases of libel or slander, the truth of theallegation might be pleaded in justification. In all cases it wasnecessary to show that an injury had been committed maliciously; but ifdamage arose in the exercise of a right, as killing a slave inself-defence, no claim for reparation could be maintained. If any oneexercised a profession or trade for which he was not qualified, he wasliable to all the damage his want of skill or knowledge mightoccasion, --a provision that some of our modern laws might advantageouslyrevive. When any damage was done by a slave or an animal, the owner ofthe same was liable for the loss, though the mischief was done withouthis knowledge and against his will. If anything was thrown from a windowgiving on the public thoroughfare so as to injure any one by the fall, the occupier was bound to repair the damage, though done by a stranger. Legal claims might be transferred to a third person by sale, exchange, or donation; but to prevent speculators from purchasing debts at lowprices, it was ordered that the assignee should not be entitled to exactfrom the debtor more than he himself had paid to acquire the debt, withinterest, --a wise and just regulation. 

By the ancient constitution, the king had the prerogative ofdetermining civil causes. The right then devolved on the consuls, afterward on the praetor, and in certain cases on the curule andplebeian ediles, who were charged with the internal police of the city. 

The praetor, a magistrate next in dignity to the consuls, acted assupreme judge of the civil courts, assisted by a council ofjurisconsults to determine questions in law. At first one praetor wassufficient, but as the limits of the city and empire extended, he wasjoined by a colleague. After the conquest of Sicily, Sardinia, and thetwo Spains, new praetors were appointed to administer justice in theprovinces. The praetor held his court in the comitium, wore a robebordered with purple, sat in a curule chair, and was attendedby lictors. 

The praetor delegated his power to three classes of judges, calledrespectively _judex_, _arbiter_, and _recuperator_. When parties were atissue about facts, it was the custom for the praetor to fix the questionof law upon which the action turned, and then to remit to a delegate, orjudge, to inquire into the facts and pronounce judgment according tothem. In the time of Augustus there were four thousand judices, who weremerely private citizens, generally senators or men of consideration. Thejudex was invested by the magistrate with a judicial commission for asingle case only. After being sworn to duty, he received from thepraetor a formula containing a summary of all the points underlitigation, from which he was not allowed to depart. He was required notmerely to investigate facts, but to give sentence; and as law questionswere more or less mixed up with the case, he was allowed to consult oneor more jurisconsults. If the case was beyond his power to decide, hecould decline to give judgment. The arbiter, like the judex, received aformula from the praetor, and seemed to have more extensive power. Therecuperators heard and determined cases, but the number appointed foreach case was usually three or five. 

The _centumvirs_ constituted a permanent tribunal composed of membersannually elected, in equal numbers, from each tribe; and this tribunalwas presided over by the praetor, and divided into four chambers, whichunder the republic was placed under the ancient quaestors. Thecentumvirs decided questions of property, embracing a wide range ofsubjects. The Romans had no class of men like the judges of moderntimes; the superior magistrates were changed annually, and politicalduties were mixed with judicial. The evil was partially remedied by theinstitution of legal assessors, selected from the most learnedjurisconsults. Under the empire the praetors were greatly increased;under Tiberius there were sixteen who administered justice, besides theconsuls, six ediles, and ten tribunes of the people. The Emperor himselfbecame the supreme judge, and he was assisted in the discharge of hisjudicial duties by a council composed of the consuls, a magistrate ofeach grade, and fifteen senators. At first, the duties of the praetorianprefects were purely military, but finally they discharged importantjudicial functions. The prefect of the city, in the time of theemperors, was a great judicial personage, who heard appeals from thepraetors themselves. 

In all cases brought before the courts, the burden of proof was with theparty asserting an affirmative fact. Proof by writing was generallyconsidered most certain, but proof by witnesses was also admitted. Pupils, lunatics, infamous persons, interested parties, near relatives, and slaves could not bear evidence, nor any person who had a strongenmity against either party. The witnesses were required to give theirtestimony on oath. In most cases two witnesses were enough to prove afact. When witnesses gave conflicting testimony, the judge regardedthose who were most worthy of credit rather than those who were mostnumerous. In the English courts the custom used to be as with theRomans, of refusing testimony from those who were interested; but thishas been removed. On the failure of regular proof, the Roman law alloweda party to refer the facts in a civil action to the oath of hisadversary. 

Under the Roman republic there was no appeal in civil suits, but underthe emperors a regular system was established. Under Augustus there wasan appeal from all the magistrates to the prefect of the city, and fromhim to the praetorian prefect or even to the Emperor. In the provincesthere was an appeal from the municipal magistrates to the governors, andfrom them to the Emperor, as Paul appealed from Festus to Caesar. UnderJustinian no appeal was allowed from a suit which did not involve atleast twenty pounds in gold. 

In regard to criminal courts among the Romans during the republic, theonly body which had absolute power of life and death was the _comitiacenturiata_. The senate had no jurisdiction in criminal cases, so far asRoman citizens were concerned. It was only in extraordinary emergenciesthat the senate, with the consuls, assumed the responsibility ofinflicting summary punishment. Under the emperors, the senate was armedwith the power of criminal jurisdiction; and as the senate was the toolof the imperator, he could crush whomsoever he pleased. 

As it was inconvenient, when Rome had become a very great city, toconvene the comitia for the trial of offenders, the expedient wasadopted of delegating the jurisdiction of the people to persons investedwith temporary authority, called _quaestors_. These were finallyestablished into regular and permanent courts, called _quaestoresperpetui_. Every case submitted to these courts was tried by a judge andjury. It was the duty of the judge to preside and regulate proceedingsaccording to law; and it was the duty of the jury, after hearing theevidence and pleadings, to decide on the guilt or innocence of theaccused. As many as fifty persons frequently composed the jury, whosenames were drawn out of an urn. Each party had a right to challenge acertain number, and the verdict was decided by a majority of votes. Atfirst the judices were chosen from the senate, and afterward from theequestrians, and then again from both orders. But in process of time thequaestores perpetui gave place to imperial magistrates. The accuseddefended himself in person or by counsel. 

The Romans divided _crimes_ into public and private. Private crimescould be prosecuted only by the party injured, and were generallypunished by pecuniary fines, as among the old Germanic nations. 

Of public crimes the _crimen laesae majestatis_, or treason, wasregarded as the greatest; and this was punished with death and withconfiscation of goods, while the memory of the offender was declaredinfamous. Greater severity could scarcely be visited on a culprit. Treason comprehended conspiracy against the government, assisting theenemies of Rome, and misconduct in the command of armies. Thus Manlius, in spite of his magnificent services, was hurled from the TarpeianRock, because he was convicted of an intention to seize upon thegovernment. Under the empire not only any attempt on the life of theEmperor was treason, but disrespectful words or acts. The criminal waseven tried after death, that his memory might become infamous; and thisbarbarous practice was perpetuated in France and Scotland as late as thebeginning of the seventeenth century. In England men have been executedfor treasonable words. Besides treason there were other crimes againstthe State, such as a breach of the peace, extortion on the part ofprovincial governors, embezzlement of public property, stealing sacredthings, bribery, --most of which offences were punished by pecuniarypenalties. 

But there were also crimes against individuals, which were punished withthe death penalty. Wilful murder, poisoning, and parricide werecapitally punished. Adultery was punished by banishment, besides aforfeiture of considerable property; Constantine made it a capitaloffence. Rape was punished with death and confiscation of goods, as inEngland till a late period, when transportation for life became thepenalty. The punishments inflicted for forgery, coining base money, andperjury were arbitrary. Robbery, theft, patrimonial damage, and injuryto person and property were private trespasses, and not punished by theState. After a lapse of twenty years without accusation, crimes weresupposed to be extinguished. The Cornelian, Pompeian, and Julian lawsformed the foundation of criminal jurisprudence. This however neverattained the perfection that was seen in the Civil Code, in which thefull maturity of Roman wisdom was reached. The emperors greatlyincreased the severity of punishments, as was probably necessary in acorrupt state of society. After the decemviral laws fell into disuse, the Romans in the days of the republic passed from extreme rigor togreat lenity, as is observable in the transition from the Puritan régimeto our own times in the United States. Capital punishment for severalcenturies was exceedingly rare, and was frequently prevented byvoluntary exile. Under the empire, again, public executions werefrequent and revolting. 

Fines were a common mode of punishment with the Romans, as with theearly Germans. Imprisonment in a public jail was rare, the custom ofbail being in general use. Although retaliation was authorized by theTwelve Tables for bodily injuries, it was seldom exacted, sincepecuniary compensation was taken in lieu. Corporal punishments wereinflicted upon slaves, but rarely upon citizens, except for militarycrimes; but Roman citizens could be sold into slavery for variousoffences, chiefly military, and criminals were often condemned to laborin the mines or upon public works. Banishment was common, --_aquae etignis interdictio_; and this was equivalent to the deprivation of thenecessities of life and incapacitating a person from exercising therights of citizenship. Under the emperors persons were confined often onthe rocky islands off the coast, or in a compulsory residence in aparticular place assigned. Thus Chrysostom was sent to a dreary place onthe banks of the Euxine, and Ovid was banished to Tomi. Death, wheninflicted, was by hanging, scourging, and beheading; also by stranglingin prison. Slaves were often crucified, and were compelled to carrytheir cross to the place of execution. This was the most ignominious andlingering of all deaths; it was abolished by Constantine, from reverenceto the sacred symbol. Under the emperors, execution took place also byburning alive and exposure to wild beasts; it was thus the earlyChristians were tormented, since their offence was associated withtreason. Persons of distinction were treated with more favor than thelower classes, and their punishments were less cruel and ignominious;thus Seneca, condemned for privity to treason, was allowed to choose hismode of death. The criminal laws of modern European States followed toooften the barbarous custom of the Roman emperors until a recent date. Since the French Revolution the severity of the penal codes has beenmuch modified. 

The penal statutes of Rome however, as Gibbon emphatically remarks, "formed a very small portion of the Code and the Pandects; and in alljudicial proceedings the life or death of the citizen was determinedwith less caution and delay than the most ordinary question of covenantor inheritance. " This was owing to the complicated relations of society, by which obligations are created or annulled, while duties to the Stateare explicit and well known, being inscribed not only on tables ofbrass, but on the conscience itself. It was natural, with the growth anddevelopment of commerce and dominion, that questions should arise whichcould not be ordinarily settled by ancient customs, and the practice oflawyers and the decisions of judges continually raised new difficulties, to be met only by new edicts. It is a pleasing fact to record, thatjurisprudence became more just and enlightened as it became moreintricate. The principles of equity were more regarded under theemperors than in the time of Cato. It is in the application of theseprinciples that the laws of the Romans have obtained so highconsideration; their abuse consisted in the expense of litigation, andthe advantages which the rich thus obtained over the poor. 

But if delays and forms led to an expensive and vexatious administrationof justice, these were more than compensated by the checks which acomplicated jurisprudence gave to hasty or partial decisions. It was inthe minuteness and precision of the forms of law, and in the foresightwith which questions were anticipated in the various transactions ofbusiness, that the Romans in their civil and social relations were verymuch on a level with modern times. It would be difficult to find in themost enlightened of modern codes greater wisdom and foresight thanappear in the legacy of Justinian as to all questions pertaining to thenature, the acquisition, the possession, the use, and the transfer ofproperty. Civil obligations are most admirably defined, and allcontracts are determined by the wisest application of the naturalprinciples of justice. Nothing can be more enlightened than the lawswhich relate to leases, to sales, to partnerships, to damages, topledges, to hiring of work, and to quasi-contracts. The laws pertainingto the succession to property, to the duties of guardians, to the rightsof wards, to legacies, to bequests in trust, and to the generallimitation of testamentary powers were singularly clear. The regulationsin reference to intestate succession, and to the division of propertyamong males and females, were wise and just; we find no laws of entail, no unequal rights, no absurd distinction between brothers, no peculiarprivileges given to males over females, or to older sons. Particularlywas everything pertaining to property and contracts and wills guardedwith the most jealous care. A man was sure of possessing his own, and oftransmitting it to his children. In the Institutes of Justinian we seeon every page a regard to the principles of natural justice: butmoreover we find that malicious witnesses should be punished; thatcorrupt judges should be visited with severe penalties; that libels andsatires should subject their authors to severe chastisement; that everyculprit should be considered innocent until his guilt was proved. 

No infringement on personal rights could be tolerated. A citizen wasfree to go where he pleased, to do whatsoever he would, if he did nottrespass on the rights of another; to seek his pleasure unobstructed, and pursue his business without vexatious incumbrances. If he wasinjured or cheated, he was sure of redress; nor could he be easilydefrauded with the sanction of the laws. A rigorous police guarded hisperson, his house, and his property; he was supreme and uncontrolledwithin his family. This security to property and life and personalrights was guaranteed by the greatest tyrants. Although politicalliberty was dead, the fullest personal liberty was enjoyed under theemperors, and it was under their sanction that jurisprudence in some ofthe most important departments of life reached perfection. If injusticewas suffered it was not on account of the laws, but owing to thedepravity of men, the venality of the rich, and the tricks of lawyers;the laws were wise and equal. The civil jurisprudence of the Romanscould be copied with safety by the most enlightened of European States;indeed, it is already the foundation of their civil codes, especially inFrance and Germany. 

That there were some features in the Roman laws which we in theseChristian times cannot indorse, and which we reprehend, cannot bedenied. Under the republic there was not sufficient limit to paternalpower, and the _pater familias_ was necessarily a tyrant. It was unjustthat the father should control the property of his son, and cruel thathe was allowed an absolute control not only over his children, but alsohis wife. Yet the limits of paternal power were more and more curtailed, so that under the later emperors fathers were not allowed to have moreauthority than was perhaps expedient. 

The recognition of slavery as a domestic institution was another blot, and slaves could be treated with the grossest cruelty and injusticewithout possibility of redress. But here the Romans were not sinnersbeyond all other nations, and our modern times have witnessed aparallel. It was not the existence of slavery, however, which was thegreatest evil, but the facility by which slaves could be made. The lawspertaining to debt were severe, and were most disgraceful in dooming adebtor to the absolute power of a creditor. To subject men of the samerace to slavery for trifling debts which they could not discharge, wasthe great defect of the Roman laws. But even these cruel regulationswere modified, so that in the corrupt times of the empire there was nogreater practical severity than was common in England as late as onehundred years ago. The temptations to fraud were enormous in a wickedstate of society, and demanded a severe remedy. It is possible that ourmodern laws may show too great leniency to debtors who are not merelyunfortunate, but dishonest. The problem is not yet solved, whether menshould be severely handled who are guilty of reckless and unprincipledspeculations and unscrupulous dealings, or whether they should beallowed immunity to prosecute their dangerous and disgraceful courses. 

Moreover, the penal code of the Romans in reference to breaches of trustor carelessness or ignorance, by which property was lost or squandered, may have been too severe, as is still the case in England in referenceto hunting game on another's grounds. It was hard to doom a man to deathwho drove away his neighbor's cattle, or even entered in the night hisneighbor's house; but severe penalties alone will keep men from crimeswhere there is a low state of virtue and religion, and generalprosperity and contentment become impossible where there is no efficientprotection to property. Society was never more secure and happy inEngland than when vagabonds could be arrested, and when petty larcenieswere visited with certain retribution. Every traveller in France andEngland feels that in regard to the punishment of crime, those oldercountries, restricted as are their political privileges, are in mostquestions of secure and comfortable living vastly superior to our own. The Romans lost under the emperors their political rights, but gainedprotection and safety in their relations with society. Where quiet andindustrious citizens feel safe in their homes, are protected fromscoundrels in their dealings, have ample scope for industrialenterprise, and are free to choose their private pleasures, they resignthemselves to the loss of electing their rulers without greatunhappiness. There are greater evils in the world than the deprivationof the elective franchise, lofty and glorious as is this privilege. Thearbitrary rule of the emperors was fatal to political aspirations andrights and the growth of a genuine manhood; yet it is but fair to notethat the evils of political slavery were qualified and set off by theexcellence of the civil code and the privileges of social freedom. 

The great practical evil connected with Roman jurisprudence was theintricacy and perplexity and uncertainty of the laws, together with theexpense involved in litigation. The class of lawyers was large, andtheir gains were extortionate. Justice was not always to be found on theside of right. The law was uncertain as well as costly. The most learnedcounsel could be employed only by the rich, and even judges were venal, so that the poor did not easily find adequate redress. But all this isthe necessary attendant on a factitious state of society, and by many isregarded as being quite as characteristic of modern, civilized ChristianEngland and America as it was of Pagan Rome. Material civilization leadsto an undue estimate of money; and when money purchases all thatartificial people desire, then all classes will prostitute themselvesfor its possession, and justice, dignity, and elevation of sentimentwill be forced to retreat, --as hermits sought a solitude when societyhad reached its lowest degradation, out of pure despair of itsrenovation. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

The authorities for this chapter are very numerous. Since the Institutesof Gaius have been recovered, many eminent writers on Roman law haveappeared, especially in Germany and France. Many might be cited, but forall ordinary purposes of historical study the work of Lord Mackenzie onRoman Law, together with the articles of George Long in Smith'sDictionary, will be found most useful. Maine's Treatise on Ancient Lawis exceedingly interesting and valuable. Gibbon's famous chapter shouldalso be read by every student. There is a fine translation of theInstitutes of Justinian, which is quite accessible, by Dr. Harris ofOxford. The Code, Pandects, Institutes, and Novels are of course theoriginal authority, with the long-lost Institutes of Gaius. 

In connection with the study of the Roman law, it would be well to readSir George Bowyer's Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law. Also Irving, Introduction to the Study of the Civil Law; Lindley, Introduction to theStudy of Jurisprudence; Wheaton's Elements of International Law; andVattel, Le Droit des Gens. 

THE FINE ARTS. 

ARCHITECTURE, SCULPTURE, PAINTING. 

500-430 B. C. 

My object in the present lecture is not a criticism of the principlesof art so much as an enumeration of its various forms among theancients, to show that in this department of civilization they reachedremarkable perfection, and were not inferior to modern Christian nations. 

The first development of art among all the nations of antiquity was inarchitecture. The earliest buildings erected were houses to protectpeople from heat, cold, and the fury of the elements of Nature. At thatremote period much more attention was given to convenience and practicalutility than to beauty or architectural effect. The earliest houses werebuilt of wood, and stone was not employed until temples and palacesarose. Ordinary houses were probably not much better than log-huts andhovels, until wealth was accumulated by private persons. 

The earliest monuments of enduring magnificence were the temples ofpowerful priests and the palaces of kings; and in Egypt and Assyriathese appear earliest, as well as most other works showing civilization. Perhaps the first great monument which arose after the deluge of Noahwas the Tower of Babel, built probably of brick. It was intended to bevery lofty, but of its actual height we know nothing, nor of its styleof architecture. Indeed, we do not know that it was ever advanced beyondits foundations; yet there are some grounds for supposing that it wasultimately finished, and became the principal temple of the Chaldaeanmetropolis. 

From the ruins of ancient monuments we conclude that architecturereceived its earliest development in Egypt, and that its effects wereimposing, massive, and grand. It was chiefly directed to the erection ofpalaces and temples, the ruins of which attest grandeur and vastness. They were built of stone, in blocks so huge and heavy that even modernengineers are at loss to comprehend how they could have been transportedand erected. All the monuments of the Pharaohs are wonders, especiallysuch as appear in the ruins of Karnak, --a temple formerly designated asthat of Jupiter Ammon. It was in the time of Sesostris, or Rameses theGreat, the first of the Pharaohs of the nineteenth dynasty, thatarchitecture in Egypt reached its greatest development. Then we find therectangular-cut blocks of stone in parallel courses, the heavy pier, thecylindrical column with its bell-shaped capital, and the bold andmassive rectangular architraves extending from pier to pier and columnto column, surmounted by a deep covered coping or cornice. 

The imposing architecture of Egypt was chiefly owing to the impressivevastness of the public buildings. It was not produced by beauty ofproportion or graceful embellishments; it was designed to awe thepeople, and kindle sentiments of wonder and astonishment. So far as thisend was contemplated it was nobly reached; even to this day thetraveller stands in admiring amazement before those monuments that wereold three thousand years ago. No structures have been so enduring as thePyramids; no ruins are more extensive and majestic than those of Thebes. The temple of Karnak and the palace of Rameses the Great were probablythe most imposing ever built by man. This temple was built of blocks ofstone seventy feet in length, on a platform one thousand feet long andthree hundred wide, with pillars sixty feet in height. But this andother structures did not possess that unity of design which marked theGrecian temples. Alleys of colossal sphinxes formed the approach. AtKarnak the alley was six thousand feet long, and before the main bodyof the edifice stood two obelisks commemorative of the dedication. Theprincipal structures of Egyptian temples do not follow the straightline, but begin with pyramidal towers which flank the gateways; thenfollow, usually, a court surrounded with colonnades, subordinatetemples, and houses for the priests. A second pylon, or pyramidal tower, leads to the interior and most considerable part of the temple, --aportico inclosed with walls, which receives light only through theentablature or openings in the roof. Adjoining this is the cella of thetemple, without columns, enclosed by several walls, often divided intovarious small chambers with monolithic receptacles for idols or mummiesor animals. The columns stand within the walls. The colonnade is not, asamong the Greeks, an expansion of the temple; it is merely the wall withapertures. The walls, composed of square blocks, are perpendicular onlyon the inside, and bevelled externally, so that the thickness at thebottom sometimes amounts to twenty-four feet; thus the whole buildingassumes a pyramidal form, the fundamental principle of Egyptianarchitecture. The columns are more slender than the early Doric, areplaced close together, and have bases of circular plinths; the shaftdiminishes upward, and is ornamented with perpendicular or obliquefurrows, but not fluted like Grecian columns. The capitals are of thebell form, ornamented with all kinds of foliage, and have a narrow buthigh abacus. They abound with sculptured decorations, the designs ofwhich were borrowed from the vegetation of the country. The highest ofthe columns of the temple of Luxor is five and a quarter times thegreatest diameter. 

But no monuments have ever excited so much curiosity and wonder as thePyramids, not in consequence of any particular beauty or ingenuity intheir construction, but because of their immense size and unknown age. None but sacerdotal monarchs would ever have erected them; none but afanatical people would ever have toiled upon them. We do not know forwhat purpose they were raised, unless as sepulchres for kings. They aresupposed to have been built at a remote antiquity, between two thousandand three thousand years before Christ. Lepsius thought that the oldestof these Pyramids were built more than three thousand years beforeChrist. The Pyramid of Cheops, at Memphis, covers a square whose side isseven hundred and sixty-eight feet, and rises into the air nearly fivehundred feet. It is a solid mass of stone, which has suffered less fromtime than the mountains near it. Possibly it stands over an immensesubstructure, in which may yet be found the lore of ancient Egypt; itmay even prove to be the famous labyrinth of which Herodotus speaks, built by the twelve kings of Egypt. According to this author, onehundred thousand men worked on this monument for forty years. 

The palaces of the kings are mere imitations of the temples, their onlydifference of architecture being that their rooms are larger and ingreater numbers. Some think that the famous labyrinth was a collectivepalace of many rulers. 

Of Babylonian architecture we know little beyond what the HebrewScriptures and ancient authors tell us. But though nothing survives ofancient magnificence, we know that a city whose walls, according toHerodotus, were eighty-seven feet in thickness, three hundred andthirty-seven in height, and sixty miles in circumference, and in whichwere one hundred gates of brass, must have had considerablearchitectural splendor. This account of Babylon, however, is probablyexaggerated, especially as to the height of the walls. The tower ofBelus, the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Obelisk of Semiramis wereprobably wonderful structures, certainly in size, which is one of theconditions of architectural effect. 

The Tyrians must have carried architecture to considerable perfection, since the Temple of Solomon, one of the most magnificent in the ancientworld, was probably built by artists from Tyre. It was not remarkablefor size, --it was, indeed, very small, --but it had great splendor ofdecoration. It was of quadrangular outline, erected upon a solidplatform of stone, and bearing a striking resemblance to the oldestGreek temples, like those of Aegina and Paestum. The portico of theTemple as rebuilt by Herod was one hundred and eighty feet high, and theTemple itself was entered by nine gates, thickly coated with silver andgold. The inner sanctuary was covered on all sides with plates of gold, and was dazzling to the eye. The various courts and porticos and palaceswith which it was surrounded gave to it a very imposing effect. 

Architectural art in India was not so impressive and grand as in Egypt, and was directed chiefly to the erection of temples. Nor is it of veryancient date. There is no stone architecture now remaining in India, according to Sir James Fergusson, older than two and a half centuriesbefore Christ; and this is in the form of Buddhist temples, generallytraced to the great Asoka, who reigned from 272 B. C. To 236 B. C. , andwho established Buddhism as a state religion. There were doubtlessmagnificent buildings before his time, but they were of wood, and haveall perished. We know, however, nothing about them. 

The Buddhist temples were generally excavated out of the solid rock, andonly the façades were ornamented. These were not larger than ordinarymodern parochial churches, and do not give the impression ofextraordinary magnificence. Besides these rock-hewn temples in Indiathere remain many examples of a kind of memorial monument called_stupas_, or _topes_. The earliest of these are single columns; but thelater and more numerous are in the shape of cones or circular mounds, resembling domes, rarely exceeding one hundred feet in diameter. Aroundthe apex of each was a balustrade, or some ornamental work, about sixfeet in diameter. These topes remind one of the Pantheon at Rome ingeneral form, but were of much smaller size. They were built on a stonebasement less than fifty feet in height, above which was the brickwork. In process of time they came to resemble pyramidal towers rather thanrounded domes, and were profusely ornamented with carvings. The greatpeculiarity of all Indian architectural monuments is excessiveornamentation rather than beauty of proportion or grand effect. 

In course of time, however, Indian temples became more and moremagnificent; and a Chinese traveller in the year 400 A. D. Describes onein Gaudhava as four hundred and seventy feet high, decorated with everysort of precious substance. Its dome, as it appears in a bas-relief, must have rivalled that of St. Peter's at Rome; but no trace of it nowremains. The topes of India, which were numerous, indicate that theHindus were acquainted with the arch, both pointed and circular, whichwas not known to the Egyptians or the Greeks. The most important ofthese buildings, in which are preserved valuable relics, are found inthe Punjab. They were erected about twenty years before Christ. In size, they are about one hundred and twenty-seven feet in diameter. Connectedwith the circular topes are found what are called _rails_, surroundingthe topes, built in the form of rectangles, with heavy pillars. One ofthe most interesting of these was found to be two hundred andseventy-five feet long, having square pillars twenty-two feet in height, profusely carved with scenes from the life of Buddha, topped by capitalsin the shape of elephants supporting a succession of horizontal stonebeams, all decorated with a richness of carving unknown in any othercountry. The Amravati rail, one of the finest of the ancient monumentsof India, is found to be one hundred and ninety-five by one hundred andsixty-five feet, having octagonal pillars ornamented with the mostelaborate carvings. 

From an architectural point of view, the rails were surpassed by the_chaityas_, or temple-caves, in western India. These were cut in thesolid rock. Some one thousand different specimens are to be found. Thefacades of these caves are perfect, generally in the form of an arch, executed in the rock with every variety of detail, and thereforeimperishable without violence. The process of excavation extendedthrough ten centuries from the time of Asoka; and the interiors as wellas the façades were highly ornamented with sculptures. The temple-cavesare seldom more than one hundred and fifty feet deep and fifty feet inwidth, and the roofs are supported by pillars like the interior ofGothic cathedrals, some of which are of beautiful proportions withelaborated capitals. Though these rock-hewn temples are no larger thanordinary Christian churches, they are very impressive from the richlydecorated carvings; they were lighted from a single opening in thefaçade, sometimes in the shape of a horseshoe. 

Besides these chaityas, or temples, there are still more numerous_viharas_, or monasteries, found in India, of different dates, but noneolder than the third century before Christ. They show a central hall, surrounded on three sides by cells for the monks. On the fourth side isan open verandah; facing this is generally a shrine with an image ofBuddha. These edifices are not imposing unless surrounded by galleries, as some were, supported by highly decorated pillars. The halls areconstructed in several stories with heavy masonry, in the shape ofpyramids adorned with the figures of men and animals. One of these hallsin southern India had fifteen hundred cells. The most celebrated wasthe Nalanda monastery, founded in the first century by Nagarjuna, whichaccommodated ten thousand priests, and was enclosed by a wall measuringsixteen hundred feet by four hundred. It was to Central India what MountCasino was to Italy, and Cluny was to France, in the Middle Ages, --theseat of learning and art. 

It was not until the Mohammedan conquest in India that architecturereceived a new impulse from the Saracenic influence. Then arose themosques, minarets, and palaces which are a wonder for theirmagnificence, and in which are seen the influence of Greek art as wellas that of India. There is an Oriental splendor in these palaces andmosques which has called out the admiration of critics, although it isdifferent from those types of beauty which we are accustomed to praise. But these later edifices were erected in the Middle Ages, coeval withthe cathedrals of Europe, and therefore do not properly come under thehead of ancient art, in which the ancient Hindus, whether of Aryan orTuranian descent, did not particularly excel. It was in matters ofreligion and philosophy that the Hindus felt most interest, even as theancient Jews thought more of theology than of art and science. 

Architecture, however, as the expression of genius and highcivilization, was carried to perfection only by the Greeks, who excelledin so many things. It was among the ancient Dorians, who descended fromthe mountains of northern Greece eighty years after the fall of Troy, that architectural art worthy of the name first appeared. The Pelasgierected Cyclopean structures fifteen hundred years before Christ, asseen in the massive walls of the Acropolis at Athens, constructed ofhuge blocks of hewn stone, and in the palaces of the princes of theheroic times. The lintel of the doorway of the Mycenaean treasury iscomposed of a single stone twenty-seven feet long and sixteen broad. Butthese edifices, which aimed at splendor and richness merely, weredeficient in that simplicity and harmony which have given immortality tothe temples of the Dorians. In this style of architecture everything wassuitable to its object, and was grand and noble. The great thickness ofthe columns, the beautiful entablature, the ample proportion of thecapital, the great horizontal lines of the architrave and cornicepredominating over the vertical lines of the columns, the severity ofgeometrical forms produced for the most part by straight lines, gave animposing simplicity to the Doric temple. 

How far the Greek architects were indebted to the Egyptian we cannottell, for though columns are found amid the ruins of the Egyptiantemples, they are of different shape from any made by the Greeks. In thestructures of Thebes we find both the tumescent and the cylindricalcolumns, from which amalgamation might have been produced the Doriccolumn. The Greeks seized on beauty wherever they found it, and improvedupon it. The Doric column was not probably an entirely new creation, butshaped after models furnished by the most original of all the ancientnations, even the Egyptians. The Doric temples were uniform in plan. Thecolumns were fluted, and were generally about six diameters in height;they diminished gradually upward from the base, with a slightly convexed swelling; they were surmounted by capitals regularly proportionedaccording to their height. The entablature which the column supportedwas also of a certain number of diameters in height. So regular andperfect was the plan of the temple, that "if the dimensions of a singlecolumn and the proportion the entablature should bear to it were givento two individuals acquainted with the style, with directions to composea temple, they would produce designs exactly similar in size, arrangement, and general proportions. " The Doric order possessed apeculiar harmony, but taste and skill were nevertheless necessary inorder to determine the number of diameters a column should have, andalso the height of the entablature. 

The Doric was the favorite order of European Greece for one thousandyears, and also of her colonies in Sicily and Magna Graecia. It wasused exclusively until after the Macedonian conquest, and was chieflyapplied to temples. The massive temples of Paestum, the colossalmagnificence of the Sicilian ruins, and the more elegant proportions ofthe Athenian structures, like the Parthenon and Temple of Theseus, showthe perfection of the Doric architecture. Although the general style ofall the Doric temples is so uniform, hardly two temples were alike. Theearlier Doric was more massive; the later was more elegant, and itsedifices were rich in sculptured decorations. Nothing could surpass thebeauty of a Doric temple in the time of Pericles. The stylobate, orgeneral base upon which the columnar story stood, from two thirds to awhole diameter of a column in height, was built in three equal courses, which gradually receded upward and formed steps, as it were, of a grandplatform. The column, simply set upon the stylobate, without base orpedestal, was from four to six diameters in height, with twenty flutes, having a capital of half a diameter. On this rested the entablature, twocolumn-diameters in height, which was divided into architrave (lowermouldings), frieze (broad middle space), and cornice (upper mouldings). The great beauty of the temple was the portico in front, --a forest ofcolumns supporting the triangular pediment, about a diameter and a halfto the apex, making an angle at the base of about fourteen degrees. From the pediment projects the cornice, while in the apex and at thebase of the flat three-cornered gable are sculptured ornaments, generally the figures of men or animals. The whole outline of columnssupporting the entablature is graceful, while the variety of light andshade arising from the arrangement of mouldings and capitals produces agrand effect. 

The Parthenon, the most beautiful specimen of the Doric, has never beenequalled, and it still stands august in its ruins, the glory of the oldAcropolis and the pride of Athens. It was built of white Pentelicmarble, and rested on a basement of limestone. It was two hundred andtwenty-seven feet in length, one hundred and one in breadth, andsixty-five in height, surrounded with forty-eight fluted columns, sixfeet and two inches at the base and thirty-four feet in height, whilewithin the peristyle, at either end, was an interior range of columnsstanding before the end of the cella. The frieze and the pediment wereelaborately ornamented with reliefs and statues, and the cella, withinand without, was adorned with the choicest sculptures of Phidias, Theremains of the exquisite sculptures of the pediment and the frieze werein the early part of this century brought from Greece by Lord Elgin, purchased by the English government, and placed in the British Museum, where, preserved from further dilapidation, they stand as indisputableevidence of the perfection of Greek art. The grandest adornment of thetemple was the colossal statue of Minerva in the eastern apartment ofthe cella, forty feet in height, composed of gold and ivory; the innerwalls of the chamber were decorated with paintings, and the whole templewas a repository of countless treasure. But the Parthenon, so regular tothe eye with its vertical, oblique, and horizontal lines, was curved inevery line, with the exception of the gable, --with its entablature, architrave, frieze, and cornice, together with the basement, all archedupwards; and even the columns had a slight convexity of vertical line, amounting to 1/550 of the entire height of shaft, though so slightly asnot to be perceptible. These curved lines gave to the structure apeculiar grace which cannot be imitated, as well as an effectof solidity. 

Nearly coeval with the Doric was the Ionic order, invented by theAsiatic Greeks, still more graceful, though not so imposing. TheAcropolis is a perfect example of this order. The column is ninediameters in height, with a base, while the capital is more ornamentedthan the Doric. The shaft is fluted with twenty-four flutes andalternate fillets (flat longitudinal ridges), and the fillet is about aquarter the width of the flute. The pediment is flatter than that ofthe Doric order, and more elaborate. The great distinction of the Ioniccolumn is a base, and a capital formed with volutes (spiral scrolls), the shaft also being more slender. Vitruvius, the greatest authorityamong the ancients in architecture, says that "the Greeks, in inventingthese two kinds of columns, imitated in the one the naked simplicity anddignity of man, and in the other the delicacy and ornaments of woman;the base of the Ionic was the imitation of sandals, and the volutes ofringlets. " The discoveries of many of the Ionic ornamentations among theremains of Assyrian architecture indicate the Oriental source of theIonic ideas, just as the Doric style seems to have originated in Egypt. The artistic Greeks, however, always simplified and refined upontheir masters. 

The Corinthian order exhibits a still greater refinement and elegancethan the other two, and was introduced toward the end of thePeloponnesian War. Its peculiarity consists in columns with foliatedcapitals modelled after the acanthus leaf, and still greater height, about ten diameters, surmounted with a more ornamented entablature. Ofthis order the most famous temple in Greece was that of Minerva atTegea, built by Scopas of Paros, but destroyed by fire four hundredyears before Christ. 

Nothing more distinguished Greek architecture than the variety, thegrace, and the beauty of the mouldings, generally in eccentric curves. The general outline of the moulding is a gracefully flowing cyma, orwave, concave at one end and convex at the other, like an Italic _f_, the concavity and convexity being exactly in the same curve, accordingto the line of beauty which Hogarth describes. 

The most beautiful application of Greek architecture was in the temples, which were very numerous and of extraordinary grandeur, long before thePersian War. Their entrance was always from the west or the east. Theywere built either in an oblong or round form, and were mostly adornedwith columns. Those of an oblong form had columns either in the frontalone, or in the eastern and western fronts, or on all the four sides. They generally had porticos attached to them, and were without windows, receiving their light from the door or from above. The friezes wereadorned with various sculptures, as were sometimes the pediments, and noexpense was spared upon them. The most important part of the temple wasthe cell (_cella, _ or temple proper, a square chamber), in which thestatue of the deity was kept, generally surrounded with a balustrade. Infront of the cella was the vestibule, and in the rear or back a chamberin which the treasures of the temple were kept. Names were applied tothe temples as well as to the porticos, according to the number ofcolumns in the portico at either end of the temple, --such as thetetrastyle (four columns in front), or hexastyle (when there were six). There were never more than ten columns across the front. The Parthenonhad eight, but six was the usual number. It was the rule to have twiceas many columns along the sides as in front. Some of the temples haddouble rows of columns on all sides, like that of Diana at Ephesus andof Quirinus at Rome. The distance between the columns varied from onediameter and a half to four diameters. About five eighths of a Dorictemple were occupied by the cella, and three eighths by the portico. 

That which gives to the Greek temples so much simplicity andharmony, --the great elements of beauty in architecture, --is the simpleoutline in parallelogrammic and pyramidal forms, in which the lines areuninterrupted through their entire length. This simplicity and harmonyare more apparent in the Doric than in any of the other orders, butpertain to all the Grecian temples of which we have knowledge. The Ionicand Corinthian, or the voluted and foliated orders, do not possess thatsevere harmony which pervades the Doric; but the more beautifulcompositions are so consummate that they will ever be taken as modelsof study. 

There is now no doubt that the exteriors of the Grecian temples wereornamented in color, --perhaps with historical pictures, etc. , --althoughas the traces have mostly disappeared it is impossible to know theextent or mode of decoration. It has been thought that the mouldingsalso may have been gilded or colored, and that the background of thesculptures had some flat color laid on as a relief to the raisedfigures. We may be sure, however it was done, that the effect was notgaudy or crude, but restrained within the limits of refinement and goodtaste by the infallible artistic instinct of those masters of thebeautiful. 

It is not the magnitude of the Greek temples and other works of artwhich most impresses us. It is not for this that they are importantmodels; it is not for this that they are copied and reproduced in allthe modern nations of Europe. They were generally small compared withthe temples of Egypt, and with the vast dimensions of Romanamphitheatres; only three or four would compare in size with a Gothiccathedral, --the Parthenon, the Temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens, andthe Temple of Diana at Ephesus; even the Pantheon at Rome is small, compared with the later monuments of the Caesars. The traveller isalways disappointed in contemplating the ruins of Greek buildings so faras size is concerned. But it is their matchless proportions, theirsevere symmetry, the grandeur of effect, the undying beauty, thegraceful form which impress us, and make us feel that they are perfect. By the side of the Colosseum they are insignificant in magnitude; theydo not cover acres, like the baths of Caracalla. Yet who has copied theFlavian amphitheatre; who erects an edifice after the style of theThermae? All artists, however, copy the Parthenon. That, and not thecolossal monuments of the Caesars, reappears in the capitals of Europe, and stimulates the genius of a Michael Angelo or a Christopher Wren. 

The flourishing period of Greek architecture was during the period fromPericles to Alexander, --one hundred and thirteen years. The Macedonianconquest introduced more magnificence and less simplicity. The Romanconquest accelerated the decline in severe taste, when different ordersbegan to be used indiscriminately. 

In this state the art passed into the hands of the masters of the world, and they inaugurated a new era in architecture. The art was stillessentially Greek, although the Romans derived their first knowledgefrom the Etruscans. The Cloaca Maxima, or Great Sewer, was built duringthe reign of the second Tarquin, --the grandest monument of the reign ofthe kings. It is not probable that temples and other public buildings inRome were either beautiful or magnificent until the conquest of Greece, after which Grecian architects were employed. The Romans adopted theCorinthian style, which they made even more ornamental; and by thesuccessful combination of the Etruscan arch with the Grecian column theylaid the foundation of a new and original style, susceptible of greatvariety and magnificence. They entered into architecture with theenthusiasm of their teachers, but in their passion for novelty lostsight of the simplicity which is the great fascination of a Dorictemple. Says Memes:--

"They [the Romans] deemed that lightness and grace were to be attainednot so much by proportion between the vertical and the horizontal as bythe comparative slenderness of the former. Hence we see a poverty inRoman architecture in the midst of profuse ornament. The great error wasa constant aim to lessen the diameter while they increased the elevationof the columns. Hence the massive simplicity and severe grandeur of theancient Doric disappear in the Roman, the characteristics of the orderbeing frittered down into a multiplicity of minute details. "

When the Romans used the Doric at all, they used a base for the column, which was never done at Athens. They also altered the Doric capital, which cannot be improved. Again, most of the Grecian Doric temples wereperipteral, --surrounded with pillars on all the sides. But the Romansbuilt with porticos on one front only, which had a greater projectionthan the Grecian. They generally were projected three columns, while theGreek portico had usually but a single row. Many of the Roman templesare circular, like the Pantheon, which has a portico of eight columnsprojected to the depth of three. Nor did the Romans construct hypaethralor uncovered temples with internal columns, like the Greeks. ThePantheon is an exception, since the dome has an open eye; and one greatornament of this beautiful structure is in the arrangement of internalcolumns placed in the front of niches, composed of antae, or pier-formedends of walls, to carry an entablature round under an attic on which thecupola rests. The Romans also adopted coupled columns, broken andrecessed entablatures, and pedestals, which are considered blemishes. They again paid more attention to the interior than to the exteriordecoration of their palaces and baths, --as we may infer from the ruinsof Hadrian's villa at Tivoli and the excavations of Pompeii. 

The pediments (roof-angles) used in Roman architectural works aresteeper than those made by the Greeks, varying in inclination fromeighteen to twenty-five degrees, instead of fourteen. The mouldings arethe same as the Grecian in general form, although they differ from themin contour; they are less delicate and graceful, but were used in greatprofusion. Roman architecture is overdone with ornament, every mouldingcarved, and every straight surface sculptured with foliage or historicalsubjects in relief. The ornaments of the frieze consist of foliage andanimals, with a variety of other things. The great exuberance ofornament is considered a defect, although when applied to somestructures it is exceedingly beautiful. In the time of the first CaesarsRoman architecture had, from the huge size of the buildings, a characterof grandeur and magnificence. Columns and arches appeared in all theleading public buildings, --columns generally forming the external andarches the internal construction. Fabric after fabric arose on the ruinsof others. The Flavii supplanted the edifices of Nero, which ministeredto debauchery, by structures of public utility. 

The Romans invented no new principle in architecture, unless it be thearch, which was known, though not practically applied, by the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Greeks. The Romans were a practical and utilitarianpeople, and needed for their various structures greater economy ofmaterial than was compatible with large blocks of stone, especially forsuch as were carried to great altitudes. The arch supplied this want, and is perhaps the greatest invention ever made in architecture. Noinstance of its adoption occurs in the construction of Greek edificesbefore Greece became a part of the Roman empire. Its application datesback to the Cloaca Maxima, and may have been of Etrurian invention. Somemaintain that Archimedes of Sicily was the inventor of the arch; but towhomsoever the glory of the invention is due, it is certain that theRomans were the first of European nations to make a practicalapplication of its wonderful qualities. It enabled them to rear vastedifices with the humblest materials, to build bridges, aqueducts, sewers, amphitheatres, and triumphal arches, as well as temples andpalaces. The merits of the arch have never been lost sight of bysucceeding generations, and it is an essential element in themagnificent Gothic cathedrals of the Middle Ages. Its applicationextends to domes and cupolas, to floors and corridors and roofs, and tovarious other parts of buildings where economy of material and labor isdesired. It was applied extensively to doorways and windows, and is anornament as well as a utility. The most imposing forms of Romanarchitecture may be traced to a knowledge of the properties of the arch, and as brick was more extensively used than any other material, the archwas invaluable. The imperial palace on Mount Palatine, the Pantheon(except its portico and internal columns), the temples of Peace, ofVenus and Rome, and of Minerva Medica, were of brick. So were the greatbaths of Titus, Caracalla, and Diocletian, the villa of Hadrian, thecity walls, the villa of Mecaenas at Tivoli, and most of the palaces ofthe nobility, --although, like many of the temples, they were faced withstone. The Colosseum was of travertine, a cheap white limestone, andfaced with marble. It was another custom to stucco the surface of brickwalls, as favorable to decorations. In consequence of the invention ofthe arch, the Romans erected a greater variety of fine structures thaneither the Greeks or Egyptians, whose public edifices were chieflyconfined to temples. The arch entered into almost every structure, public or private, and superseded the use of long stone-beams, whichwere necessary in the Grecian temples, as also of wooden timbers, in theuse of which the Romans were not skilled, and which do not reallypertain to architecture: an imposing edifice must always be constructedof stone or brick. The arch also enabled the Romans to economize in theuse of costly marbles, of which they were very fond, as well as of otherstones. Some of the finest columns were made of Egyptian granite, veryhighly polished. 

The extensive application of the arch doubtless led to the deteriorationof the Grecian architecture, since it blended columns with arcades, andthus impaired the harmony which so peculiarly marked the temples ofAthens and Corinth; and as taste became vitiated with the decline ofthe empire, monstrous combinations took place, which were a great fallfrom the simplicity of the Parthenon and the interior of the Pantheon. 

But whatever defects marked the age of Diocletian and Constantine, itcan never be questioned that the Romans carried architecture to aperfection rarely attained in our times. They may not have equalled thesevere simplicity of their teachers the Greeks, but they surpassed themin the richness of their decorations, and in all buildings designed forutility, especially in private houses and baths and theatres. 

The Romans do not seem to have used other than semicircular arches. TheGothic, or Pointed, or Christian architecture, as it has been variouslycalled, was the creation of the Middle Ages, and arose almostsimultaneously in Europe after the first Crusade, so that it would seemto be of Eastern origin. But it was a graft on the old Roman arch, inthe curve of the ellipse rather than the circle. 

Aside from this invention of the arch, to which we are indebted for themost beautiful ecclesiastical structures ever erected, we owe everythingin architecture to the Greeks and Romans. We have found out no newprinciples which were not known to Vitruvius. No one man was theinventor or creator of the wonderful structures which ornamented thecities of the ancient world. We have the names of great architects, whoreared various and faultless models, but they all worked upon the sameprinciples, and these can never be subverted; so that in architecturethe ancients are our schoolmasters, whose genius we revere the more weare acquainted with their works. What more beautiful than one of thosegrand temples which the cultivated heathen Greeks erected to the worshipof their unknown gods!--the graduated and receding stylobate as a basefor the fluted columns, rising at regular distances in all their severeproportion and matchless harmony, with their richly carved capitalssupporting an entablature of heavy stones, most elaborately moulded andornamented with the figures of plants and animals; and rising abovethis, on the ends of the temple, or over a portico several columns deep, the pediment, covered with chiselled cornices, with still richerornaments rising from the apices and at the feet, all carved in whitemarble, and then spread over an area larger than any modern churches, making a forest of columns to bear aloft those ponderous beams of stone, without anything tending to break the continuity of horizontal lines, bywhich the harmony and simplicity of the whole are regulated! Soaccurately squared and nicely adjusted were the stones and pillars ofwhich these temples were composed, that there was scarcely need even ofcement. Without noise or confusion or sound of hammers did thosetemples rise, since all their parts were cut and carved in the distantquarries, and with mathematical precision. And within the cella, nearlyconcealed by surrounding columns, were the statues of the gods, and thealtars on which incense was offered, or sacrifices made. In every part, interior and exterior, do we see a matchless proportion and beauty, whether in the shaft or the capital or the frieze or the pilaster or thepediment or the cornices, or even the mouldings, --everywhere grace andharmony, which grow upon the mind the more they are contemplated. Thegreatest evidence of the matchless creative genius displayed in thosearchitectural wonders is that after two thousand years, and with all theinventions of Roman and modern artists, no improvement has been made;and those edifices which are the admiration of our own times are deemedbeautiful as they approximate the ancient models, which will foreverremain objects of imitation. No science can make two and two other thanfour; no art can make a Doric temple different from the Parthenonwithout departing from the settled principles of beauty and proportionwhich all ages have indorsed. Such were the Greeks and Romans in an artwhich is one of the greatest indices of material civilization, and whichby them was derived from geometrical forms, or the imitation of Nature. 

The genius displayed by the ancients in sculpture is even moreremarkable than their skill in architecture. Sculpture was carried toperfection only by the Greeks; but they did not originate the art, sincewe read of sculptured images from the remotest antiquity. The earliestnames of sculptors are furnished by the Old Testament. Assyria and Egyptare full of relics to show how early this art was cultivated. It was notcarried to perfection as early, probably, as architecture; but rudeimages of gods, carved in wood, are as old as the history of idolatry. The history of sculpture is in fact identified with that of idols. TheEgyptians were probably the first who made any considerable advances inthe execution of statues. Those which remain are rude, simple, uniform, without beauty or grace (except a certain serenity of facial expressionwhich seems to pervade all their portraiture), but colossal and grand. Nearly two thousand years before Christ the walls of Thebes wereornamented with sculptured figures, even as the gates of Babylon weremade of sculptured bronze. The dimensions of Egyptian colossal figuressurpass those of any other nation. The sitting statues of Memnon atThebes are fifty feet in height, and the Sphinx is twenty-five, --all ofgranite. The number of colossal statues was almost incredible. Thesculptures found among the ruins of Karnak must have been made nearlyfour thousand years ago. They exhibit great simplicity of design, buthave not much variety of expression. They are generally carved from thehardest stones, and finished so nicely that we infer that the Egyptianswere acquainted with the art of hardening metals for their tools to adegree not known in our times. But we see no ideal grandeur among any ofthe remains of Egyptian sculpture; however symmetrical or colossal, there is no diversity of expression, no trace of emotion, nointellectual force, --everything is calm, impassive, imperturbable. Itwas not until sculpture came into the hands of the Greeks that anyremarkable excellence in grace of form or expression of face wasreached. But the progress of development was slow. The earliest carvingswere rude wooden images of the gods, and more than a thousand yearselapsed before the great masters were produced whose works marked theage of Pericles. 

It is not my object to give a history of the development of the plasticart, but to show the great excellence it attained in the hands ofimmortal sculptors. 

The Greeks had an intuitive perception of the beautiful, and to thisgreat national trait we ascribe the wonderful progress which sculpturemade. Nature was most carefully studied by the Greek artists, and thatwhich was most beautiful in Nature became the object of their imitation. They even attained to an ideal excellence, since they combined in asingle statue what could not be found in a single individual, --as Zeuxisis said to have studied the beautiful forms of seven virgins of Crotonain order to paint his famous picture of Venus. Great as was the beautyof Phryne or Aspasia or Lais, yet no one of them could have served for aperfect model; and it required a great sensibility to beauty in order toselect and idealize what was most perfect in the human figure. Beautywas adored in Greece, and every means were used to perfect it, especially beauty of form, which is the characteristic excellence ofGrecian statuary. The gymnasia were universally frequented; and thegreat prizes of the games, bestowed for feats of strength and agility, were regarded as the highest honors which men could receive, --thesubject of the poet's ode and the people's admiration. Statues of thevictors perpetuated their fame and improved the sculptor's art. From thestudy of these statues were produced those great creations which allsubsequent ages have admired; and from the application of the principlesseen in these forms we owe the perpetuation of the ideas of grace andbeauty such as no other people besides the Greeks had ever discovered, or indeed scarcely appreciated. The sculpture of the human figure becamea noble object of ambition in Greece, and was most munificentlyrewarded. Great artists arose, whose works adorned the temples of Greeceso long as she preserved her independence, and when that was lost, herpriceless productions were scattered over Asia and Europe. The Romansespecially seized what was most prized, whether or not they could tellwhat was most perfect. Greece lived in her marble statues more than inher government or laws; and when we remember the estimation in whichsculpture was held among the Greeks, the great prices paid formasterpieces, the care and attention with which they were guarded andpreserved, and the innumerable works which were produced, filling allthe public buildings, especially consecrated places, and even openspaces and the houses of the rich and great, calling from all classesadmiration and praise, --we cannot think it likely that so greatperfection will ever be reached again in those figures which aredesigned to represent beauty of form. Even the comparatively few statueswhich have survived the wars and violence of two thousand years, convince us that the moderns can only imitate; they can produce nocreations equal to those by Athenian artists. "No mechanical copying ofGreek statues, however skilful the copyist, can ever secure for modernsculpture the same noble and effective character it possessed among theGreeks, for the simple reason that the imitation, close as may be theresemblance, is but the result of the eye and hand, while the originalis the expression of a true and deeply felt sentiment. Art was notsustained by the patronage of a few who affect to have what is called_taste_; in Greece the artist, having a common feeling for the beautifulwith his countrymen, produced his works for the public, which wereerected in places of honor and dedicated in temples of the gods. "

It was not until the Persian wars awakened among the Greeks theslumbering consciousness of national power, and Athens became thecentral point of Grecian civilization, that sculpture, like architectureand painting, reached its culminating point of excellence under Phidiasand his contemporaries. Great artists had previously made themselvesfamous, like Miron, Polycletus, and Ageladas; but the great riches whichflowed into Athens at this time gave a peculiar stimulus to art, especially under the encouragement of such a ruler as Pericles, whoseage was the golden era of Grecian history. 

Pheidias, or Phidias, was to sculpture what Aeschylus was to tragicpoetry, --the representative of the sublime and grand. He was born fourhundred and eighty-four years before Christ, and was the pupil ofAgeladas. He stands at the head of the ancient sculptors, not from what_we_ know of him, for his masterpieces have perished, but from theestimation in which he was held by the greatest critics of antiquity. Itwas to him that Pericles intrusted the adornment of the Parthenon, andthe numerous and beautiful sculptures of the frieze and the pedimentwere the work of artists whom he directed. His great work in thatwonderful edifice was the statue of the goddess Minerva herself, made ofgold and ivory, forty feet in height, standing victorious, with a spearin her left hand and an image of victory in her right, with helmet onher head, and her shield resting by her side. The cost of this statuemay be estimated when we consider that the gold alone used upon it wasvalued at forty-four talents, equal to five hundred thousand dollars ofour money, --an immense sum in that age. Some critics suppose that thisstatue was overloaded with ornament, but all antiquity was unanimous inits admiration. The exactness and finish of detail were as remarkable asthe grandeur of the proportions. Another of the famous works of Phidiaswas a colossal bronze statue of Athene Promachos, sixty feet in height, on the Acropolis between the Propylaea and the Parthenon. But both ofthese yielded to the colossal statue of Zeus in his great temple atOlympia, represented in a sitting posture, forty feet high, on apedestal of twenty feet. The god was seated on a throne. Ebony, gold, ivory, and precious stones formed, with a multitude of sculptured andpainted figures, the wonderful composition of this throne. In this hisgreatest work the artist sought to embody the idea of majesty andrepose, --of a supreme deity no longer engaged in war with Titans andGiants, but enthroned as a conqueror, ruling with a nod the subjectworld, and giving his blessing to those victories which gave glory tothe Greeks. So famous was this statue, which was regarded as themasterpiece of Grecian art, that it was considered a calamity to diewithout having seen it; and this served for a model for all subsequentrepresentations of majesty and power in repose among the ancients. Itwas removed to Constantinople by Theodosius I. , and was destroyed byfire in the year 475 A. D. Phidias executed various other famous works, which have perished; but even those that were executed under hissuperintendence which have come down to our times, --like the statueswhich ornamented the pediment of the Parthenon, --are among the finestspecimens of art that exist, and exhibit the most graceful andappropriate forms which could have been selected, uniting grandeur withsimplicity, and beauty with accuracy of anatomical structure. Hisdistinguishing excellence was ideal beauty, and that of thesublimest order. 

Of all the wonders and mysteries of ancient art the colossal statues ofivory and gold were perhaps the most remarkable, and the difficulty ofexecuting them has been set forth by the ablest of modern critics, likeWinckelmann, Heyne, and De Quincey. "The grandeur of their dimensions, the perfection of their workmanship, the richness of their materials, their majesty, beauty, and ideal truth, the splendor of the architectureand pictorial decoration with which they were associated, --all conspiredto impress the beholder with wonder and awe, and induce a belief of theactual presence of the god. "

After the Peloponnesian War a new school of art arose in Athens, whichappealed more to the passions. Of this school was Praxiteles, who aimedto please without seeking to elevate or instruct. No one has probablyever surpassed him in execution. He wrought in bronze and marble, andwas one of the artists who adorned the Mausoleum of Artemisia. Withoutattempting the sublime impersonation of the deity, in which Phidiasexcelled, he was unsurpassed in the softer graces and beauties of thehuman form, especially in female figures. His most famous work was anundraped statue of Venus, for his native town of Cnidus, which was soremarkable that people flocked from all parts of Greece to see it. Hedid not aim at ideal majesty so much as at ideal gracefulness; his workswere formed from the most beautiful living models, and hence expressedonly the ideal of sensuous charms. It is probable that the Venus deMedici of Cleomenes was a mere copy of the Aphrodite of Praxiteles, which was so highly extolled by, the ancient authors; it was of Parianmarble, and modelled from the celebrated Phryne. His statues of Dionysusalso expressed the most consummate physical beauty, representing the godas a beautiful youth crowned with ivy, and expressing tender and dreamyemotions. Praxiteles sculptured several figures of Eros, or the god oflove, of which that at Thespiae attracted visitors to the city in thetime of Cicero. It was subsequently carried to Rome, and perished by aconflagration in the time of Titus. One of the most celebrated statuesof this artist was an Apollo, many copies of which still exist. Hisworks were very numerous, but chiefly from the circle of Dionysus, Aphrodite, and Eros, in which adoration for corporeal attractions is themost marked peculiarity, and for which the artist was fitted by hisdissolute life. 

Scopas was the contemporary of Praxiteles, and was the author of thecelebrated group of Niobe, which is one of the chief ornaments of thegallery of sculpture at Florence. He flourished about three hundred andfifty years before Christ, and wrought chiefly in marble. He wasemployed in decorating the Mausoleum which Artemisia erected to herhusband, --one of the wonders of the world. His masterpiece is said tohave been a group representing Achilles conducted to the island of Leuceby the divinities of the sea, which ornamented the shrine of Domitius inthe Flaminian Circus. In this, tender grace, heroic grandeur, daringpower, and luxurious fulness of life were combined with wonderfulharmony. Like the other great artists of this school, Scopas exhibitedthe grandeur and sublimity for which Phidias was celebrated, but agreater refinement and luxury, as well as skill in the use of drapery. 

Sculpture in Greece culminated, as an art, in Lysippus, who workedchiefly in bronze. He is said to have executed fifteen hundred statues, and was much esteemed by Alexander the Great, by whom he was extensivelypatronized. He represented men not as they were, but as they appeared tobe; and if he exaggerated, he displayed great energy of action. He aimedto idealize merely human beauty, and his imitation of Nature was carriedout in the minutest details. None of his works are extant; but as healone was permitted to make the statue of Alexander, we infer that hehad no equals. The Emperor Tiberius transferred one of his statues (thatof an athlete) from the baths of Agrippa to his own chamber, which soincensed the people that he was obliged to restore it. His favoritesubject was Hercules, and a colossal statue of this god was carried toRome by Fabius Maximus, when he took Tarentum, and afterward wastransferred to Constantinople; the Farnese Hercules and the BelvidereTorso are probably copies of this work. He left many eminent scholars, among whom were Chares (who executed the famous Colossus of Rhodes), Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus who sculptured the group of the"Laocoön. " The Rhodian school was the immediate offshoot from the schoolof Lysippus at Sicyon; and from this small island of Rhodes the Romans, when they conquered it, carried away three thousand statues. TheColossus was one of the wonders of the world (seventy cubits in height);and the Laocoön (the group of the Trojan hero and his two sons encoiledby serpents) is a perfect miracle of art, in which pathos is exhibitedin the highest degree ever attained in sculpture. It was discovered in1506, near the baths of Titus, and is one of the choicest remains ofancient plastic art. 

The great artists of antiquity did not confine themselves to therepresentation of man, but also carved animals with exceeding accuracyand beauty. Nicias was famous for his dogs, Myron for his cows, andLysippus for his horses. Praxiteles composed his celebrated lion after aliving animal. "The horses of the frieze of the Elgin Marbles, " saysFlaxman, "appear to live and move; to roll their eyes, to gallop, prance, and curvet; the veins of their faces and legs seem distendedwith circulation. The beholder is charmed with the deer-like lightnessand elegance of their make; and although the relief is not above an inchfrom the background, and they are so much smaller than nature, we canscarcely suffer reason to persuade us they are not alive. " The Greeksalso carved gems, cameos, medals, and vases, with unapproachableexcellence. Very few specimens have come down to our times, but thosewhich we possess show great beauty both in design and execution. 

Grecian statuary began with ideal representations of the deities, andwas carried to the greatest perfection by Phidias in his statues ofJupiter and Minerva. Then succeeded the school of Praxiteles, in whichthe figures of gods and goddesses were still represented, but in mortalforms. The school of Lysippus was famous for the statues of celebratedmen, especially in cities where Macedonian rulers resided. Artists wereexpected henceforth to glorify kings and powerful nobles and rulers byportrait statues. From this period, however, plastic art degenerated;nor were works of original genius produced, but rather copies orvarieties from the three great schools to which allusion has been made. Sculpture may have multiplied, but not new creations; although someimitations of great merit were produced, like the Hermaphrodite, theTorso, the Farnese Hercules, and the Fighting Gladiator. When Corinthwas sacked by Mummius, some of the finest statues of Greece were carriedto Rome; and after the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, the Greekartists emigrated to Italy. The fall of Syracuse introduced many worksof priceless value into Rome; but it was from Athens, Delphi, Corinth, Elis, and other great centres of art that the richest treasures werebrought. Greece was despoiled to ornament Italy. 

The Romans did not create a school of sculpture. They borrowed whollyfrom the Greeks, yet made, especially in the time of Hadrian, manybeautiful statues. They were fond of this art, and all eminent men hadstatues erected to their memory. The busts of emperors were found inevery great city, and Rome was filled with statues. The monuments of theRomans were even more numerous than those of the Greeks, and among themsome admirable portraits are found. These sculptures did not expressthat consummation of beauty and grace, of refinement and sentiment, which marked the Greeks; but the imitations were good. Art had reachedits perfection under Lysippus; there was nothing more to learn. Geniusin that department could soar no higher. It will never rise toloftier heights. 

It is noteworthy that the purest forms of Grecian art arose in itsearlier stages. From a moral point of view, sculpture declined from thetime of Phidias. It was prostituted at Rome under the emperors. Thespecimens which have often been found among the ruins of ancient bathsmake us blush for human nature. The skill of execution did not declinefor several centuries; but the lofty ideal was lost sight of, and grossappeals to human passions were made by those who sought to pleasecorrupt leaders of society in an effeminate age. The turgidity andluxuriance of art gradually passed into tameness and poverty. Thereliefs on the Arch of Constantine are rude and clumsy compared withthose on the column of Marcus Aurelius. 

It is not my purpose to describe the decline of art, or enumerate thenames of the celebrated masters who exalted sculpture in the palmy daysof Pericles or even Alexander. I simply speak of sculpture as an artwhich reached a great perfection among the Greeks and Romans, as we havea right to infer from the specimens that have been preserved. How manymore must have perished, we may infer from the criticisms of the ancientauthors. The finest productions of our own age are in a measurereproductions; they cannot be called creations, like the statue of theOlympian Jove. Even the Moses of Michael Angelo is a Grecian god, andPowers's Greek Slave is a copy of an ancient Venus. The very tints whichhave been admired in some of the works of modern sculptors are borrowedfrom Praxiteles, who succeeded in giving to his statues an appearance ofliving flesh. The Museum of the Vatican alone contains several thousandspecimens of ancient sculpture which have been found among the débris offormer magnificence, many of which are the productions of Greek artiststransported to Rome. Among them are antique copies of the Cupid and theFaun of Praxiteles, the statue of Demosthenes, the Minerva Medica, theAthlete of Lysippus, the Torso Belvedere sculptured by Apollonius, theBelvidere Antinous, of faultless anatomy and a study for Domenichino, the Laocoön, so panegyrized by Pliny, the Apollo Belvedere, the work ofAgasias of Ephesus, the Sleeping Ariadne, with numerous other statues ofgods and goddesses, emperors, philosophers, poets, and statesmen ofantiquity. The Dying Gladiator, which ornaments the capitol, is alone amagnificent proof of the perfection to which sculpture was carriedcenturies after the art had culminated at Athens. And these are only afew which stand out among the twenty thousand recovered statues that nowembellish Italy, to say nothing of those that are scattered over Europe. We have the names of hundreds of artists who were famous in their day. Not merely the figures of men are chiselled, but of animals and plants. Nature in all her forms was imitated; and not merely Nature, but thedresses of the ancients are perpetuated in marble. No modern sculptorhas equalled, in delicacy of finish, the draperies of those ancientstatues as they appear to us even after the exposure and accidents oftwo thousand years. No one, after a careful study of the museums ofEurope, can question that of all the nations who have claimed to becivilized, the ancient Greeks and Romans deserve a proud pre-eminence inan art which is still regarded as among the highest triumphs of humangenius. All these matchless productions of antiquity are the result ofnative genius alone, without the aid of Christian ideas. Nor with theaid of Christianity are we sure that any nation will ever soar toloftier heights than did the Greeks in that proud realm which wasconsecrated to Paganism. 

We are not so certain in regard to the excellence of the ancients in theart of painting as we are in regard to sculpture and architecture, sinceso few specimens of painting have been preserved. We have only thetestimony of the ancients themselves; and as they had so severe a tasteand so great a susceptibility to beauty in all its forms, we cannotsuppose that their notions were crude in this great art which themoderns have carried to such great perfection. In this art the modernsdoubtless excel, especially in perspective and drawing, and light andshade. No age, we fancy, can surpass Italy in the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries, when the genius of Raphael, Correggio, andDomenichino blazed with such wonderful brilliancy. 

Painting in some form, however, is very ancient, though not so ancientas are the temples of the gods and the statues that were erected totheir worship. It arose with the susceptibility to beauty of form andcolor, and with the view of conveying thoughts and emotions of the soulby imitation of their outward expression. The walls of Babylon werepainted after Nature with representations of different species ofanimals and of combats between them and man. Semiramis was representedas on horseback, striking a leopard with a dart, and her husband Ninusas wounding a lion. Ezekiel describes various idols and beasts portrayedupon the walls, and even princes painted in vermilion, with girdlesaround their loins. In ages almost fabulous there were some rudeattempts in this art, which probably arose from the coloring of statuesand reliefs. The wooden chests of Egyptian mummies are covered withpainted and hieroglyphic presentations of religious subjects; but thecolors were laid without regard to light and shade. The Egyptians didnot seek to represent the passions and emotions which agitate the soul, but rather to authenticate events and actions; and hence theirpaintings, like hieroglyphics, are but inscriptions. It was their greatfestivals and religious rites which they sought to perpetuate, not ideasof beauty or of grace. Thus their paintings abound with dismemberedanimals, plants, and flowers, with censers, entrails, --whatever was usedin their religious worship. In Greece also the original paintingconsisted in coloring statues and reliefs of wood and clay. At Corinth, painting was early united with the fabrication of vases, on which wererudely painted figures of men and animals. Among the Etruscans, beforeRome was founded, it is said there were beautiful paintings, and it isprobable that these people were advanced in art before the Greeks. Therewere paintings in some of the old Etruscan cities which the Romanemperors wished to remove, so much admired were they even in the days ofthe greatest splendor. The ancient Etruscan vases are famous for designswhich have never been exceeded in purity of form, but it is probablethat these were copied from the Greeks. 

Whether the Greeks or the Etruscans were the first to paint, however, the art was certainly carried to the greatest perfection among theformer. The development of it was, like all arts, very gradual. Itprobably began by drawing the outline of a shadow, without intermediatemarkings; the next step was the complete outline with the innermarkings, --such as are represented on the ancient vases, or like thedesigns of Flaxman. They were originally practised on a white ground;then light and shade were introduced, and then the application of colorsin accordance with Nature. We read of a great painting by Bularchus, ofthe battle of Magnete, purchased by a king of Lydia seven hundred andeighteen years before Christ. As the subject was a battle, it must haverepresented the movement of figures, although we know nothing of thecoloring or of the real excellence of the work, except that the artistwas paid munificently. Cimon of Cleona is the first great name connectedwith the art in Greece. He is praised by Pliny, to whom we owe thehistory of ancient painting more than to any other author. Cimon was notsatisfied with drawing simply the outlines of his figures, such as wesee in the oldest painted vases, but he also represented limbs, andfolds of garments. He invented the art of foreshortening, or the variousrepresentations of the diminution of the length of figures as theyappear when looked at obliquely; and hence was the first painter ofperspective. He first made muscular articulations, indicated the veins, and gave natural folds to drapery. 

A much greater painter than he was Polygnotus of Thasos, thecontemporary of Phidias, who came to Athens about the year 463B. C. , --one of the greatest geniuses of any age, and one of the mostmagnanimous, who had the good fortune to live in an age of exceedingintellectual activity. He painted on panels, which were afterward letinto the walls, being employed on the public buildings of Athens, and onthe great temple of Delphi, the hall of which he painted gratuitously. He also decorated the Propylaea, which was erected under thesuperintendence of Phidias. The pictures of Polygnotus had nothing ofthat elaborate grouping, aided by the powers of perspective, so muchadmired in modern art. His greatness lay in statuesque painting, whichhe brought nearly to perfection by ideal expression, accurate drawing, and improved coloring. He used but few colors, and softened the rigidityof his predecessors by making the mouth of beauty smile. He gave greatexpression to the face and figure, and his pictures were models ofexcellence for the beauty of the eyebrows, the blush upon the cheeks, and the gracefulness of the draperies. He strove, like Phidias, toexpress character in repose. He imitated the personages and the subjectsof the old mythology, and treated them in an epic spirit, his subjectsbeing almost invariably taken from Homer and the Epic cycle. 

Among the works of Polygnotus, as mentioned by Pliny, are his paintingsin the Temple at Delphi, in the Propylaea of the Acropolis, in theTemple of Theseus, and in the Temple of the Dioscuri at Athens. Hepainted in a truly religious spirit, and upon symmetrical principles, with great grandeur and freedom, resembling Michael Angelo more than anyother modern artist. 

The use of oil was unknown to the ancients. The artists painted uponwood, clay, plaster, stone, parchment, but not upon canvas, which wasnot used till the time of Nero. They painted upon tablets or panels, andnot upon the walls, --the panels being afterward framed and encased inthe walls. The stylus, or cestrum, used in drawing and for spreading thewax colors was pointed on one end and flat on the other, and generallymade of metal. Wax was prepared by purifying and bleaching, and thenmixed with colors. When painting was practised in watercolors, glue wasused with the white of an egg or with gums; but wax and resins were alsoworked with water, with certain preparations. This latter mode wascalled encaustic, and was, according to Plutarch, the most durable ofall methods. It was not generally adopted till the time of Alexander theGreat. Wax was a most essential ingredient, since it prevented thecolors from cracking. Encaustic painting was practised both with thecestrum and the pencil, and the colors were also burned in. 

Fresco, or water-color, on fresh plaster, was used for coloring walls, which were divided into compartments or panels. The composition of thestucco, and the method of preparing the walls for painting, is describedby the ancient writers: "They first covered the walls with a layer ofordinary plaster, over which, when dry, were successively added threeother layers of a finer quality, mixed with sand. Above these wereplaced three layers of a composition of chalk and marble-dust, the upperone being laid on before the under one was dry; by which process thedifferent layers were so bound together that the whole mass formed onebeautiful and solid slab, resembling marble, and was capable of beingdetached from the wall and transported in a wooden frame to anydistance. The colors were applied when the composition was still wet. The fresco wall, when painted, was covered with an encaustic varnish, both to heighten the color and to preserve it from the effects of thesun or the weather; but this process required so much care, and wasattended with so much expense, that it was used only in the betterhouses and palaces. " The later discoveries at Pompeii show the samecorrectness of design in painting as in sculpture, and also considerableperfection in coloring. The great artists of Greece--Phidias andEuphranor, Zeuxis and Protogenes, Polygnotus and Lysippus--were bothsculptors and painters, like Michael Angelo; and the ancient writerspraise the paintings of these great artists as much as their sculpture. The Aldobrandini Marriage, found on the Esquiline Mount during thepontificate of Clement VIII. , and placed in the Vatican by Pius VII. , isadmired both for drawing and color. Polygnotus was praised by Aristotlefor his designs, and by Lucian for his color. 

Dionysius and Mikon were the great contemporaries of Polygnotus, theformer being celebrated for his portraits. His pictures were deficientin the ideal, but were remarkable for expression and elegant drawing. Mikon was particularly skilled in painting horses, and was the first whoused for a color the light Attic ochre, and the black made from burntvine-twigs. He painted three of the walls of the Temple of Theseus, andalso the walls of the Temple of the Dioscuri. 

A greater painter still was Apollodorus of Athens. Through his labors, about 408 B. C. , dramatic effect was added to the style of Polygnotus, without departing from his pictures as models. "The acuteness of histaste, " says Fuseli, "led him to discover that as all men were connectedby one general form, so they were separated each by some predominantpower, which fixed character and bound them to a class. Thence he drewhis line of imitation, and personified the central form of the class towhich his object belonged, and to which the rest of its qualitiesadministered without being absorbed. Agility was not suffered to destroyfirmness, solidity, or weight; nor strength and weight, agility. Elegance did not degenerate into effeminacy, nor grandeur swell tohugeness. " His aim was to deceive the eye of the spectator by thesemblance of reality: he painted men and things as they really appeared. He also made a great advance in coloring: he invented chiaro-oscuro. Other painters had given attention to the proper gradation of light andshade; he heightened this effect by the gradation of tints, and thusobtained what the moderns call _tone_. He was the first who conferreddue honor on the pencil, --_primusque gloriam penicillo jure contulit_. 

This great painter was succeeded by Zeuxis, who belonged to his school, but who surpassed him in the power to give ideal form to rich effects. He began his great career four hundred and twenty-four years beforeChrist, and was most remarkable for his female figures. His Helen, painted from five of the most beautiful women of Croton, was one of themost renowned productions of antiquity, to see which the painterdemanded money. He gave away his pictures, because, with an artist'spride, he maintained that their price could not be estimated. There isa tradition that Zeuxis laughed himself to death over an old womanpainted by him. He arrived at illusion of the senses, regarded as a highattainment in art, --as in the instance recorded of his grapes, at whichthe birds pecked. He belonged to the Asiatic school, whose headquarterswere at Ephesus, --the peculiarities of which were accuracy of imitation, the exhibition of sensuous charms, and the gratification of sensualtastes. He went to Athens about the time that the sculpture of Phidiaswas completed, which modified his style. His marvellous powers weredisplayed in the contrast of light and shade, which he learned fromApollodorus. He gave ideal beauty to his figures, but it was in formrather than in expression. He taught the true method of grouping, bymaking each figure the perfect representation of the class to which itbelonged. His works were deficient in those qualities which elevate thefeelings and the character. He was the Euripides rather than the Homerof his art. He exactly imitated natural objects, which are incapable ofideal representation. His works were not so numerous as they wereperfect in their way, in some of which, as in the Infant Herculesstrangling the Serpent, he displayed great dramatic power. Lucian highlypraises his Female Centaur as one of the most remarkable paintings ofthe world, in which he showed great ingenuity of contrasts. His JupiterEnthroned is also extolled by Pliny, as one of his finest works. Zeuxisacquired a great fortune, and lived ostentatiously. 

Contemporaneous with Zeuxis, and equal in fame, was Parrhasius, a nativeof Ephesus, whose skill lay in accuracy of drawing and power ofexpression. He gave to painting true proportion, and attended to minutedetails of the countenance and the hair. In his gods and heroes, he didfor painting what Phidias did in sculpture. His outlines were so perfectas to indicate those parts of the figure which they did not express. Heestablished a rule of proportion which was followed by all succeedingartists. While many of his pieces were of a lofty character, some weredemoralizing. Zeuxis yielded the palm to him, since Parrhasius painted acurtain which deceived his rival, whereas the grapes of Zeuxis haddeceived only birds. Parrhasius was exceedingly arrogant and luxurious, and boasted of having reached the utmost limits of his art. He combinedthe magic tone of Apollodorus with the exquisite design of Zeuxis andthe classic expression of Polygnotus. 

Many were the eminent painters that adorned the fifth century beforeChrist, not only in Athens, but in the Ionian cities of Asia. Timanthesof Sicyon was distinguished for invention, and Eupompus of the samecity founded a school. His advice to Lysippus is memorable: "Let Nature, not an artist, be your model. " Protogenes was celebrated for his highfinish. His Talissus took him seven years to complete. Pamphilus wascelebrated for composition, Antiphilus for facility, Theon of Samos forprolific fancy, Apelles for grace, Pausias for his chiaro-oscuro, Nicomachus for his bold and rapid pencil, Aristides for depth ofexpression. 

The art probably culminated in Apelles, who was at once a rich coloristand portrayer of sensuous charm and a scientific artist, while he addeda peculiar grace of his own, which distinguished him above both hispredecessors and contemporaries. He was contemporaneous with Alexander, and was alone allowed to paint the picture of the great conqueror. Apelles was a native of Ephesus, studied under Pamphilus of Amphipolis, and when he had gained reputation he went to Sicyon and took lessonsfrom Melanthius. He spent the best part of his life at the court ofPhilip and Alexander, and painted many portraits of these great men andof their generals. He excelled in portraits, and labored so assiduouslyto perfect himself in drawing that he never spent a day withoutpractising. He made great improvement in the mechanical part of his art, inventing some colors, and being the first to varnish pictures. By thegeneral consent of ancient authors, Apelles stands at the head of allthe painters of their world. His greatest work was his Venus Anadyomene, or Venus rising out of the sea, in which female grace was personified;the falling drops of water from her hair gave the appearance of atransparent silver veil over her form. This picture cost one hundredtalents, was painted for the Temple of Aesculapius at Cos, and afterwardplaced by Augustus in the temple which he dedicated to Julius Caesar. The lower part of it becoming injured, no one could be found to repairit; nor was there an artist who could complete an unfinished picturewhich Apelles left. He feared no criticism, and was unenvious of thefame of rivals. 

After Apelles, the art of painting declined, although great paintersoccasionally appeared, especially from the school of Sicyon, which wasrenowned for nearly two hundred years. The destruction of Corinth byMummius, 146 B. C. , gave a severe blow to Grecian art. This generaldestroyed, or carried to Rome, more works than all his predecessorscombined. Sulla, when he spoiled Athens, inflicted a still greaterinjury; and from that time artists resorted to Rome and Alexandria andother flourishing cities for patronage and remuneration. Themasterpieces of famous artists brought enormous prices, and Greece andAsia were ransacked for old pictures. The paintings which AemiliusPaulus brought from Greece required two hundred and fifty wagons tocarry them in the triumphal procession. With the spoliation of Greece, the migration of artists began; and this spoliation of Greece, Asia, andSicily continued for two centuries. We have already said that such wasthe wealth of Rhodes in works of art that three thousand statues werefound there by the conquerors; nor could there have been less at Athens, Olympia, and Delphi. Scaurus had all the public pictures of Sicyontransported to Rome. Verres plundered every temple and public buildingin Sicily. 

Thus Rome was possessed of the finest paintings in the world, withoutthe slightest claim to the advancement of the art. And if the opinion ofSir Joshua Reynolds is correct, art could advance no higher in the realmof painting, as well as of statuary, than the Greeks had already borneit. Yet the Romans learned to place as high value on the works ofGrecian genius as the English do on the paintings of the old masters ofItaly and Flanders. And if they did not add to the art, they gave suchencouragement that under the emperors it may be said to have beenflourishing. Varro had a gallery of seven hundred portraits of eminentmen. The portraits as well as the statues of the great were placed inthe temples, libraries, and public buildings. The baths especially werefilled with paintings. 

The great masterpieces of the Greeks were either historical ormythological. Paintings of gods and heroes, groups of men and women, inwhich character and passion could be delineated, were the most highlyprized. It was in the expression given to the human figure--in beauty ofform and countenance, in which all the emotions of the soul, as well asthe graces of the body were portrayed--that the Greek artists sought toreach the ideal, and to gain immortality. And they painted for a peoplewho had both a natural and a cultivated taste and sensibility. 

Among the Romans portrait, decorative, and scene painting engrossed theart, much to the regret of such critics as Pliny and Vitruvius. Nothingcould be in more execrable taste than a colossal painting of Nero, onehundred and twenty feet high. From the time of Augustus landscapedecorations were common, and were carried out with every species oflicense. Among the Greeks we do not read of landscape painting. This hasbeen reserved for our age, and is much admired, as it was at Rome in thelatter days of the empire. Mosaic work, of inlaid stones or compositionof varying shades and colors, gradually superseded painting in Rome; itwas first used for floors, and finally walls and ceilings wereornamented with it. It is true, the ancients could show no suchexquisite perfection of colors, tints, and shades as may be seen to-dayin the wonderful reproductions of world-renowned paintings on the wallsof St. Peter's at Rome; but many ancient mosaics have been preservedwhich attest beauty of design of the highest character, --like the Battleof Issus, lately discovered at Pompeii; and this brilliant art had itsorigin and a splendid development at the hands of the old Romans. 

Thus in all those arts of which modern civilization is proudest, and inwhich the genius of man has soared to the loftiest heights, the ancientswere not merely our equals, --they were our superiors. It is greater tooriginate than to copy. In architecture, in sculpture, and perhaps inpainting, the Greeks attained absolute perfection. Any architect of ourtime, who should build an edifice in different proportions from thosethat were recognized in the great cities of antiquity, would make amistake. Who can improve upon the Doric columns of the Parthenon, orupon the Corinthian capitals of the Temple of Jupiter? Indeed, it is inproportion as we accurately copy the faultless models of the age ofPericles that excellence with us is attained and recognized; when wediffer from them we furnish grounds of just criticism. So insculpture, --the finest modern works are inspired by antique models. Itis only when the artist seeks to bring out the purest and loftiestsentiments of the soul, such as only Christianity can inspire, that hemay hope to surpass the sculpture of antiquity in one department of thatart alone, --in expression, rather than in beauty of form, on which noimprovement can be made. And if we possessed the painted Venus ofApelles, as we can boast of having the sculptured Venus of Cleomenes, weshould probably discover greater richness of coloring as well as graceof figure than appear in that famous picture of Titian which is one ofthe proudest ornaments of the galleries of Florence, and one of thegreatest marvels of Italian art. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Winckelmann's History of Ancient Art; Müller's Ancient Art and itsRemains; A. J. Guattani, Antiquités de la Grande Grèce; Mazois, Antiquités de Pompeii; Sir W. Gill, Pompeiana; Donaldson's Antiquitiesof Athens; Vitruvius, Stuart, Chandler, Clarke, Dodwell, Cleghorn, DeQuincey, Fergusson, Schliemann, --these are some of the innumerableauthorities on Architecture among the ancients. 

In Sculpture, Pliny and Cicero are the most noted critics. There is afine article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on this subject. In Smith'sDictionary are the Lives and works of the most noted masters. Müller'sAncient Art alludes to the leading masterpieces. Montfauçon's AntiquitéExpliquée en Figures; Specimens of Ancient Sculpture, by the Society ofDilettanti, London, 1809; Ancient Marbles of the British Museum, byTaylor Combe; Millin, Introduction à l'Étude des Monuments Antiques;Monuments Inédits d'Antiquité figurée, recuellis et publiés parRaoul-Rochette; Gerhard's Archäologische Zeitung; David's Essai sur leClassement Chronologique des Sculpteurs Grecs les plus célèbres. 

In Painting, see Müller's Ancient Art; Fuseli's Lectures; Sir JoshuaReynolds's Lectures; Lanzi's History of Painting in Italy (translated byRoscoe); and the Article on "Painting, " Encyclopaedia Britannica, andArticle "Pictura, " Smith's Dictionary, both of which last mentionedrefer to numerous German, French, and other authorities, should thereader care to pursue the subject. Vitruvius (on Architecture, translated by Gwilt) writes at some length on ancient wall-paintings. The finest specimens of ancient paintings are found in catacombs, thebaths, and the ruins of Pompeii. On this subject Winckelmann is thegreat authority. 

ANCIENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. 

ASTRONOMY, GEOGRAPHY, ETC. 

2000-100 B. C. 

It would be absurd to claim for the ancients any great attainments inscience, such as they made in the field of letters or the realm of art. It is in science, especially when applied to practical life, that themoderns show their great superiority to the most enlightened nations ofantiquity. In this great department of human inquiry modern geniusshines with the lustre of the sun. It is this which most strikinglyattests the advance of civilization. It is this which has distinguishedand elevated the races of Europe, and carried them in the line ofprogress beyond the attainments of the Greeks and Romans. With themagnificent discoveries and inventions of the last three hundred yearsin almost every department of science, especially in the explorations ofdistant seas and continents, in the analysis of chemical compounds, inthe wonders of steam and electricity, in mechanical appliances toabridge human labor, in astronomical researches, in the explanation ofthe phenomena of the heavens, in the miracles which inventive genius haswrought, --seen in our ships, our manufactories, our printing-presses, our observatories, our fortifications, our laboratories, our mills, ourmachines to cultivate the earth, to make our clothes, to build ourhouses, to multiply our means of offence and defence, to make weakchildren do the work of Titans, to measure our time with the accuracy ofthe planetary orbits, to use the sun itself in perpetuating ourlikenesses to distant generations, to cause a needle to guide themariner with assurance on the darkest night, to propel a heavy shipagainst wind and tide without oars or sails, to make carriages ascendmountains without horses at the rate of thirty miles an hour, to conveyintelligence with the speed of lightning from continent to continent andunder oceans that ancient navigators never dared to cross, --these andother wonders attest an ingenuity and audacity of intellect which wouldhave overwhelmed with amazement the most adventurous of Greeks and themost potent of Romans. 

But the great discoveries and inventions to which we owe this markedsuperiority are either accidental or the result of generations ofexperiment, assisted by an immense array of ascertained facts from whichsafe inductions can be made. It is not, probably, the superiority ofthe European races over the Greeks and Romans to which we may ascribethe wonderful advance of modern society, but the particular directionwhich genius was made to take. Had the Greeks given the energy of theirminds to mechanical forces as they did to artistic creations, they mighthave made wonderful inventions. But it was not so ordered by Providence. At that time the world was not in the stage of development when thisparticular direction of intellect could have been favored. Thedevelopment of the physical sciences, with their infinite multiplicityand complexity, required more centuries of observation, collection andcollation of facts, deductions from known phenomena, than the ancientshad had to work with; while the more ethereal realms of philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, and religion, though needing keen study of Natureand of man, depended more upon inner spiritual forces, and less uponaccumulated detail of external knowledge. Yet as there were somesubjects which the Greeks and Romans seemed to exhaust, some fields oflabor and thought in which they never have been and perhaps never willbe surpassed, so some future age may direct its energies into channelsthat are as unknown to us as clocks and steam-engines were to theGreeks. This is the age of mechanism and of science; and mechanism andscience sweep everything before them, and will probably be carried totheir utmost capacity and development. After that the human mind mayseek some new department, some new scope for its energies, and an age ofnew wonders may arise, --perhaps after the present dominant races shallhave become intoxicated with the greatness of their triumphs and haveshared the fate of the old monarchies of the East. But I would notspeculate on the destinies of the European nations, whether they are tomake indefinite advances until they occupy and rule the whole world, orare destined to be succeeded by nations as yet undeveloped, --savages, astheir fathers were when Rome was in the fulness of material wealthand grandeur. 

I have shown that in the field of artistic excellence, in literarycomposition, in the arts of government and legislation, and even in therealm of philosophical speculation, the ancients were ourschool-masters, and that among them were some men of most marvellousgenius, who have had no superiors among us. But we do not see among themthe exhibition of genius in what we call science, at least in itsapplication to practical life. It would be difficult to show anydepartment of science which the ancients carried to any considerabledegree of perfection. Nevertheless, there were departments in which theymade noble attempts, and in which they showed large capacity, even ifthey were unsuccessful in great practical results. 

Astronomy was one of these. In this science such men as Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy were great lights of whom humanitymay be proud; and had they been assisted by our modern inventions, theymight have earned a fame scarcely eclipsed by that of Kepler and Newton. The old astronomers did little to place this science on a truefoundation, but they showed great ingenuity, and discovered some truthswhich no succeeding age has repudiated. They determined thecircumference of the earth by a method identical with that which wouldbe employed by modern astronomers; they ascertained the position of thestars by right ascension and declination; they knew the obliquity of theecliptic, and determined the place of the sun's apogee as well as itsmean motion. Their calculations on the eccentricity of the moon provethat they had a rectilinear trigonometry and tables of chords. They hadan approximate knowledge of parallax; they could calculate eclipses ofthe moon, and use them for the correction of their lunar tables. Theyunderstood spherical trigonometry, and determined the motions of the sunand moon, involving an accurate definition of the year and a method ofpredicting eclipses; they ascertained that the earth was a sphere, andreduced the phenomena of the heavenly bodies to uniform movements ofcircular orbits. We have settled by physical geography the exact formof the earth, but the ancients arrived at their knowledge byastronomical reasoning. Says Whewell:--

"The reduction of the motions of the sun, moon, and five planets tocircular orbits, as was done by Hipparchus, implies deep concentratedthought and scientific abstraction. The theories of eccentrics andepicycles accomplished the end of explaining all the known phenomena. The resolution of the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies into anassemblage of circular motions was a great triumph of genius, and wasequivalent to the most recent and improved processes by which modernastronomers deal with such motions. "

Astronomy was probably born in Chaldaea as early as the time of Abraham. The glories of the firmament were impressed upon the minds of the rudeprimitive races with an intensity which we do not feel, with all thetriumphs of modern science. The Chaldaean shepherds, as they watchedtheir flocks by night, noted the movements of the planets, and gavenames to the more brilliant constellations. Before religious ritualswere established, before great superstitions arose, before poetry wassung, before musical instruments were invented, before artistssculptured marble or melted bronze, before coins were stamped, beforetemples arose, before diseases were healed by the arts of medicine, before commerce was known, those Oriental shepherds counted the anxioushours by the position of certain constellations. Astronomy is thereforethe oldest of the ancient sciences, although it remained imperfect formore than four thousand years. The old Assyrians, Egyptians, and Greeksmade but few discoveries which are valued by modern astronomers, butthey laid the foundation of the science, and ever regarded it as one ofthe noblest subjects that could stimulate the faculties of man. It wasinvested with all that was religious and poetical. 

The spacious level and unclouded horizon of Chaldaea afforded peculiarfacilities of observation; and its pastoral and contemplativeinhabitants, uncontaminated by the vices and superstitions of subsequentages, active-minded and fresh, discovered after a long observation ofeclipses--some say extending over nineteen centuries--the cycle of twohundred and twenty-three lunations, which brings back the eclipses inthe same order. Having once established their cycle, they laid thefoundation for the most sublime of all the sciences. Callisthenestransmitted from Babylon to Aristotle a collection of observations ofall the eclipses that preceded the conquests of Alexander, together withthe definite knowledge which the Chaldaeans had collected about themotions of the heavenly bodies. Such knowledge was rude and simple, andamounted to little beyond the fact that there were sphericalrevolutions about an inclined axis, and that the poles pointed always toparticular stars. The Egyptians also recorded their observations, fromwhich it would appear that they observed eclipses at least sixteenhundred years before the beginning of our era, --which is not improbable, if the speculations of modern philosophers respecting the age of theworld are entitled to credit. The Egyptians discovered by the rising ofSirius that the year consists of three hundred and sixty-five andone-quarter days; and this was their sacred year, in distinction fromthe civil, which consisted of three hundred and sixty-five days. Theyalso had observed the courses of the planets, and could explain thephenomena of the stations and retrogradations; and it is asserted toothat they regarded Mercury and Venus as satellites of the sun. Some havemaintained that the obelisks which the Egyptians erected served thepurpose of gnomons for determining the obliquity of the ecliptic, thealtitude of the pole, and the length of the tropical year. It is thoughteven that the Pyramids, by the position of their sides toward thecardinal points, attest Egyptian acquaintance with a meridional line. The Chinese boast of having noticed and recorded a series of eclipsesextending over a period of thirty-eight hundred and fifty-eight years;and it is probable that they anticipated the Greeks two thousand yearsin the discovery of the Metonic cycle, --or the cycle of nineteen years, at the end of which time the new moons fall on the same days of theyear. The Chinese also determined the obliquity of the ecliptic elevenhundred years before our era. The Hindus at a remote antiquityrepresented celestial phenomena with considerable exactness, andconstructed tables by which the longitude of the sun and moon weredetermined, and dials to measure time. Bailly thinks that thirty-onehundred and two years before Christ astronomy was cultivated in Siamwhich hardly yields in accuracy to that which modern science has builton the theory of universal gravitation. 

But the Greeks after all were the only people of antiquity who elevatedastronomy to the dignity of a science. They however confessed that theyderived their earliest knowledge from the Babylonian and Egyptianpriests, while the priests of Thebes claimed to be the originators ofexact astronomical observations. Diodorus asserts that the Chaldaeansused the Temple of Belus, in the centre of Babylon, for their survey ofthe heavens. But whether the Babylonians or the Egyptians were theearliest astronomers is of little consequence, although the pedants makeit a grave matter of investigation. All we know is that astronomy wascultivated by both Babylonians and Egyptians, and that they made butvery limited attainments. They approximated to the truth in referenceto the solar year, by observing the equinoxes and solstices and theheliacal rising of particular stars. 

The early Greek philosophers who visited Egypt and the East in search ofknowledge, found very little to reward their curiosity or industry, --notmuch beyond preposterous claims to a high antiquity, and to an esotericwisdom which has not yet been revealed. Plato and Eudoxus spent thirteenyears in Heliopolis for the purpose of extracting the scientificknowledge of the Egyptian priests, yet they learned but little beyondthe fact that the solar year was a trifle beyond three hundred andsixty-five days. No great names have come down to us from the priests ofBabylon or Egypt; no one gained an individual reputation. The Chaldaeanand Egyptian priests may have furnished the raw material of observationto the Greeks, but the latter alone possessed the scientific genius bywhich undigested facts were converted into a symmetrical system. TheEast never gave valuable knowledge to the West; it gave the tendency toreligious mysticism, which in its turn tended to superstition. Insteadof astronomy, it gave astrology; instead of science, it gave magic, incantations, and dreams. The Eastern astronomers connected theirastronomy with divination from the stars, and made their antiquity reachback to two hundred and seventy thousand years. There were soothsayersin the time of Daniel, and magicians, exorcists, and interpreters ofsigns. They were not men of scientific research, seeking truth; it waspower they sought, by perverting the intellect of the people. Theastrology of the East was founded on the principle that a star orconstellation presided over the birth of an individual, and that iteither portended his fate, or shed a good or bad influence upon hisfuture life. The star which looked upon a child at the hour of his birthwas called the "horoscopus, " and the peculiar influence of each planetwas determined by the astrologers. The superstitions of Egypt andChaldaea unfortunately spread among both the Greeks and Romans, andthese were about all that the Western nations learned from the boastfulpriests of occult Oriental science. Whatever was known of real valueamong the ancients is due to the earnest inquiries of the Greeks. 

And yet their researches were very unsatisfactory until the time ofHipparchus. The primitive knowledge was almost nothing. The Homericpoems regarded the earth as a circular plain bounded by the heaven, which was a solid vault or hemisphere, with its concavity turneddownward. This absurdity was believed until the time of Herodotus, fivecenturies after; nor was it exploded fully in the time of Aristotle. Thesun, moon, and stars were supposed to move upon or with the innersurface of the heavenly hemisphere, and the ocean was thought to girdthe earth around as a great belt, into which the heavenly bodies sank atnight. Homer believed that the sun arose out of the ocean, ascended theheaven, and again plunged into the ocean, passing under the earth, andproducing darkness. The Greeks even personified the sun as a divinecharioteer driving his fiery steeds over the steep of heaven, until hebathed them at evening in the western waves. Apollo became the god ofthe sun, as Diana was the goddess of the moon. But the early Greekinquirers did not attempt to explain how the sun found his way from thewest back again to the east; they merely took note of the diurnalcourse, the alternation of day and night, the number of the seasons, andtheir regular successions. They found the points of the compass bydetermining the recurrence of the equinoxes and solstices; but they hadno conception of the ecliptic, --of that great circle in the heavenformed by the sun's annual course, --and of its obliquity when comparedwith our equator. Like the Egyptians and Babylonians, the Greeksascertained the length of the year to be three hundred and sixty-fivedays; but perfect accuracy was lacking, for want of scientificinstruments and of recorded observations of the heavenly bodies. TheGreeks had not even a common chronological era for the designation ofyears. Herodotus informs us that the Trojan War preceded his time byeight hundred years: he merely states the interval between the event inquestion and his own time; he had certain data for distant periods. TheGreeks reckoned dates from the Trojan War, and the Romans from thebuilding of their city. The Greeks also divided the year into twelvemonths, and introduced the intercalary circle of eight years, althoughthe Romans disused it afterward, until the calendar was reformed byJulius Caesar. Thus there was no scientific astronomical knowledge worthmentioning among the primitive Greeks. 

Immense research and learning have been expended by modern critics toshow the state of scientific astronomy among the Greeks. I am amazedequally at the amount of research and its comparative worthlessness; forwhat addition to science can be made by an enumeration of thepuerilities and errors of the Greeks, and how wasted and pedantic thelearning which ransacks all antiquity to prove that the Greeks adoptedthis or that absurdity![1]

[Footnote 1: The style of modern historical criticism is wellexemplified in the discussions of the Germans whether the Arx on theCapitoline Hill occupied the northeastern or southwestern corner, whichtake up nearly one half of the learned article on the Capitoline inSmith's Dictionary. ]

The earliest historic name associated with astronomy in Greece wasThales, the founder of the Ionic school of philosophers. He is reportedto have made a visit to Egypt, to have fixed the year at three hundredand sixty-five days, to have determined the course of the sun fromsolstice to solstice, and to have calculated eclipses. He attributed aneclipse of the moon to the interposition of the earth between the sunand moon, and an eclipse of the sun to the interposition of the moonbetween the sun and earth, --and thus taught the rotundity of the earth, sun, and moon. He also determined the ratio of the sun's diameter to itsapparent orbit. As he first solved the problem of inscribing aright-angled triangle in a circle, he is the founder of geometricalscience in Greece. He left, however, nothing to writing; hence allaccounts of him are confused, --some doubting even if he made thediscoveries attributed to him. His philosophical speculations, whichscience rejects, --such as that water is the principle of allthings, --are irrelevant to a description of the progress of astronomy. That he was a great light no one questions, considering the ignorancewith which he was surrounded. 

Anaximander, who followed Thales in philosophy, held to pueriledoctrines concerning the motions and nature of the stars, which it isuseless to repeat. His addition to science, if he made any, was intreating the magnitudes and distances of the planets. He constructedgeographical charts, and attempted to delineate the celestial sphere, and to measure time with a gnomon, or time-pillar, by the motion of itsshadow upon a dial. [2]

[Footnote 2: Dr. E. H. Knight, in his "American Mechanical Dictionary"(i. 692), cites the Scriptural account of the beautiful altar seen byKing Ahaz of Jerusalem, in Damascus, when he went thither to greetTiglath-Pileser, the Assyrian who had helped him against his Samarianenemy. Ahaz erected a similar altar at Jerusalem, and also a _sun-dial, _the same one mentioned in the account of the miraculous cure of his sonHezekiah. "This, " says Dr. Knight, "was probably the first dial onrecord, and is one hundred and forty years before Thales, and nearlyfour hundred before Plato and Aristotle, and just a little previous tothe lunar eclipses observed at Babylon, as recorded by Ptolemy. .. . TheHebrew word [for this dial] is said by Colonel White of the Bengal armyto signify a _staircase_, which much strengthens the inference that itwas like the equinoctial dial of the Indian nations and of Mesopotamia, from whence its pattern is assumed to have been derived. "]

Anaximenes of Miletus taught, like his predecessors, crude notions ofthe sun and stars, and speculated on the nature of the moon, but didnothing to advance his science on true grounds, except by theconstruction of sun-dials. The same may be said of Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras: they were great men, but theygave to the world mere speculations, some of which are very puerile. They all held to the idea that the heavenly bodies revolved around theearth, and that the earth was a plain; but they explained eclipses, andsupposed that the moon derived its light from the sun. Some of themknew the difference between the planets and the fixed stars. Anaxagorasscouted the notion that the sun was a god, and supposed it to be a massof ignited stone, --for which he was called an atheist. 

Socrates, who belonged to another school, avoided all barrenspeculations concerning the universe, and confined himself to humanactions and interests. He looked even upon geometry in a very practicalway, valuing it only so far as it could be made serviceable toland-measuring. As for the stars and planets, he supposed it wasimpossible to arrive at a true knowledge of them, and regardedspeculations upon them as useless. 

It must be admitted that the Greek astronomers, however barren weretheir general theories, laid the foundation of science. Pythagorastaught the obliquity of the ecliptic, probably learned in Egypt, and theidentity of the morning and evening stars. It is supposed that hemaintained that the sun was the centre of the universe, and that theearth revolved around it; but this he did not demonstrate, and his wholesystem was unscientific, assuming certain arbitrary principles, fromwhich he reasoned deductively. "He assumed that fire is more worthy thanearth; that the more worthy place must be given to the more worthy; thatthe extremity is more worthy than the intermediate parts, --and hence, as the centre is an extremity, the place of fire is at the centre of theuniverse, and that therefore the earth and other heavenly bodies moveround the fiery centre. " But this was no heliocentric system, since thesun moved, like the earth, in a circle around the central fire. This wasmerely the work of the imagination, utterly unscientific, though boldand original. Nor did this hypothesis gain credit, since it was thefixed opinion of philosophers that the earth was the centre of theuniverse, around which the sun, moon, and planets revolved. But thePythagoreans were the first to teach that the motions of the sun, moon, and planets are circular and equable. Their idea that the celestialbodies emitted a sound, and were combined into a harmonious symphony, was exceedingly crude, however beautiful "The music of the spheres"belongs to poetry, as well as to the speculations of Plato. 

Eudoxus, in the fifth century before Christ, contributed to science bymaking a descriptive map of the heavens, which was used as a manual ofsidereal astronomy to the sixth century of our era. 

The error of only one hundred and ninety days in the periodic time ofSaturn shows that there had been for a long time close observations. Aristotle--whose comprehensive intellect, like that of Bacon, took inall forms of knowledge--condensed all that was known in his day into atreatise concerning the heavens. He regarded astronomy as moreintimately connected with mathematics than any other branch of science. But even he did not soar far beyond the philosophers of his day, sincehe held to the immobility of the earth, --the grand error of theancients. Some few speculators in science (like Heraclitus of Pontus, and Hicetas) conceived a motion of the earth itself upon its axis, so asto account for the apparent motion of the sun; but they also thought itwas in the centre of the universe. 

The introduction of the gnomon (time-pillar) and dial into Greeceadvanced astronomical knowledge, since they were used to determine theequinoxes and solstices, as well as parts of the day. Meton set up asun-dial at Athens in the year 433 B. C. , but the length of the hourvaried with the time of the year, since the Greeks divided the day intotwelve equal parts. Dials were common at Rome in the time of Plautus, 224 B. C. ; but there was a difficulty in using them, since they failed atnight and in cloudy weather, and could not be relied on. Hence theintroduction of water-clocks instead. 

Aristarchus is said to have combated (280 B. C. ) the geocentric theory sogenerally received by philosophers, and to have promulgated thehypothesis "that the fixed stars and the sun are immovable; that theearth is carried round the sun in the circumference of a circle ofwhich the sun is the centre; and that the sphere of the fixed stars, having the same centre as the sun, is of such magnitude that the orbitof the earth is to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of thesphere of the fixed stars is to its surface. " Aristarchus also, according to Plutarch, explained the apparent annual motion of the sunin the ecliptic by supposing the orbit of the earth to be inclined toits axis. There is no evidence that this great astronomer supported hisheliocentric theory with any geometrical proof, although Plutarchmaintains that he demonstrated it. This theory gave great offence, especially to the Stoics; and Cleanthes, the head of the school at thattime, maintained that the author of such an impious doctrine should bepunished. Aristarchus left a treatise "On the Magnitudes and Distancesof the Sun and Moon;" and his methods to measure the apparent diametersof the sun and moon are considered theoretically sound by modernastronomers, but practically inexact owing to defective instruments. Heestimated the diameter of the sun at the seven hundred and twentiethpart of the circumference of the circle which it describes in itsdiurnal revolution, which is not far from the truth; but in thistreatise he does not allude to his heliocentric theory. 

Archimedes of Syracuse, born 287 B. C. , is stated to have measured thedistance of the sun, moon, and planets, and he constructed an orrery inwhich he exhibited their motions. But it was not in the Grecian colonyof Syracuse, but of Alexandria, that the greatest light was shed onastronomical science. Here Aristarchus resided, and also Eratosthenes, who lived between the years 276 and 196 B. C. The latter was a native ofAthens, but was invited by Ptolemy Euergetes to Alexandria, and placedat the head of the library. His great achievement was the determinationof the circumference of the earth. This was done by measuring on theground the distance between Syene, a city exactly under the tropic, andAlexandria, situated on the same meridian. The distance was found to befive thousand stadia. The meridional distance of the sun from the zenithof Alexandria he estimated to be 7° 12', or a fiftieth part of thecircumference of the meridian. Hence the circumference of the earth wasfixed at two hundred and fifty thousand stadia, --which is not verydifferent from our modern computation. The circumference being known, the diameter of the earth was easily determined. The moderns have addednothing to this method. He also calculated the diameter of the sun to betwenty-seven times greater than that of the earth, and the distance ofthe sun from the earth to be eight hundred and four million stadia, andthat of the moon seven hundred and eighty thousand stadia, --a closeapproximation to the truth. 

Astronomical science received a great impulse from the school ofAlexandria, the greatest light of which was Hipparchus, who flourishedearly in the second century before Christ. He laid the foundation ofastronomy upon a scientific basis. "He determined, " says Delambre, "theposition of the stars by right ascensions and declinations, and wasacquainted with the obliquity of the ecliptic. He determined theinequality of the sun and the place of its apogee, as well as its meanmotion; the mean motion of the moon, of its nodes and apogee; theequation of the moon's centre, and the inclination of its orbit. Hecalculated eclipses of the moon, and used them for the correction of hislunar tables, and he had an approximate knowledge of parallax. " Hisdetermination of the motions of the sun and moon, and his method ofpredicting eclipses evince great mathematical genius. But he combinedwith this determination a theory of epicycles and eccentrics whichmodern astronomy discards. It was however a great thing to conceive ofthe earth as a solid sphere, and to reduce the phenomena of the heavenlybodies to uniform motions in circular orbits. "That Hipparchus shouldhave succeeded in the first great steps of the resolution of theheavenly bodies into circular motions is a circumstance, " says Whewell, "which gives him one of the most distinguished places in the roll ofgreat astronomers. " But he did even more than this: he discovered thatapparent motion of the fixed stars round the axis of the ecliptic, whichis called the Precession of the Equinoxes, --one of the greatestdiscoveries in astronomy. He maintained that the precession was notgreater than fifty-nine seconds, and not less than thirty-six seconds. Hipparchus also framed a catalogue of the stars, and determined theirplaces with reference to the ecliptic by their latitudes and longitudes. Altogether he seems to have been one of the greatest geniuses ofantiquity, and his works imply a prodigious amount of calculation. 

Astronomy made no progress for three hundred years, although it wasexpounded by improved methods. Posidonius constructed an orrery, whichexhibited the diurnal motions of the sun, moon, and five planets. Posidonius calculated the circumference of the earth to be two hundredand forty thousand stadia, by a different method from Eratosthenes. Thebarrenness of discovery from Hipparchus to Ptolemy, --the Alexandrianmathematician, astronomer, and geographer in the second century of theChristian era, --in spite of the patronage of the royal Ptolemies ofEgypt, was owing to the want of instruments for the accurate measure oftime (like our clocks), to the imperfection of astronomical tables, andto the want of telescopes. Hence the great Greek astronomers were unableto realize their theories. Their theories however were magnificent, andevinced great power of mathematical combination; but what could they dowithout that wondrous instrument by which the human eye indefinitelymultiplies its power? Moreover, the ancients had no accurate almanacs, since the care of the calendar belonged not so much to the astronomersas to the priests, who tampered with the computation of time forsacerdotal objects. The calendars of different communities differed. Hence Julius Caesar rendered a great service to science by the reform ofthe Roman calendar, which was exclusively under the control of thecollege of pontiffs, or general religious overseers. The Roman yearconsisted of three hundred and fifty-five days; and in the time ofCaesar the calendar was in great confusion, being ninety days inadvance, so that January was an autumn month. He inserted the regularintercalary month of twenty-three days, and two additional ones ofsixty-seven days. These, together with ninety days, were added to threehundred and sixty-five days, making a year of transition of four hundredand forty-five days, by which January was brought back to the firstmonth in the year after the winter solstice; and to prevent therepetition of the error, he directed that in future the year shouldconsist of three hundred and sixty-five and one-quarter days, which heeffected by adding one day to the months of April, June, September, andNovember, and two days to the months of January, Sextilis, andDecember, making an addition of ten days to the old year of threehundred and fifty-five. And he provided for a uniform intercalation ofone day in every fourth year, which accounted for the remainingquarter of a day. 

Caesar was a student of astronomy, and always found time for itscontemplation. He is said even to have written a treatise on the motionof the stars. He was assisted in his reform of the calendar bySosigines, an Alexandrian astronomer. He took it out of the hands of thepriests, and made it a matter of pure civil regulation. The year wasdefined by the sun, and not as before by the moon. 

Thus the Romans were the first to bring the scientific knowledge of theGreeks into practical use; but while they measured the year with a greatapproximation to accuracy, they still used sun-dials and water-clocks tomeasure diurnal time. Yet even these were not constructed as they shouldhave been. The hour-marks on the sun-dial were all made equal, insteadof varying with the periods of the day, --so that the length of the hourvaried with the length of the day. The illuminated interval was dividedinto twelve equal parts; so that if the sun rose at five A. M. , and setat eight P. M. , each hour was equal to eighty minutes. And this rudemethod of measurement of diurnal time remained in use till the sixthcentury. Clocks, with wheels and weights, were not invented till thetwelfth century. 

The last great light among the ancients in astronomical science wasPtolemy, who lived from 100 to 170 A. D. , in Alexandria. He wasacquainted with the writings of all the previous astronomers, butaccepted Hipparchus as his guide. He held that the heaven is sphericaland revolves upon its axis; that the earth is a sphere, and is situatedwithin the celestial sphere, and nearly at its centre; that it is a merepoint in reference to the distance and magnitude of the fixed stars, andthat it has no motion. He adopted the views of the ancient astronomers, who placed Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars next under the sphere of the fixedstars, then the sun above Venus and Mercury, and lastly the moon next tothe earth. But he differed from Aristotle, who conceived that the earthrevolves in an orbit around the centre of the planetary system, andturns upon its axis, --two ideas in common with the doctrines whichCopernicus afterward unfolded. But even Ptolemy did not conceive theheliocentric theory, --the sun the centre of our system. Archimedes andHipparchus both rejected this theory. 

In regard to the practical value of the speculations of the ancientastronomers, it may be said that had they possessed clocks andtelescopes, their scientific methods would have sufficed for allpractical purposes. The greatness of modern discoveries lies in thegreat stretch of the perceptive powers, and the magnificent field theyafford for sublime contemplation. "But, " as Sir G. Cornewall Lewisremarks, "modern astronomy is a science of pure curiosity, and isdirected exclusively to the extension of knowledge in a field whichhuman interests can never enter. The periodic time of Uranus, the natureof Saturn's ring, and the occultation of Jupiter's satellites are as farremoved from the concerns of mankind as the heliacal rising of Sirius, or the northern position of the Great Bear. " This may seem to be autilitarian view, with which those philosophers who have cultivatedscience for its own sake, finding in the same a sufficient reward, canhave no sympathy. 

The upshot of the scientific attainments of the ancients, in themagnificent realm of the heavenly bodies, would seem to be that theylaid the foundation of all the definite knowledge which is useful tomankind; while in the field of abstract calculation they evincedreasoning and mathematical powers that have never been surpassed. Eratosthenes, Archimedes, and Hipparchus were geniuses worthy to beplaced by the side of Kepler, Newton, and La Place, and all ages willreverence their efforts and their memory. It is truly surprising thatwith their imperfect instruments, and the absence of definite data, they reached a height so sublime and grand. They explained the doctrineof the sphere and the apparent motions of the planets, but they had noinstruments capable of measuring angular distances. The ingeniousepicycles of Ptolemy prepared the way for the elliptic orbits and lawsof Kepler, which in turn conducted Newton to the discovery of the law ofgravitation, --the grandest scientific discovery in the annals ofour race. 

Closely connected with astronomical science was geometry, which wasfirst taught in Egypt, --the nurse and cradle of ancient wisdom. It arosefrom the necessity of adjusting the landmarks disturbed by theinundations of the Nile. There is hardly any trace of geometry among theHebrews. Among the Hindus there are some works on this science, of greatantiquity. Their mathematicians knew the rule for finding the area of atriangle from its sides, and also the celebrated proposition concerningthe squares on the sides of the right-angled triangle. The Chinese, itis said, also knew this proposition before it was known to the Greeks, among whom it was first propounded by Thales. He applied a circle to themeasurement of angles. Anaximander made geographical charts, whichrequired considerable geometrical knowledge. Anaxagoras employedhimself in prison in attempting to square the circle. Thales, as hasbeen said, discovered the important theorem that in a right-angledtriangle the squares on the sides containing the right angle aretogether equal to the square on the opposite side of it. Pythagorasdiscovered that of all figures having the same boundary, the circleamong plane figures and the sphere among solids are the most capacious. Hippocrates treated of the duplication of the cube, and wrote elementsof geometry, and knew that the area of a circle was equal to a trianglewhose base is equal to its circumference and altitude equal to itsradius. The disciples of Plato invented conic sections, and discoveredthe geometrical foci. 

It was however reserved for Euclid to make his name almost synonymouswith geometry. He was born 323 B. C. , and belonged to the Platonic sect, which ever attached great importance to mathematics. His "Elements" arestill in use, as nearly perfect as any human production can be. Theyconsist of thirteen books. The first four are on plane geometry; thefifth is on the theory of proportion, and applies to magnitude ingeneral; the seventh, eighth, and ninth are on arithmetic; the tenth onthe arithmetical characteristics of the division of a straight line; theeleventh and twelfth on the elements of solid geometry; the thirteenthon the regular solids. These "Elements" soon became the universal studyof geometers throughout the civilized world; they were translated intothe Arabic, and through the Arabians were made known to mediaevalEurope. There can be no doubt that this work is one of the highesttriumphs of human genius, and it has been valued more than any singlemonument of antiquity; it is still a text-book, in various Englishtranslations, in all our schools. Euclid also wrote various other works, showing great mathematical talent. 

Perhaps a greater even than Euclid was Archimedes, born 287 B. C. Hewrote on the sphere and cylinder, terminating in the discovery that thesolidity and surface of a sphere are two thirds respectively of thesolidity and surface of the circumscribing cylinder. He also wrote onconoids and spheroids. "The properties of the spiral and the quadratureof the parabola were added to ancient geometry by Archimedes, the lastbeing a great step in the progress of the science, since it was thefirst curvilineal space legitimately squared. " Modern mathematicians maynot have the patience to go through his investigations, since theconclusions he arrived at may now be reached by shorter methods; but thegreat conclusions of the old geometers were reached by only prodigiousmathematical power. Archimedes is popularly better known as the inventorof engines of war and of various ingenious machines than as amathematician, great as were his attainments in this direction. Histheory of the lever was the foundation of statics till the discovery ofthe composition of forces in the time of Newton, and no essentialaddition was made to the principles of the equilibrium of fluids andfloating bodies till the time of Stevin, in 1608. Archimedes detectedthe mixture of silver in a crown of gold which his patron, Hiero ofSyracuse, ordered to be made; and he invented a water-screw for pumpingwater out of the hold of a great ship which he had built. He contrivedalso the combination of pulleys, and he constructed an orrery torepresent the movement of the heavenly bodies. He had an extraordinaryinventive genius for discovering new provinces of inquiry and new pointsof view for old and familiar objects. Like Newton, he had a habit ofabstraction from outward things, and would forget to take his meals. Hewas killed by Roman soldiers when Syracuse was taken; and the Siciliansso soon forgot his greatness that in the time of Cicero they did notknow where his tomb was. 

Eratosthenes was another of the famous geometers of antiquity, and didmuch to improve geometrical analysis. He was also a philosopher andgeographer. He gave a solution of the problem of the duplication of thecube, and applied his geometrical knowledge to the measurement of themagnitude of the earth, --being one of the first who broughtmathematical methods to the aid of astronomy, which in our day is almostexclusively the province of the mathematician. 

Apollonius of Perga, probably about forty years younger than Archimedes, and his equal in mathematical genius, was the most fertile and profoundwriter among the ancients who treated of geometry. He was called theGreat Geometer. His most important work is a treatise on conic sections, which was regarded with unbounded admiration by contemporaries, and insome respects is unsurpassed by any thing produced by modernmathematicians. He however made use of the labors of his predecessors, so that it is difficult to tell how far he is original. But all men ofscience must necessarily be indebted to those who have preceded them. Even Homer, in the field of poetry, made use of the bards who had sungfor a thousand years before him; and in the realms of philosophy thegreat men of all ages have built up new systems on the foundations whichothers have established. If Plato or Aristotle had been contemporarieswith Thales, would they have matured so wonderful a system ofdialectics? Yet if Thales had been contemporaneous with Plato, he mighthave added to the great Athenian's sublime science even more than didAristotle. So of the great mathematicians of antiquity; they were allwonderful men, and worthy to be classed with the Newtons and Keplers ofour times. Considering their means and the state of science, they madeas _great_ though not as _fortunate_ discoveries, --discoveries whichshow patience, genius, and power of calculation. Apollonius was one ofthese, --one of the master intellects of antiquity, like Euclid andArchimedes; one of the master intellects of all ages, like Newtonhimself. I might mention the subjects of his various works, but theywould not be understood except by those familiar with mathematics. 

Other famous geometers could also be named, but such men as Euclid, Archimedes, and Apollonius are enough to show that geometry wascultivated to a great extent by the philosophers of antiquity. Itprogressively advanced, like philosophy itself, from the time of Thalesuntil it had reached the perfection of which it was capable, when itbecame merged into astronomical science. It was cultivated moreparticularly by the disciples of Plato, who placed over his school thisinscription: "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here. " He believedthat the laws by which the universe is governed are in accordance withthe doctrines of mathematics. The same opinion was shared by Pythagoras, the great founder of the science, whose main formula was that _number_is the essence or first principle of all things. No thinkers eversurpassed the Greeks in originality and profundity; and mathematics, being highly prized by them, were carried to the greatest perfectiontheir method would allow. They did not understand algebra, by theapplication of which to geometry modern mathematicians have climbed togreater heights than the ancients; but then it is all the moreremarkable that without the aid of algebraic analysis they were able tosolve such difficult problems as occupied the minds of Archimedes andApollonius. No positive science can boast of such rapid development asgeometry for two or three hundred years before Christ, and never was theintellect of man more severely tasked than by the ancientmathematicians. 

No empirical science can be carried to perfection by any one nation orin any particular epoch; it can only expand with the progressivedevelopments of the human race itself. Nevertheless, in that sciencewhich for three thousand years has been held in the greatest honor, andwhich is one of the three great liberal professions of our modern times, the ancients, especially the Greeks, made considerable advance. Thescience of medicine, having in view the amelioration of human misery andthe prolongation of life itself, was very early cultivated. It was, indeed, in old times another word for _physics_, --the science ofNature, --and the _physician_ was the observer and expounder of physics. The physician was supposed to be acquainted with the secrets ofNature, --that is, the knowledge of drugs, of poisons, of antidotes tothem, and the way to administer them. He was also supposed to know theprocess of preserving the body after death. Thus Joseph, seventeenhundred years before the birth of Christ, commanded his physician toembalm the body of his father; and the process of embalming was probablyknown to the Egyptians before the period when history begins. Helen, ofTrojan fame, put into wine a drug that "frees man from grief and anger, and causes oblivion of all ills. " Solomon was a great botanist, --a realmwith which the science of medicine is indissolubly connected. The originof Hindu medicine is lost in remote antiquity. The Ayur Veda, writtennine hundred years before Hippocrates was born, sums up the knowledge ofprevious periods relating to obstetric surgery, to general pathology, tothe treatment of insanity, to infantile diseases, to toxicology, topersonal hygiene, and to diseases of the generative functions. 

Thus Hippocrates, the father of European medicine, must have derived hisknowledge not merely from his own observations, but from the writings ofmen unknown to us and from systems practised for an indefinite period. The real founders of Greek medicine are fabled characters, like Herculesand Aesculapius, --that is, benefactors whose fictitious names alonehave descended to us. They are mythical personages, like Hermes andChiron. Twelve hundred years before Christ temples were erected toAesculapius in Greece, the priests of which were really physicians, andthe temples themselves hospitals. In them were practised ritesapparently mysterious, but which modern science calls by the names ofmesmerism, hydropathy, the use of mineral springs, and other essentialelements of empirical science. And these temples were also medicalschools. That of Cos gave birth to Hippocrates, and it was there thathis writings were begun. Pythagoras--for those old Grecian philosopherswere the fathers of all wisdom and knowledge, in mathematics andempirical sciences as well as philosophy itself--studied medicine in theschools of Egypt, Phoenicia, Chaldaea, and India, and came in conflictwith sacerdotal power, which has ever been antagonistic to new ideas inscience. He travelled from town to town as a teacher or lecturer, establishing communities in which _medicine_ as well as _numbers_was taught. 

The greatest name in medical science in ancient or in modern times, theman who did the most to advance it, the greatest medical genius of whomwe have any early record, was Hippocrates, born on the island of Cos, 460 B. C. , of the great Aesculapian family. He received his instructionfrom his father. We know scarcely more of his life than we do of Homerhimself, although he lived in the period of the highest splendor ofAthens. Even his writings, like those of Homer, are thought by some tobe the work of different men. They were translated into Arabic, and wereno slight means of giving an impulse to the Saracenic schools of theMiddle Ages in that science in which the Saracens especially excelled. The Hippocratic collection consists of more than sixty works, which wereheld in the highest estimation by the ancient physicians. Hippocratesintroduced a new era in medicine, which before his time had beenmonopolized by the priests. He carried out a system of severe inductionfrom the observation of facts, and is as truly the creator of theinductive method as Bacon himself. He abhorred theories which could notbe established by facts; he was always open to conviction, and candidlyconfessed his mistakes; he was conscientious in the practice of hisprofession, and valued the success of his art more than silver and gold. The Athenians revered Hippocrates for his benevolence as well as genius. The great principle of his practice was _trust in Nature_; hence he wasaccused of allowing his patients to die. But this principle has manyadvocates among scientific men in our day; and some suppose that thewhole successful practice of Homoeopathy rests on the primal principlewhich Hippocrates advanced, although the philosophy of it claims adistinctly scientific basis in the principle _similia similibuscurantur_. Hippocrates had great skill in diagnosis, by which medicalgenius is most severely tested; his practice was cautious and timid incontrast with that of his contemporaries. He is the author of thecelebrated maxim, "Life is short and art is long. " He divides the causesof disease into two principal classes, --the one comprehending theinfluence of seasons, climates, and other external forces; the otherincluding the effects of food and exercise. To the influence of climatehe attributes the conformation of the body and the disposition of themind; to a vicious system of diet he attributes innumerable forms ofdisease. For more than twenty centuries his pathology was the foundationof all the medical sects. He was well acquainted with the medicinalproperties of drugs, and was the first to assign three periods to thecourse of a malady. He knew but little of surgery, although he was inthe habit of bleeding, and often employed the knife; he was alsoacquainted with cupping, and used violent purgatives. He was not awareof the importance of the pulse, and confounded the veins with thearteries. Hippocrates wrote in the Ionic dialect, and some of his workshave gone through three hundred editions, so highly have they beenvalued. His authority passed away, like that of Aristotle, on therevival of science in Europe. Yet who have been greater ornaments andlights than these two distinguished Greeks?

The school of Alexandria produced eminent physicians, as well asmathematicians, after the glory of Greece had departed. So highly was itesteemed that Galen in the second century, --born in Greece, but famousin the service of Rome, --went there to study, five hundred years afterits foundation. It was distinguished for inquiries into scientificanatomy and physiology, for which Aristotle had prepared the way. Galenwas the Humboldt of his day, and gave great attention to physics. Ineight books he developed the general principles of natural science knownto the Greeks. On the basis of the Aristotelian researches, theAlexandrian physicians carried out extensive inquiries in physiology. Herophilus discovered the fundamental principles of neurology, andadvanced the anatomy of the brain and spinal cord. 

Although the Romans had but little sympathy with science or philosophy, being essentially political and warlike in their turn of mind, yet whenthey had conquered the world, and had turned their attention to arts, medicine received a good share of their attention. The first physiciansin Rome were Greek slaves. Of these was Asclepiades, who enjoyed thefriendship of Cicero. It is from him that the popular medical theoriesas to the "pores" have descended. He was the inventor of theshower-bath. Celsus wrote a work on medicine which takes almost equalrank with the Hippocratic writings. 

Medical science at Rome culminated in Galen, as it did at Athens inHippocrates. Galen was patronized by Marcus Aurelius, and availedhimself of all the knowledge of preceding naturalists and physicians. Hewas born at Pergamos about the year 130 A. D. , where he learned, underable masters, anatomy, pathology, and therapeutics. He finished hisstudies at Alexandria, and came to Rome at the invitation of theEmperor. Like his imperial patron, Galen was one of the brightestornaments of the heathen world, and one of the most learned andaccomplished men of any age. He left five hundred treatises, most ofthem relating to some branch of medical science, which give him the nameof being one of the most voluminous of authors. His celebrity is foundedchiefly on his anatomical and physiological works. He was familiar withpractical anatomy, deriving his knowledge from dissection. Hisobservations about health are practical and useful; he lays great stresson gymnastic exercises, and recommends the pleasures of the chase, thecold bath in hot weather, hot baths for old people, the use of wine, andthree meals a day. The great principles of his practice were thatdisease is to be overcome by that which is contrary to the diseaseitself, --hence the name Allopathy, invented by the founder ofHomoeopathy to designate the fundamental principle of the generalpractice, --and that nature is to be preserved by that which has relationwith nature. His "Commentaries on Hippocrates" served as a treasure ofmedical criticism, from which succeeding annotators borrowed. No oneever set before the medical profession a higher standard than Galenadvanced, and few have more nearly approached it. He did not attachhimself to any particular school, but studied the doctrines of each. Theworks of Galen constituted the last production of ancient Romanmedicine, and from his day the decline in medical science was rapid, until it was revived among the Arabs. 

The physical sciences, it must be confessed, were not carried by theancients to any such length as geometry and astronomy. In physicalgeography they were particularly deficient. Yet even this branch ofknowledge can boast of some eminent names. When men sailed timidly alongthe coasts, and dared not explore distant seas, the true position andcharacteristics of countries could not be ascertained with thedefiniteness that it is at present. But geography was not utterlyneglected in those early times, nor was natural history. 

Herodotus gives us most valuable information respecting the manners andcustoms of Oriental and barbarous nations; and Pliny wrote a NaturalHistory in thirty-seven books, which is compiled from upwards of twothousand volumes, and refers to twenty thousand matters of importance. He was born 23 A. D. , and was fifty-six when the eruption of Vesuviustook place, which caused his death. Pliny cannot be called a scientificgenius in the sense understood by modern savants; nor was he an originalobserver, --his materials being drawn up second-hand, like a modernencyclopaedia. Nor did he evince great judgment in his selection: he hada great love of the marvellous, and his work was often unintelligible;but it remains a wonderful monument of human industry. His NaturalHistory treats of everything in the natural world, --of the heavenlybodies, of the elements, of thunder and lightning, of the winds andseasons, of the changes and phenomena of the earth, of countries andnations, of seas and rivers, of men, animals, birds, fishes, and plants, of minerals and medicines and precious stones, of commerce and the finearts. He is full of errors, but his work is among the most valuableproductions of antiquity. Buffon pronounced his Natural History tocontain an infinity of knowledge in every department of humanoccupation, conveyed in a dress ornate and brilliant. It is a literaryrather than a scientific monument, and as such it is wonderful. Instrict scientific value, it is inferior to the works of modern research;but there are few minds, even in these times, who have directedinquiries to such a variety of subjects as are treated in Pliny'smasterpiece. 

If we would compare the geographical knowledge of the ancients with thatof the moderns, we confess to the immeasurable inferiority ofthe ancients. 

Eratosthenes, though more properly an astronomer, and the mostdistinguished among the ancients, was also a considerable writer ongeography, indeed, the first who treated the subject systematically, although none of his writings have reached us. The improvements hepointed out were applied by Ptolemy himself. His work was a presentationof the geographical knowledge known in his day, so far as geography isthe science of determining the position of places on the earth'ssurface. When Eratosthenes began his labors, in the third century beforeChrist, it was known that the surface of the earth was spherical; heestablished parallels of latitude and longitude, and attempted thedifficult undertaking of measuring the circumference of the globe by theactual measurement of a segment of one of its great circles. 

Hipparchus (beginning of second century before Christ) introduced intogeography a great improvement; namely, the relative situation ofplaces, by the same process that he determined the positions of theheavenly bodies. He also pointed out how longitude might be determinedby observing the eclipses of the sun and moon. This led to theconstruction of maps; but none have reached us except those that wereused to illustrate the geography of Ptolemy. Hipparchus was the firstwho raised geography to the rank of a science. He starved himself todeath, being tired of life. 

Posidonius, who was nearly a century later, determined the arc of ameridian between Rhodes and Alexandria to be a forty-eighth part of thewhole circumference, --an enormous calculation, yet a remarkable one inthe infancy of astronomical science. His writings on history andgeography are preserved only in quotations by Cicero, Strabo, and others. 

Geographical knowledge however was most notably advanced by Strabo, wholived in the Augustan era; although his researches were chiefly confinedto the Roman empire. Strabo was, like Herodotus, a great traveller, andmuch of his geographical information is the result of his ownobservations. It is probable he was much indebted to Eratosthenes, whopreceded him by three centuries. The authorities of Strabo were chieflyGreek, but his work is defective from the imperfect notions which theancients had of astronomy; so that the determination of the earth'sfigure by the measure of latitude and longitude, the essentialfoundation of geographical description, was unknown. The enormousstrides which all forms of physical science have made since thediscovery of America throw all ancient descriptions and investigationsinto the shade, and Strabo appears at as great disadvantage as Pliny orPtolemy; yet the work of Strabo, considering his means, and theimperfect knowledge of the earth's surface and astronomical science inhis day, was really a great achievement. He treats of the form andmagnitude of the earth, and devotes eight books to Europe, six to Asia, and one to Africa. The description of places belongs to Strabo, whosework was accepted as the text-book of the science till the fifteenthcentury, for in his day the Roman empire had been well surveyed. Hemaintained that the earth is spherical, and established the terms_longitude_ and _latitude_, which Eratosthenes had introduced, andcomputed the earth to be one hundred and eighty thousand stadia incircumference, and a degree to be five hundred stadia in length, orsixty-two and a-half Roman miles. His estimates of the length of adegree of latitude were nearly correct; but he made great errors in thedegrees of longitude, making the length of the world from east to westtoo great, which led to the belief in the practicability of a westernpassage to India. He also assigned too great length to theMediterranean, arising from the difficulty of finding the longitude withaccuracy. But it was impossible, with the scientific knowledge of hisday, to avoid errors, and we are surprised that he made so few. 

Whatever may be said of the accuracy of the great geographer ofantiquity, it cannot be denied that he was a man of immense research andlearning. His work in seventeen books is one of the most valuable thathave come down from antiquity, both from the discussions which runthrough it, and the curious facts which can be found nowhere else. It isscarcely fair to estimate the genius of Strabo by the correctness andextent of his geographical knowledge. All men are comparatively ignorantin science, because science is confessedly a progressive study. Thegreat scientific lights of our day may be insignificant, compared withthose who are to arise, if profundity and accuracy of knowledge be madethe test. It is the genius of the ancients, their grasp and power ofmind, their original labors, which we are to consider. 

Thus it would seem that among the ancients, in those departments ofscience which are inductive, there were not sufficient facts, wellestablished, from which to make sound inductions; but in thosedepartments which are deductive, like pure mathematics, and whichrequire great reasoning powers, there were lofty attainments, --whichindeed gave the foundation for the achievements of modern science. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

An exceedingly learned work (London, 1862) on the Astronomy of theAncients, by Sir George Cornewall Lewis, though rather ostentatious inthe parade of authorities, and minute on points which are not of muchconsequence, is worth consulting. Delambre's History of AncientAstronomy has long been a classic, but is richer in materials for ahistory than a history itself. There is a valuable essay in theEncyclopaedia Britannica, which refers to a list of special authors. Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences may also be consulted withprofit. Dunglison's History of Medicine is a standard, giving muchdetailed information, and Leclerc among the French and Speugel among theGermans are esteemed authorities. Strabo's Geography is the mostvaluable of antiquity; see also Polybius: both of these have beentranslated and edited for English readers. 

MATERIAL LIFE OF THE ANCIENTS. 

MECHANICAL AND USEFUL ARTS. 

4000-50 B. C. 

While the fine arts made great progress among the cultivated nations ofantiquity, and with the Greeks reached a refinement that has never sincebeen surpassed, the ancients were far behind modern nations ineverything that has utility for its object. In implements of war, inagricultural instruments, in the variety of manufactures, in machinery, in chemical compounds, in domestic utensils, in grand engineering works, in the comfort of houses, in modes of land-travel and transportation, innavigation, in the multiplication of books, in triumphs over the forcesof Nature, in those discoveries and inventions which abridge the laborsof mankind and bring races into closer intercourse, --especially by suchwonders as are wrought by steam, gas, electricity, gunpowder, themariner's compass, and the art of printing, --the modern world feels itsimmense superiority to all the ages that have gone before. And yet, considering the infancy of science and the youth of nations, more wasaccomplished by the ancients for the comfort and convenience and luxuryof man than we naturally might suppose. 

Egypt was the primeval seat of what may be called material civilization, and many arts and inventions were known there when the rest of the worldwas still in ignorance and barbarism. More than four thousand years agothe Egyptians had chariots of war and most of the military weapons knownafterward to the Greeks, --especially the spear and bow, which were themost effective offensive weapons known to antiquity or the Middle Ages. Some of their warriors were clothed in coats of brass equal to the steelor iron cuirass worn by the Mediaeval knights of chivalry. They had thebattle-axe, the shield, the sword, the javelin, the metal-headed arrow. One of the early Egyptian kings marched against his enemies with sixhundred thousand infantry, twenty thousand cavalry, and twenty-threethousand chariots of war, each drawn by two horses. The saddles andbridles of their horses were nearly as perfect as ours are at thepresent time; the leather they used was dyed in various colors, andadorned with metal edges. The wheels of their chariots were bound withhoops of metal, and had six spokes. Umbrellas to protect from the raysof the sun were held over the heads of their women of rank when theyrode in their highly-decorated chariots. Walls of solid masonry, thickand high, surrounded their principal cities, while an attacking orbesieging army used movable towers. Their disciplined troops advanced tobattle in true military precision, at the sound of the trumpet. 

The public works of Egyptian kings were on a grand scale. They unitedrivers with seas by canals which employed hundreds of thousands ofworkmen. They transported heavy blocks of stone, of immense weight andmagnitude, for their temples, palaces, and tombs. They erected obelisksin single shafts nearly one hundred feet in height, and they engravedthe sides of these obelisks from top to bottom with representations ofwarriors, priests, and captives. They ornamented their vast temples withsculptures which required the hardest metals. Rameses the Great, theSesostris of the Greeks, had a fleet of four hundred vessels in theArabian Gulf, and the rowers wore quilted helmets. His vessels hadsails, which implies the weaving of flax and the twisting of heavyropes; some of his war-galleys were propelled by forty-four oars, andwere one hundred and twenty feet in length. 

Among their domestic utensils the Egyptians used the same kind ofbuckets for wells that we find to-day among the farmhouses of NewEngland. Skilful gardeners were employed in ornamenting grounds and inraising fruits and vegetables. The leather cutters and dressers werefamous for their skill, as well as workers in linen. Most products ofthe land, as well as domestic animals, were sold by weight in carefullyadjusted scales. Instead of coins, money was in rings of gold, silver, and copper. The skill used by the Egyptians in rearing fowls, geese, anddomestic animals greatly surpassed that known to modern farmers. According to Wilkinson, they caught fish in nets equal to the seinesemployed by modern fishermen. Their houses as well as their monumentswere built of brick, and were sometimes four or five stories in height, and secured by bolts on the doors. Locks and keys were also in use, madeof iron; and the doorways were ornamented. Some of the roofs of theirpublic buildings were arched with stone. In their mills for grindingwheat circular stones were used, resembling in form those now employed, generally turned by women, but sometimes so large that asses and muleswere employed in the work. The walls and ceilings of their buildingswere richly painted, the devices being as elaborate as those of theGreeks. Besides town-houses, the rich had villas and gardens, where theyamused themselves with angling and spearing fish in the ponds. Thegardens were laid in walks shaded with trees, and were well watered fromlarge tanks. Vines were trained on trellis-work supported by pillars, and sometimes in the form of bowers. For gathering fruit, baskets wereused somewhat similar to those now employed. Their wine-presses showedconsiderable ingenuity, and after the necessary fermentation the winewas poured into large earthen jars, corresponding to the amphorae of theRomans, and covered with lids made air-tight by resin and bitumen. TheEgyptians had several kinds of wine, highly praised by the ancients; andwine among them was cheap and abundant. Egypt was also renowned fordrugs unknown to other nations, and for beer made of barley, as well aswine. As for fruits, they had the same variety as we have at the presentday, their favorite fruit being dates. "So fond were the Egyptians oftrees and flowers that they exacted a contribution from the nationstributary to them of their rarest plants, so that their gardens bloomedwith flowers of every variety in all seasons of the year. " Wreaths andchaplets were in common use from the earliest antiquity. It was in theirgardens, abounding with vegetables as well as with fruits and flowers, that the Egyptians entertained their friends. 

In Egyptian houses were handsome chairs and fauteuils, stools andcouches, the legs of which were carved in imitation of the feet ofanimals; and these were made of rare woods, inlaid with ivory, andcovered with rich stuffs. Some of the Egyptian chairs were furnishedwith cushions and covered with the skins of leopards and lions; theseats were made of leather, painted with flowers. Footstools weresometimes made of elegant patterns, inlaid with ivory and preciouswoods. Mats were used in the sitting-rooms. The couches were of everyvariety of form, and utilized in some instances as beds. The tables wereround, square, and oblong, and were sometimes made of stone and highlyornamented with carvings. Bronze bedsteads were used by thewealthy classes. 

In their entertainments nothing was omitted by the Egyptians which wouldproduce festivity, --music, songs, dancing, and games of chance. Theguests arrived in chariots or palanquins, borne by servants on foot, whoalso carried parasols over the heads of their masters. Previous toentering the festive chamber water was brought for the feet and hands, the ewers employed being made often of gold and silver, of beautifulform and workmanship. Servants in attendance anointed the head withsweet-scented ointment from alabaster vases, and put around the heads ofthe guests garlands and wreaths in which the lotus was conspicuous; theyalso perfumed the apartments with myrrh and frankincense, obtainedchiefly from Syria. Then wine was brought, and emptied intodrinking-cups of silver or bronze, and even of porcelain, beautifullyengraved, one of which was exclusively reserved for the master of thehouse. While at dinner the party were enlivened with musicalinstruments, the chief of which were the harp, the lyre, the guitar, thetambourine, the pipe, the flute, and the cymbal. Music was looked uponby the Egyptians as an important science, and was diligently studied andhighly prized; the song and the dance were united with the sounds ofmusical instruments. Many of the ornamented vases and other vessels usedby the Egyptians in their banquets were not inferior in elegance of formand artistic finish to those made by the Greeks at a later day. ThePharaoh of the Jewish Exodus had drinking-vessels of gold and silver, exquisitely engraved and ornamented with precious stones. 

Some of the bronze vases found at Thebes and other parts of Egypt showgreat skill in the art of compounding metals, and were highly polished. Their bronze knives and daggers had an elastic spring, as if made ofsteel. Wilkinson expresses his surprise at the porcelain vesselsrecently discovered, as well as admiration of them, especially of theirrich colors and beautiful shapes. There is a porcelain bowl of exquisiteworkmanship in the British Museum inscribed with the name of RamesesII. , proving that the arts of pottery were carried to great perfectiontwo thousand years before Christ. Boxes of elaborate workmanship, madeof precious woods finely carved and inlaid with ivory, are alsopreserved in the different museums of Europe, all dating from a remoteantiquity. These boxes are of every form, with admirably fitting lids, representing fishes, birds, and animals. The rings, bracelets, and otherarticles of jewelry that have been preserved show great facility on thepart of the Egyptians in cutting the hardest stones. The skill displayedin the sculptures on the hard obelisks and granite monuments of Egyptwas remarkable, since they were executed with hardened bronze. 

Glass-blowing was another art in which the Egyptians excelled. Fifteenhundred years before Christ they made ornaments of glass, and glassvessels of large size were used for holding wine. Such was their skillin the manufacture of glass that they counterfeited precious stones witha success unknown to the moderns. We read of a counterfeited emerald sixfeet in length. Counterfeited necklaces were sold at Thebes whichdeceived strangers. The uses to which glass was applied were in themanufacture of bottles, beads, mosaic work, and drinking-cups, and theirdifferent colors show considerable knowledge of chemistry. The art ofcutting and engraving stones was doubtless learned by the Israelites intheir sojourn in Egypt. So perfect were the Egyptians in the arts ofcutting precious stones that they were sought by foreign merchants, andthey furnished an important material in commerce. 

From the earliest times the Egyptians were celebrated for theirmanufacture of linen, which was one of the principal articles ofcommerce; and cotton and woollen cloths as well as linen were woven. Cotton was used not only for articles of dress, but for the covering ofchairs and other kinds of furniture. The great mass of the mummy clothsis of coarse texture; but the "fine linen" spoken of in the Scripturewas as fine as muslin, in some instances containing more than fivehundred threads to an inch, while the finest productions of the looms ofIndia have only one hundred threads to the inch. Not only were thethreads of linen cloth of extraordinary fineness, but the dyes wereequally remarkable, and were unaffected by strong alkalies. Spinning wasprincipally the occupation of women, who also practised the art ofembroidery, in which gold thread was used, supposed to be beaten out bythe hammer; but in the arts of dyeing and embroidery the Egyptians weresurpassed by the Babylonians, who were renowned for their cloths ofvarious colors. 

The manufacture of paper was another art for which the Egyptians werefamous, made from the papyrus, a plant growing in the marsh-land of theNile. The papyrus was also applied to the manufacture of sails, baskets, canoes, and parts of sandals. Some of the papyri, on which ishieroglyphic writing dating from two thousand years before our era, arein good preservation. Sheep-skin parchment also was used for writing. 

The Egyptians were especially skilled in the preparation of leather forsandals, shields, and chairs. The curriers used the same semicircularknife which is now in use. The great consumption of leather created ademand far greater than could be satisfied by the produce of thecountry, and therefore skins from foreign countries were imported aspart of the tribute laid on conquered nations or tribes. 

More numerous than the tanners in Egypt were the potters, among whom thepottery-wheel was known from a remote antiquity, previous to the arrivalof Joseph from Canaan, and long before the foundation of the GreekAthens. Earthenware was used for holding wine, oils, and other liquids;but the finest production of the potter were the vases, covered with avitreous glaze and modelled in every variety of forms, some of whichwere as elegant as those made later by the Greeks, who excelled in thisdepartment of art. 

Carpenters and cabinet-makers formed a large class of Egyptian workmenfor making coffins, boxes, tables, chairs, doors, sofas, and otherarticles of furniture, frequently inlaid with ivory and rare woods. Veneering was known to these workmen, probably arising from the scarcityof wood. The tools used by the carpenters, as appear from therepresentations on the monuments, were the axe, the adze, the hand-saw, the chisel, the drill, and the plane. These tools were made of bronze, with handles of acacia, tamarisk, and other hard woods. The hatchet, bywhich trees were felled, was used by boat-builders. The boxes and otherarticles of furniture were highly ornamented with inlaid work. 

Boat-building in Egypt also employed many workmen. Boats were made ofthe papyrus plant, deal, cedar, and other woods, and were propelled bothby sails and oars. One ship-of-war built for Ptolemy Philopater is saidby ancient writers to have been 478 feet long, to have had forty banksof oars, and to have carried 400 sailors, 4, 000 rowers, and 3, 000soldiers. This is doubtless an exaggeration, but indicates greatprogress in naval architecture. The construction of boats variedaccording to the purpose for which they were intended. They were builtwith ribs as at the present day, with small keels, square sails, withspacious cabins in the centre, and ornamented sterns; there was usuallybut one mast, and the prows terminated in the heads of animals. Theboats of burden were somewhat similar to our barges; the sails weregenerally painted with rich colors. The origin of boat-building wasprobably the raft, and improvement followed improvement until theship-of-war rivalled in size our largest vessels, while Egyptianmerchant vessels penetrated to distant seas, and probably doubled theCape of Good Hope. 

In regard to agriculture the Egyptians were the most advanced of thenations of antiquity, since the fertility of their soil made theoccupation one of primary importance. Irrigation was universallypractised, the Nile furnishing water for innumerable canals. The soilwas often turned up with the hoe rather than the plough. The grain wassown broadcast, and was trodden in by goats. Their plough was verysimple, and was drawn by oxen; the yoke being attached to the horns. Although the soil was rich, manures were frequently used. The chiefcrops were those of wheat, barley, beans, peas, lentils, vetches, lupines, clover, rice, indigo, cotton, lettuce, flax, hemp, cumin, coriander, poppy, melons, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. We do not readof carrots, cabbages, beets, or potatoes, which enter so largely intomodern husbandry. Oil was obtained from the olive, the castor-berry, simsin, and coleseed. Among the principal trees which were cultivatedwere the vine, olive, locust, acacia, date, sycamore, pomegranate, andtamarisk. Grain, after harvest, was trodden out by oxen, and the strawwas used as provender. To protect the fields from inundation dykeswere built. 

All classes in Egypt delighted in the sports of the field, especially inthe hunting of wild animals, in which the arrow was most frequentlyused. Sometimes the animals were caught in nets, in enclosed places nearwater-brooks. The Egyptians also had numerous fish-ponds, since theywere as fond of angling as they were of hunting. Hunting in Egypt was anamusement, not an occupation as among nomadic people. Not only washunting for pleasure a great amusement among Egyptians, but also amongBabylonians and Persians, who coursed the plains with dogs. They usedthe noose or lasso also to catch antelopes and wild cattle, which werehunted with lions; the bow used in the chase was similar to thatemployed in war. All the subjects of the chase were sculptured on themonuments with great spirit and fidelity, especially the stag, the ibex, the porcupine, the wolf, the hare, the lion, the fox, and the giraffe. The camel is not found among the Egyptian sculptures, nor the bear. Ofthe birds found in their sculptures were vultures, eagles, kites, hawks, owls, ravens, larks, swallows, turtle-doves, quails, ostriches, storks, plovers, snipes, geese, and ducks, many of which were taken in nets. TheNile and Lake Birket el Keroun furnished fish in great abundance. Theprofits of the fisheries were enormous, and were farmed out by thegovernment. 

The Egyptians were very fond of ornaments in dress, especially thewomen. They paid great attention to their sandals; they wore their hairlong and plaited, bound round with an ornamented fillet fastened by alotus bud; they wore ear-rings and a profusion of rings on the fingersand bracelets for the arms, made of gold and set with precious stones. The scarabaeus, or sacred beetle, was the adornment of rings andnecklaces; even the men wore necklaces and rings and chains. Both menand women stained the eyelids and brows. Pins and needles were among thearticles of the toilet, usually made of bronze; also metallic mirrorsfinely polished. The men carried canes or walking-sticks, --the wands ofMoses and Aaron. 

As the Egyptians paid great attention to health, physicians were held ingreat repute; and none were permitted to practise but in some particularbranch, such as diseases of the eye, the ear, the head, the teeth, andthe internal maladies. They were paid by government, and were skilled inthe knowledge of drugs. The art of curing diseases originated, accordingto Pliny, in Egypt. Connected with the healing art was the practice ofembalming dead bodies, which was carried to great perfection. 

In elegance of life the Greeks and Romans, however, far surpassed anyof the nations of antiquity, if not in luxury itself, which was confinedto the palaces of kings. In social refinements the Greeks were notbehind any modern nation, as one infers from reading Becker's Charicles. Among the Greeks was the network of trades and professions, as in Parisand London, and a complicated social life in which all the amenitiesknown to the modern world were seen, especially in Athens and Corinthand the Ionian capitals. What could be more polite and courteous thanthe intercourse carried on in Greece among cultivated and famous people?When were symposia more attractive than when the _élite_ of Athens, inthe time of Pericles, feasted and communed together? When was art everbrought in support of luxury to greater perfection? We read of librariesand books and booksellers, of social games, of attractive gardens andvillas, as well as of baths and spectacles, of markets and fora inAthens. The common life of a Pericles or a Cicero differed but littlefrom that of modern men of rank and fortune. 

In describing the various arts which marked the nations of antiquity, wecannot but feel that in a material point of view the ancientcivilization in its important features was as splendid as our own. Inthe decoration of houses, in social entertainments, in cookery, theRomans were our equals. The mosaics, the signet rings, cameos, bracelets, bronzes, vases, couches, banqueting-tables, lamps, coloredglass, potteries, all attest great elegance and beauty. The tables ofthuga root and Delian bronze were as expensive as modern sideboards;wood and ivory were carved in Rome as exquisitely as in Japan and China;mirrors were made of polished silver. Glass-cutters could imitate thecolors of precious stones so well that the Portland vase, from the tombof Alexander Severus, was long considered as a genuine sardonyx. Thepalace of Nero glittered with gold and jewels; perfumes and flowers wereshowered from ivory ceilings. The halls of Heliogabalus were hung withcloth of gold, enriched with jewels; his beds were silver, and histables of gold. A banquet dish of Drusillus weighed five hundred poundsof silver. Tunics were embroidered with the figures of various animals;sandals were garnished with precious stones. Paulina wore jewels, whenshe paid visits, valued at $800, 000. Drinking-cups were engraved withscenes from the poets; libraries were adorned with busts, and presses ofrare woods; sofas were inlaid with tortoise-shell, and covered withgorgeous purple. The Roman grandees rode in gilded chariots, bathed inmarble baths, dined from golden plate, drank from crystal cups, slept onbeds of down, reclined on luxurious couches, wore embroidered robes, and were adorned with precious stones. They ransacked the earth and theseas for rare dishes for their banquets, and ornamented their houseswith carpets from Babylon, onyx cups from Bithynia, marbles fromNumidia, bronzes from Corinth, statues from Athens, --whatever, in short, was precious or rare or curious in the most distant countries. 

What a concentration of material wonders was to be seen in all thecountries that bordered on the Mediterranean, --not merely in Italy andGreece, but in Sicily and Asia Minor, and even in Gaul and Spain! Everycountry was dotted with cities, villas, and farms. Every country wasfamous for oil, or fruit, or wine, or vegetables, or timber, or flocks, or pastures, or horses. More than two hundred and fifty cities or townsin Italy alone are historical, and some were famous. 

The excavations of Pompeii attest great luxury and elegance of life. Cortona, Clusium, Veii, Ancona, Ostia, Praeneste, Antium, Misenum, Baiae, Puteoli, Neapolis, Brundusium, Sybaris, were all celebrated. 

And still more remarkable were the old capitals of Greece, Asia Minor, and Africa. Syracuse was older than Rome, and had a fortress of a mileand a half in length. Carthage, under the emperors, nearly equalled itsancient magnificence. Athens was never more splendid than in the time ofthe Roman Antonines. In spite of successive conquests, there stilltowered upon the Acropolis the most wonderful temple of antiquity, builtof Pentelic marble, and adorned with the sculptures of Phidias. Corinthwas richer and more luxurious than Athens, and possessed the mostvaluable pictures of Greece, as well as the finest statues; a singlestreet for three miles was adorned with costly edifices. And even theislands which were colonized by Greeks were seats of sculpture andpainting, as well as of schools of learning. Still grander were thecities of Asia Minor. Antioch had a street four miles in length, withdouble colonnades; and its baths, theatres, museums, and temples exciteduniversal admiration. At Ephesus was the grand temple of Diana, fourtimes as large as the Parthenon at Athens, covering as much ground asCologne Cathedral, with one hundred and twenty-eight columns sixty feethigh. The Ephesian theatre was capable of seating sixty thousandspectators. Tarsus, the birthplace of Paul, was no mean city; andDamascus, the old capital of Syria, was both beautiful and rich. 

Laodicea was famous for tapestries, Hierapolis for its iron wares, Cybara for its dyes, Sardis for its wines, Smyrna for its beautifulmonuments, Delos for its slave-trade, Cyrene for its horses, Paphos forits temple of Venus, in which were a hundred altars. Seleucia, on theTigris, had a population of four hundred thousand. Caesarea inPalestine, founded by Herod the Great, and the principal seat ofgovernment to the Roman prefects, had a harbor equal in size to therenowned Piraeus, and was secured against the southwest winds by a moleof such massive construction that the blocks of stone, sunk under thewater, were fifty feet in length, eighteen in width, and nine inthickness. The city itself was constructed of polished stone, with anagora, a theatre, a circus, a praetorium, and a temple to Caesar. Tyre, which had resisted for seven months the armies of Alexander, remained tothe fall of the empire a great emporium of trade; it monopolized themanufacture of imperial purple. Sidon was equally celebrated for itsglass and embroidered robes. The Sidonians cast glass mirrors, andimitated precious stones. But the glory of both Tyre and Sidon was inships, which visited all the coasts of the Mediterranean, and evenpenetrated to Britain and India. 

But greater than Tyre or Antioch, or any eastern city, was Alexandria, the capital of Egypt. Egypt even in its decline was still a greatmonarchy; and when the sceptre of three hundred kings passed fromCleopatra the last of the Ptolemies, to Augustus Caesar the conqueror atActium, the military force of Egypt is said to have amounted to sevenhundred thousand men. The annual revenues of this State under thePtolemies amounted to about seventeen million dollars in gold andsilver, besides the produce of the earth. A single feast costPhiladelphus more than half a million of pounds sterling, and he hadaccumulated treasures to the amount of seven hundred and forty thousandtalents, or about eight hundred and sixty million dollars. What Europeanmonarch ever possessed such a sum? The kings of Egypt, even whentributary to Rome, were richer in gold and silver than was Louis XIV. Inthe proudest hour of his life. 

The ground-plan of Alexandria was traced by Alexander himself, but itwas not completed until the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Itscircumference was about fifteen miles; the streets were regular, andcrossed one another at right angles, being wide enough for free passageof both carriages and foot passengers. Its harbor could hold the largestfleet ever congregated; its walls and gates were constructed with allthe skill and strength known to antiquity; its population numbered sixhundred thousand, and all nations were represented in its crowdedstreets. The wealth of the city may be inferred from the fact that inone year sixty-two hundred and fifty talents, or more than six milliondollars, were paid to the public treasury for port dues. The library wasthe largest in the world, numbering over seven hundred thousandvolumes; and this was connected with a museum, a menagerie, a botanicalgarden, and various halls for lectures, altogether forming the mostfamous university in the Roman empire. The inhabitants were chieflyGreek, and had all the cultivated tastes and mercantile thrift of thatquick-witted people. In a commercial point of view Alexandria was themost important city in the world, and its ships whitened every sea. Unlike most commercial cities, it was intellectual, and its schools ofpoetry, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, and theology were morerenowned than even those of Athens during the third and fourthcenturies. Alexandria, could it have been transported in its formersplendor to our modern world, would be a great capital in these times. 

And all these cities were connected with one another and with Rome bymagnificent roads, perfectly straight, and paved with large blocks ofstone. They were originally constructed for military purposes, but wereused by travellers, and on them posts were regularly established; theycrossed valleys upon arches, and penetrated mountains; in Italy, especially, they were great works of art, and connected all theprovinces. There was an uninterrupted communication from the wall ofAntoninus through York, London, Sandwich, Boulogne, Rheims, Lyons, Milan, Rome, Brundusium, Dyrrachium, Byzantium, Ancyra, Tarsus, Antioch, Tyre, Jerusalem, --a distance of thirty-seven hundred and fortymiles; and these roads were divided by milestones, and houses fortravellers erected upon them at points of every five or six miles. 

Commerce under the Roman emperors was not what it now is, but still wasvery considerable, and thus united the various provinces together. Themost remote countries were ransacked to furnish luxuries for Rome; everyyear a fleet of one hundred and twenty vessels sailed from the Red Seafor the islands of the Indian Ocean. But the Mediterranean, with therivers which flowed into it, was the great highway of the ancientnavigator. Navigation by the ancients was even more rapid than in moderntimes before the invention of steam, since oars were employed as well assails. In summer one hundred and sixty-two Roman miles were sailed overin twenty-four hours; this was the average speed, or about seven knots. From the mouth of the Tiber vessels could usually reach Africa in twodays, Massilia in three, and the Pillars of Hercules in seven; fromPuteoli the passage to Alexandria had been effected, with moderatewinds, in nine days. These facts, however, apply only to the summer, andto favorable winds. The Romans did not navigate in the inclementseasons; but in summer the great inland sea was white with sails. Greatfleets brought corn from Gaul, Spain, Sardinia, Africa, Sicily, andEgypt. This was the most important trade; but a considerable commercewas carried on also in ivory, tortoise-shell, cotton and silk fabrics, pearls and precious stones, gums, spices, wines, wool, and oil. Greekand Asiatic wines, especially the Chian and Lesbian, were in greatdemand at Rome. The transport of earthenware, made generally in theGrecian cities, of wild animals for the amphitheatre, of marble, of thespoils of eastern cities, of military engines and stores, and of horses, required very large fleets and thousands of mariners, which probablybelonged chiefly to great maritime cities. These cities with theirdependencies required even more vessels for communication with oneanother than for Rome herself, --the great central object of enterpriseand cupidity. 

In this survey of ancient cities I have not yet spoken of the greatcentral city, --the City of the Seven Hills, to which all the world wastributary. Whatever was costly or rare or beautiful, in Greece or Asiaor Egypt, was appropriated by her citizen kings, since citizens wereprovincial governors. All the great highways, from the Atlantic to theTigris, converged to the capital, --all roads led to Rome; all the shipsof Alexandria and Carthage and Tarentum, and other commercial capitals, were employed in furnishing her with luxuries or necessities. Never wasthere so proud a city as this "Epitome of the Universe. " London, Paris, Vienna, Constantinople, St. Petersburg, Berlin, are great centres offashion and power; but they are rivals, and excel only in some greatdepartment of human enterprise and genius, as in letters, or fashions, or commerce, or manufactures, --centres of influence and power in thecountries of which they are capitals, yet they do not monopolize thewealth and energies of the world. London may contain more people thandid ancient Rome, and may possess more commercial wealth; but Londonrepresents only the British monarchy, not a universal empire. Rome, however, monopolized every thing, and controlled all nations andpeoples; she could shut up the schools of Athens, or disperse the shipsof Alexandria, or regulate the shops of Antioch. What Lyons and Bordeauxare to Paris, Corinth and Babylon were to Rome, --mere dependent cities. Paul, condemned at Jerusalem, stretched out his arms to Rome, and Romeprotected him. The philosophers of Greece were the tutors of Romannobility. The kings of the East resorted to the palaces of MountPalatine for favors or safety; the governors of Syria and Egypt, reigning in the palaces of ancient kings, returned to Rome to squanderthe riches they had accumulated. Senators and nobles took their turn assovereign rulers of all the known countries of the world. The halls inwhich Darius and Alexander and Pericles and Croesus and Solomon andCleopatra had feasted, became the witness of the banquets of Romanproconsuls. Babylon, Thebes, and Athens were only what Delhi andCalcutta are to the English of our day, --cities to be ruled by thedelegates of the imperial Senate. Rome was the only "home" of the proudgovernors who reigned on the banks of the Thames, of the Seine, of theRhine, of the Nile, of the Tigris. After they had enriched themselveswith the spoils of the ancient monarchies they returned to their estatesin Italy, or to their palaces on the Aventine. What a concentration ofworks of art on the hills, and around the Forum, and in the CampusMartius, and other celebrated quarters! There were temples rivallingthose of Athens and Ephesus; baths covering more ground than thePyramids, surrounded with Corinthian columns, and filled with thechoicest treasures ransacked from the cities of Greece and Asia; palacesin comparison with which the Tuileries and Versailles are small;theatres which seated a larger audience than any present publicbuildings in Europe; amphitheatres more extensive and costly thanCologne, Milan, and York Minster cathedrals combined, and seating eighttimes as many spectators as could be crowded into St. Peter's Church;circuses where, it is said, three hundred and eighty-five thousandpersons could witness the games and chariot-races at a time; bridges, still standing, which have furnished models for the most beautiful atParis and London; aqueducts carried over arches one hundred feet inheight, through which flowed the surplus water of distant lakes; drainsof solid masonry in which large boats could float; pillars more than onehundred feet in height, coated with precious marbles or plates of brass, and covered with bas-reliefs; obelisks brought from Egypt; fora andbasilicas connected together, and extending more than three thousandfeet in length, every part of which was filled with "animated busts" ofconquerors, kings, statesmen, poets, publicists, and philosophers;mausoleums greater and more splendid than that Artemisia erected to thememory of her husband; triumphal arches under which marched in statelyprocession the victorious armies of the Eternal City, preceded by thespoils and trophies of conquered empires. 

Such was the proud capital, --a city of palaces, a residence of nobleswho were virtually kings, enriched with the accumulated treasures ofancient civilization. Great were the capitals of Greece and Asia, buthow pre-eminent was Rome, since all were subordinate to her! Howbewildering and bewitching to a traveller must have been the variedwonders of the city! Go where he would, his eye rested on somethingwhich was both a study and a marvel. Let him drive or walk about thesuburbs, --there were villas, tombs, aqueducts looking like our railroadson arches, sculptured monuments, and gardens of surpassing beauty andluxury. Let him approach the walls, --they were great fortificationsextending twenty-one miles in circuit, according to the measurement ofAmmon as adopted by Gibbon, and forty-five miles according to otherauthorities. Let him enter any of the various gates that opened into thecity from the roads which radiated to all parts of Italy and theworld, --they were of monumental brass covered with bas-reliefs, on whichthe victories of generals for a thousand years were commemorated. Lethim pass through any of the crowded thoroughfares, --he saw housestowering scarcely ever less than seventy feet, as tall as those ofEdinburgh in its oldest sections. Most of the houses in which this vastpopulation lived, according to Strabo, possessed pipes which gave anever-failing supply of water from the rivers that flowed into the citythrough the aqueducts and out again through the sewers into the Tiber. Let the traveller walk up the Via Sacra, --that short street, scarcelyhalf a mile in length, --and he passed the Flavian Amphitheatre, theTemple of Venus and Rome, the Arch of Titus, the Temples of Peace, ofVesta, and of Castor, the Forum Romanum, the Basilica Julia, the Archof Severus, the Temple of Saturn, and stood before the majestic ascentto the Capitoline Jupiter, with its magnificent portico and ornamentedpediment, surpassing the façade of any modern church. On his left, as heemerged from beneath the sculptured Arch of Titus, was the PalatineMount, nearly covered by the palace of the Caesars, the magnificentresidences of the higher nobility, and various temples, of which that ofApollo was the most magnificent, built by Augustus, of solid whitemarble from Luna. Here were the palaces of Vaccus, of Flaccus, ofCicero, of Catiline, of Scaurus, of Antoninus, of Clodius, of Agrippa, and of Hortensius. Still on his left, in the valley between the Palatineand the Capitoline, though he could not see it, concealed from view bythe great Temples of Vesta and of Castor, and the still greater edificeknown as the Basilica Julia, was the quarter called the Velabrum, extending to the river, where the Pons Aemilius crossed it, --a lowquarter of narrow streets and tall houses where the rabble lived anddied. On his right, concealed from view by the Aedes Divi Julii and theForum Romanum, was that magnificent series of edifices extending fromthe Temple of Peace to the Temple of Trajan, including the BasilicaPauli, the Forum Julii, the Forum Augusti, the Forum Trajani, theBasilica Ulpia, --a space more than three thousand feet in length, andsix hundred in breadth, almost entirely surrounded by porticos andcolonnades, and filled with statues and pictures, --displaying on thewhole probably the grandest series of public buildings clusteredtogether ever erected, especially if we include the Forum Romanum andthe various temples and basilicas which connected the whole, --a forestof marble pillars and statues. Ascending the steps which led from theTemple of Concord to the Temple of Juno Moneta upon the Arx, or TarpeianRock, on the southwestern summit of the hill, itself one of the mostbeautiful temples in Rome, erected by Camillus on the spot where thehouse of M. Manlius Capitolinus had stood, and one came upon the Romanmint. Near this was the temple erected by Augustus to Jupiter Tonans, and that built by Domitian to Jupiter Custos. But all the sacrededifices which crowned the Capitoline were subordinate to the TemplumJovis Capitolini, standing on a platform of eight thousand square feet, and built of the richest materials. The portico which faced the ViaSacra consisted of three rows of Doric columns, the pediment profuselyornamented with the choicest sculptures, the apex of the roof surmountedby the bronze horses of Lysippus, and the roof itself covered withgilded tiles. The temple had three separate cells, though covered withone roof; in front of each stood colossal statues of the three deitiesto whom it was consecrated. Here were preserved what was most sacred inthe eyes of Romans, and it was itself the richest of all the templesof the city. 

What a beautiful panorama was presented to the view from the summit ofthis consecrated hill, only mounted by a steep ascent of one hundredsteps! To the south was the Via Sacra extending to the Colosseum, andbeyond it the Appia Via, lined with monuments as far as the eye couldreach. A little beyond the fora to the east was the Carinae, afashionable quarter of beautiful shops and houses, and still farther offwere the Baths of Titus, extending from the Carinae to the EsquilineMount. To the northeast were the Viminal and Quirinal hills, after thePalatine the most ancient part of the city, the seat of the Sabinepopulation, abounding in fanes and temples, the most splendid of whichwas the Temple of Quirinus, erected originally to Romulus by Numa, butrebuilt by Augustus, with a double row of columns on each of its sides, seventy-six in number. Near by was the house of Atticus, and the gardensof Sallust in the valley between the Quirinal and Pincian, afterward theproperty of the Emperor. Far back on the Quirinal, near the wall ofServius, were the Baths of Diocletian, and still farther to the east thePretorian Camp established by Tiberius, and included within the wall ofAurelian. To the northeast the eye lighted on the Pincian Hill coveredwith the gardens of Lucullus, to possess which Messalina caused thedeath of Valerius Asiaticus, into whose possession they had fallen. Inthe valley which lay between the fora and the Quirinal was thecelebrated Subura, the quarter of shops, markets, and artificers, --abusy, noisy, vulgar section, not beautiful, but full of life andenterprise and wickedness. The eye then turned to the north, and thewhole length of the Via Flamina was exposed to view, extending from theCapitoline to the Flaminian gate, perfectly straight, the finest streetin Rome, and parallel to the modern Corso; it was the great highway tothe north of Italy. Monuments and temples and palaces lined thiscelebrated street; it was spanned by the triumphal arches of Claudiusand Marcus Aurelius. To the west of it was the Campus Martius, with itsinnumerable objects of interest, --the Baths of Agrippa, the Pantheon, the Thermae Alexandrinae, the Column of Marcus Aurelius, and theMausoleum of Augustus. Beneath the Capitoline on the west, toward theriver, was the Circus Flaminius, the Portico of Octavius, the Theatre ofBalbus, and the Theatre of Pompey, where forty thousand spectators wereaccommodated. Stretching beyond the Thermae Alexandrinae, near thePantheon, was the magnificent bridge which crossed the Tiber, built byHadrian when he founded his Mausoleum, to which it led, still standingunder the name of the Ponte S. Angelo. The eye took in eight or ninebridges over the Tiber, some of wood, but generally of stone, ofbeautiful masonry, and crowned with statues. In the valley between thePalatine and the Aventine, was the great Circus Maximus, founded by theearly Tarquin; it was the largest open space, inclosed by walls andporticos, in the city; it seated three hundred and eighty-five thousandspectators. How vast a city, which could spare nearly four hundredthousand of its population to see the chariot-races! Beyond was theAventine itself. This also was rich in legendary monuments and in thepalaces of the great, though originally a plebeian quarter. Here dweltTrajan before he was emperor, and Ennius the poet, and Paula the friendof Saint Jerome. Beneath the Aventine, and a little south of the CircusMaximus, were the great Baths of Caracalla, the ruins of which, next tothose of the Colosseum, made on my mind the strongest impression of allI saw that pertains to antiquity, though these were not so large asthose of Diocletian. The view south took in the Caelian Hill, theancient residence of Tullus Hostilius. This hill was the residence ofmany distinguished Romans, among whose palaces was that of ClaudiusCentumalus, which towered ten or twelve stories into the air. Butgrander than any of these palaces was that of Plautius Lateranus, onwhose site now stands the basilica of St. John Lateran, --the gift ofConstantine to the bishop of Rome, --one of the most ancient of theChristian churches, in which, for fifteen hundred years, daily serviceshave been performed. 

Such were the objects of interest and grandeur that met the eye as itwas turned toward the various quarters of the city, which containedbetween three and four millions of people. Lipsius estimates fourmillions as the population, including slaves, women, children, andstrangers. Though this estimate is regarded as too large by Merivale andothers, yet how enormous must have been the number of the people whenthere were nine thousand and twenty-five baths, and when those ofDiocletian could accommodate thirty-two hundred bathers at a time! Thewooden theatre of Scaurus contained eighty thousand seats; that ofMarcellus twenty thousand; the Colosseum would seat eighty-seventhousand persons, and give standing space for twenty-two thousand more. The Circus Maximus would hold three hundred and eighty-five thousandspectators. If only one person out of four of the free populationwitnessed the games and spectacles at a time, we thus must have fourmillions of people altogether in the city. The Aurelian walls are nowonly thirteen miles in circumference, but Lipsius estimates theoriginal circumference at forty-five miles, and Vopiscus at nearlyfifty. The diameter of the city must have been eleven miles, sinceStrabo tells us that the actual limit of Rome was at a place between thefifth and sixth milestone from the column of Trajan in the Forum, --thecentral and most conspicuous object in the city except the capitol. 

Modern writers, taking London and Paris for their measure of materialcivilization, seem unwilling to admit that Rome could have reached sucha pitch of glory and wealth and power. To him who stands within thenarrow limits of the Forum, as it now appears, it seems incredible thatit could have been the centre of a much larger city than Europe can nowboast of. Grave historians are loath to compromise their dignity andcharacter for truth by admitting statements which seem, to men oflimited views, to be fabulous, and which transcend modern experience. But we should remember that most of the monuments of ancient Rome haveentirely disappeared. Nothing remains of the Palace of the Caesars, which nearly covered the Palatine Hill; little of the fora which, connected together, covered a space twice as large as that inclosed bythe palaces of the Louvre and Tuileries, with all their galleries andcourts; almost nothing of the glories of the Capitoline Hill; and littlecomparatively of those Thermae which were a mile in circuit. But whatdoes remain attests an unparalleled grandeur, --the broken pillars of theForum; the lofty columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius; the Pantheon, lifting its spacious dome two hundred feet into the air; the merevestibule of the Baths of Agrippa; the triumphal arches of Titus andTrajan and Constantine; the bridges which span the Tiber; the aqueductswhich cross the Campagna; the Cloaca Maxima, which drained the marshesand lakes of the infant city; and, above all, the Colosseum. What gloryand shame are associated with that single edifice! That alone, ifnothing else remained of Pagan antiquity, would indicate a grandeur anda folly such as cannot now be seen on earth. It reveals a wonderfulskill in masonry and great architectural strength; it shows the wealthand resources of rulers who must have had the treasures of the world attheir command; it shows the restless passions of the people forexcitement, and the necessity on the part of government of yielding tothis taste. What leisure and indolence marked a city which could affordto give up so much time to the demoralizing sports! What facilities fortransportation were afforded, when so many wild beasts could be broughtto the capitol from the central parts of Africa without calling outunusual comment! How imperious a populace that compels the government toprovide such expensive pleasures! The games of Titus, on the dedicationof the Colosseum, lasted one hundred days, and five thousand wild beastswere slaughtered in the arena. The number of the gladiators who foughtsurpasses belief. At the triumph of Trajan over the Dacians, tenthousand gladiators were exhibited, and the Emperor himself presidedunder a gilded canopy, surrounded by thousands of his lords. Underneaththe arena, strewed with yellow sand and sawdust, was a solid pavement, so closely cemented that it could be turned into an artificial lake, onwhich naval battles were fought. But it was the conflict of gladiatorswhich most deeply stimulated the passions of the people. The bencheswere crowded with eager spectators, and the voices of one hundredthousand were raised in triumph or rage as the miserable victims sankexhausted in the bloody sport. 

Yet it was not the gladiatorial sports of the amphitheatre which moststrikingly attested the greatness and splendor of the city; nor thepalaces, in which as many as four hundred slaves were sometimesmaintained as domestic servants for a single establishment, --twelvehundred in number according to the lowest estimate, but probably fivetimes as numerous, since every senator, every knight, and every rich manwas proud to possess a residence which would attract attention; nor thetemples, which numbered four hundred and twenty-four, most of whichwere of marble, filled with statues, the contributions of ages, andsurrounded with groves; nor the fora and basilicas, with their porticos, statues, and pictures, covering more space than any cluster of publicbuildings in Europe, a mile and a half in circuit; nor the baths, nearlyas large, still more completely filled with works of art; nor the CircusMaximus, where more people witnessed the chariot races at a time thanare nightly assembled in all the places of public amusement in Paris, London, and New York combined, --more than could be seated in all thecathedrals of England and France. It is not these which mostimpressively make us feel the amazing grandeur of the old capital of theworld. The triumphal processions of the conquering generals were stillmore exciting to behold, for these appealed more directly to theimagination, and excited those passions which urged the Romans to acareer of conquest from generation to generation. No military review ofmodern times equalled those gorgeous triumphs, even as no scenicperformance compares with the gladiatorial shows; the sun has nevershone upon any human assemblage so magnificent and so grand, so imposingand yet so guilty. Not only were displayed the spoils of conqueredkingdoms, and the triumphal cars of generals, but the whole militarystrength of the capital; an army of one hundred thousand men, flushedwith victory, followed the gorgeous procession of nobles and princes. The triumph of Aurelian, on his return from the East, gives us some ideaof the grandeur of that ovation to conquerors. "The pomp was opened bytwenty elephants, four royal tigers, and two hundred of the most curiousanimals from every climate, north, south, east, and west. These werefollowed by sixteen hundred gladiators, devoted to the cruel amusementof the amphitheatre. Then were displayed the arms and ensigns ofconquered nations, the plate and wardrobe of the Syrian queen. Thenambassadors from all parts of the earth, all remarkable in their richdresses, with their crowns and offerings. Then the captives taken in thevarious wars, --Goths, Vandals, Samaritans, Alemanni, Franks, Gauls, Syrians, and Egyptians, each marked by their national costume. Then theQueen of the East, the beautiful Zenobia, confined by fetters of gold, and fainting under the weight of jewels, preceding the beautiful chariotin which she had hoped to enter the gates of Rome. Then the chariot ofthe Persian king. Then the triumphal car of Aurelian himself, drawn byelephants. Finally the most illustrious of the Senate and the armyclosed the solemn procession, amid the acclamations of the people, andthe sound of musical instruments. It took from dawn of day until theninth hour for the procession to pass to the capitol; and the festivalwas protracted by theatrical representations, the games of the circus, the hunting of wild beasts, combats of gladiators, and navalengagements. "

Such were the material wonders of the ancient civilizations, culminatingin their latest and greatest representative, and displayed in its proudcapital, --nearly all of which became later the spoil of barbarians, whoruthlessly marched over the classic world, having no regard for itschoicest treasures. Those old glories are now indeed succeeded by aprouder civilization, --the work of nobler races after sixteen hundredyears of new experiments. But why such an eclipse of the glory of man?The reason is apparent if we survey the internal state of the ancientempires, especially of society as it existed under the Roman emperors. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Titus Livius, Pausanias, on the geography and resources of the ancient nations. See anable chapter on Mediterranean prosperity in Louis Napoleon's History ofCaesar. Smith's Dictionary of Ancient Geography is exhaustive. Wilkinsonhas revealed the civilization of ancient Egypt. Professor Becker'sHandbook of Rome, as well as his Gallus and Charicles shed much light onmanners and customs. Dyer's History of the City of Rome is the fullestdescription of its wonders that I have read. Niebuhr, Bunsen, andPlatner, among the Germans, have written learnedly, but also havecreated much doubt about things supposed to be established. Mommsen, Curtius, and Merivale are also great authorities. Nor are themagnificent chapters of Gibbon to be disregarded by the student of Romanhistory, notwithstanding his elaborate and inflated style. 

THE MILITARY ART. 

WEAPONS, ENGINES, DISCIPLINE. 

1300-100 A. D. 

In surveying the nations of antiquity nothing impresses us more forciblythan the perpetual wars in which they were engaged, and the fact thatmilitary art and science seem to have been among the earliest thingsthat occupied the thoughts of men. Personal strife and tribal warfareare coeval with the earliest movements of humanity. 

The first recorded act in the Hebraic history of the world after theexpulsion of Adam from Paradise is a murder. In patriarchal times weread of contentions between the servants of Abraham and of Lot, andbetween the petty kings and chieftains of the countries where theyjourneyed. Long before Abraham was born, violence was the greatest evilwith which the world was afflicted. Before his day mighty conquerorsarose and founded kingdoms. Babylon and Egypt were powerful militaryStates in pre-historic times. Wars more or less fierce were waged beforenations were civilized. The earliest known art, therefore, was the artof destruction, growing out of the wicked and brutal passions ofmen, --envy and hatred, ambition and revenge; in a word, selfishness. Race fought with race, kingdom with kingdom, and city with city, in thevery infancy of society. In secular history the greatest names are thoseof conquerors and heroes in every land under the sun; and it was byconquerors that those grand monuments were erected the ruins of whichastonish every traveller, especially in Egypt and Assyria. 

But wars in the earliest ages were not carried on scientifically, oreven as an art. There was little to mark them except brute force. Armieswere scarcely more than great collections of armed men, led by kings, either to protect their States from hostile invaders, or to acquire newterritory, or to exact tribute from weaker nations. We do not read ofmilitary discipline, or of skill in strategy and tactics. A battle waslost or won by individual prowess; it was generally a hand-to-handencounter, in which the strongest and bravest gained the victory. 

One of the earliest descriptions of war is to be found in the Iliad ofHomer, where individual heroes fought with one another, armed with thesword, the lance, and the javelin, protected by shields, helmets, andcoats of mail. They fought on foot, or from chariots, which were in usebefore cavalry. The war-horse was driven before he was ridden in Egyptor Palestine; but the Aryan barbarians in their invasion rode theirhorses, and fought on horseback, like the modern Cossacks. 

Until the Greeks became familiar with war as an art, armies were usuallyvery large, as if a great part of the population of a country followedthe sovereign who commanded them. Rameses the Great, the Sesostris ofthe Greeks, according to Herodotus led nearly a million of men in hisexpeditions. He was the most noted of ancient warriors until Cyrus thePersian arose, and was nearly contemporaneous with Moses. The Trojan waris supposed to have taken place during the period when the Israeliteswere subject to the Ammonites; and about the time that the Philistineswere defeated by David, the Greeks were forced by war to found coloniesin Asia Minor. 

After authentic history begins, war is the main subject with which ithas to deal; and for three thousand years history is simply the recordof the feats of warriors and generals, of their conquests and defeats, of the rise and fall of kingdoms and cities, of the growth or decline ofmilitary virtues. No arts of civilization have preserved nations fromthe sword of the conqueror, and war has been both the amusement and thebusiness of kings. From the earliest ages, the most valued laurels havebeen bestowed for success in war, and military fame has eclipsed allother glories. The cry of the mourner has been unheeded in the blaze ofconquest; even the aspirations of the poet and the labors of the artisthave been as nought, except to celebrate the achievements of heroes. 

It is interesting then to inquire how far the ancients advanced in thearts of war, which include military weapons, movements, the structure ofcamps, the discipline of armies, the construction of ships and ofmilitary engines, and the concentration and management of forces under asingle man. What was that mighty machinery by which nations weresubdued, or rose to greatness on the ruin of States and Empires? Theconquests of Rameses, of David, of Nebuchadnezzar, of Cyrus, ofAlexander, of Hannibal, of Caesar, and other heroes are still thesubjects of contemplation among statesmen and schoolboys. The exploitsof heroes are the pith of history. 

The art of war must have made great progress in the infancy ofcivilization, when bodily energies were most highly valued, when menwere fierce, hardy, strong, and uncorrupted by luxury; when merephysical forces gave law alike to the rich and the poor, to the learnedand the ignorant; and when the avenue to power led across the fieldof battle. 

We must go to Egypt for the earliest development of art and science inall departments; and so far as the art of war consists in theorganization of physical forces for conquest or defence, under thedirection of a single man, it was in Egypt that this was firstaccomplished, about seventeen hundred years before Christ, aschronologists think, by Rameses the Great. 

This monarch, according to Wilkinson, the greatest and most ambitious ofthe Egyptian kings, to whom the Greeks gave the name of Sesostris, showed great ability in collecting together large bodies of hissubjects, and controlling them by a rigid military discipline. Heaccustomed them to heat and cold, hunger and thirst, fatigue, andexposure to danger. With bodies thus rendered vigorous by labor anddiscipline, they were fitted for distant expeditions. Rameses firstsubdued the Arabians and Libyans, and annexed them to the Egyptianmonarchy. While he inured his subjects to fatigue and danger, he wascareful to win their affections by acts of munificence and clemency. Hethen made his preparations for the conquest of the known world, andcollected an army, according to Diodorus Siculus, of six hundredthousand infantry, twenty-four thousand cavalry, and twenty-seventhousand war-chariots. It is difficult to understand how a small countrylike Egypt could furnish such an immense force. If the account of thehistorian be not exaggerated, Rameses must have enrolled the conqueredLibyans and Arabians and other nations among his soldiers. He subjectedhis army to a stern discipline and an uncomplaining obedience toorders, --the first principle in the science of war, which no successfulgeneral in the world's history has ever disregarded, from Alexander toNapoleon. With this powerful army his march was irresistible. Ethiopiawas first subdued, and an exaction made from the conquered of a tributeof gold, ivory, and ebony. In those ancient times a conquering army didnot resettle or colonize the territories it had subdued, but wascontented with overrunning the country and exacting tribute from thepeople. Such was the nature of the Babylonian and Persian conquests. After overrunning Ethiopia and some other countries near the Straits ofBabelmandeb, the conqueror proceeded to India, which he overran beyondthe Ganges, and ascended the high table-land of Central Asia; thenproceeding westward, he entered Europe, nor halted in his devastatingcareer until he reached Thrace. From thence he marched to Asia Minor, conquering as he went, and invaded Assyria, seating himself on thethrone of Ninus and Semiramis. Then, laden with booty from the Easternworld, he returned to Egypt after an absence of thirty years andconsolidated his empire, building those vast structures at Thebes, whichfor magnitude have never been surpassed. Thus was Egypt enriched withthe spoil of nations, and made formidable for a thousand years. Rameseswas the last of the Pharaohs who pursued the phantom of military renown, or sought glory in distant expeditions. 

We are in ignorance as to the details of the conquests and the generalswho served under Rameses. There is doubtless some exaggeration in thestatements of the Greek historian, but there is no doubt that thismonarch was among the first of the great conquerors to establish aregular army, and to provide a fleet to co-operate with his land forces. 

The strength of the Egyptian army consisted mainly in archers. Theyfought either on foot or in chariots; cavalry was not much relied upon, although mention is frequently made of horsemen as well as of chariots. The Egyptian infantry was divided into regiments, and Wilkinson tells usthat they were named according to the arms they bore, --as "bowmen, spearmen, swordsmen, clubmen, slingers. " These regiments were dividedinto battalions and companies, commanded by their captains. Theinfantry, heavily armed with spears and shields, formed a phalanx almostimpenetrable of twelve men deep, who marched with great regularity. Eachcompany had its standard-bearer, who was an officer of approved valor;the royal standards were carried by the royal princes or by persons ofthe royal household. The troops were summoned by the sound of trumpet, and also by the drum, both used from the earliest period. The offensiveweapons were the bow, the spear, the javelin, the sword, the club, ormace, and the battle-axe. The chief defensive weapon was the shield, about three feet in length, covered with bull's hide, having the hairoutward and studded with nails. The shape of the bow was not essentiallydifferent from that used in Europe in the Middle Ages, being about fivefeet and a half long, round, and tapering at the ends; the bowstring wasof hide or catgut. The arrows of the archers averaged about thirtyinches in length, and were made of wood or reeds, tipped with a metalpoint, or flint, and winged with feathers. Each bowman was furnishedwith a plentiful supply of arrows. When arrows were exhausted, thebowman fought with swords and battle-axes; his defensive armor wasconfined chiefly to the helmet and a sort of quilted coat. The spear wasof wood, with a metal head, was about five or six feet in length, andused for thrusting. The javelin was lighter, for throwing. The sling wasa thong of plaited leather, broad in the middle, with a loop at the end. The sword was straight and short, between two and three feet in length, with a double edge, tapering to a sharp point, and used for either cutor thrust; the handle was frequently inlaid with precious stones. Themetal used in the manufacture of swords and spear-heads was bronze, hardened by a process unknown to us. The battle-axe had a handle abouttwo-and a-half feet in length, and was less ornamented than otherweapons. The cuirass, or coat of armor, was made of horizontal rows ofmetal plate, about an inch in breadth, well secured together by bronzepieces. The Egyptian chariot held two persons, --the charioteer, and thewarrior armed with his bow-and-arrow and wearing a cuirass, or coat ofmail. The warrior carried also other weapons for close encounter, whenhe should descend from his chariot to fight on foot. The chariot was ofwood, the body of which was light, strengthened with metal; the pole wasinserted in the axle; the two wheels usually had six spokes, butsometimes only four; the wheel revolved on the axle, and was secured bya lynch-pin. The leathern harness and housings were simple, and thebridles, or reins, were nearly the same as are now in use. 

"The Egyptian chariot corps, like the infantry, " says Wilkinson, "weredivided into light and heavy troops, both armed with bows, --the formerchiefly employed in harassing the enemy with missiles; the latter calledupon to break through opposing masses of infantry. " The infantry, whenemployed in the assault of fortified towns, were provided with shields, under cover of which they made their approaches to the place to beattacked. In their attack they advanced under cover of the arrows of thebowmen, and instantly applied the scaling-ladder to the ramparts. Thetestudo, a wooden shelter, was also used, large enough to containseveral men. The battering-ram and movable towers resembled those of theRomans a thousand years later. 

It would thus appear that the ancient Egyptians, in the discipline ofarmies, in military weapons offensive and defensive, in chariots andhorses, and in military engines for the reduction of fortified towns, were scarcely improved upon by the Greeks and Romans, or by theEuropeans in the Middle Ages. Yet the Egyptians were an ingenious ratherthan a warlike people, fond of peace, and devoted to agriculturalpursuits. 

More warlike than they were the Assyrians and the Persians, although wefail to discover any essential difference in the organization of armies, or in military weapons. The great difference between the Persian and theEgyptian armies was in the use of cavalry. From their earliestsettlements the Persians were skilful horsemen, and these formed theguard of their kings. Under Cyrus, the Persians became the masters ofthe world, but they rapidly degenerated, not being able to withstand theluxurious life of the conquered Babylonians; and when they weremarshalled against the Greeks, and especially against the disciplinedforces of Alexander, they were disgracefully routed in spite of theirenormous armies, which could not be handled, and became mere mobs ofarmed men. 

The art of war made a great advance under the Greeks, although we donot notice any striking superiority of arms over the Eastern armies ledby Sesostris or Cyrus. The Greeks were among the most warlike of all theraces of men; they had a genius for war. The Grecian States were engagedin perpetual strifes with one another, and constant contention developedmilitary strength; and yet the Greeks, until the time of Philip, had nostanding armies. They relied for offence and defence on the volunteermilitia, which was animated by intense patriotic ideas. All armies inthe nature of things are more or less machines, moved by one commandingwill; but the Greek armies owed much of their success to the individualbravery of their troops, who were citizens of States underconstitutional forms of government. 

The most remarkable improvement in the art of war was made by theSpartans, who, in addition to their strict military discipline, introduced the _phalanx_, --files of picked soldiers, eight deep, heavilyarmed with spear, sword, and shield, placed in ranks of eight, atintervals of about six feet apart. This phalanx of eight files and eightranks, --sixty-four men, --closely locked when the soldiers received oradvanced to attack, proved nearly impregnable and irresistible. Itcombined solidity and the power of resistance with mobility. The pickedmen were placed in the front and rear; for in skilful evolutions thefront often became the rear, and the rear became the front. Armed withspears projecting beyond the front, and with their shields lockedtogether, the phalanx advanced to meet the enemy with regular step, andto the cadence of music; if beaten, it retired in perfect order. Afterbattle, each soldier was obliged to produce his shield as a proof thathe had fought or retired as a soldier should. The Athenian phalanx wasless solid than that of Sparta, --Miltiades having decreased the depth tofour ranks, in order to lengthen his front, --but was more efficient in acharge against the enemy. The Spartan phalanx was stronger in defence, the Athenian more agile in attack. The attack was nearly irresistible, as the soldiers advanced with accelerated motion, corresponding to thedouble-quick time of modern warfare. This was first introduced byMiltiades at Marathon. 

Philip of Macedon adopted the Spartan phalanx, but made it sixteen deep, which gave it greater solidity, and rendered it still more effective. Heintroduced the large oval buckler and a larger and heavier spear. Whenthe phalanx was closed for action, each man occupied but three squarefeet of ground: as the pikes were twenty-four feet in length, andprojected eighteen feet beyond the front, the formation presented anarray of points such as had never been seen before. The greatestimprovement effected by Philip, however, was the adoption of standingarmies instead of the militia heretofore in use throughout the GrecianStates. He also attached great importance to his cavalry, which wascomposed of the flower of the nobility, about twelve hundred in number, all covered with defensive armor; these he formed into eight squadrons, and constituted them his body-guard. The usual formation of the regularcavalry was in the form of a wedge, so as to penetrate and break theenemy's line, --a manoeuvre probably learned from Epaminondas of Thebes, a great master in the art of war, who defeated the Spartan phalanx byforming his columns upon a front less than their depth, thus enablinghim to direct his whole force against a given point. By these tactics hegained the great victory at Leuctra, as Napoleon likewise prevailed overthe Austrians in his Italian campaign. In like manner Philip's sonAlexander, following the example of Epaminondas, concentrated his forcesupon the enemy's centre, and easily defeated the Persian hosts bycreating a panic. There was no resisting a phalanx sixteen files deep, with their projecting pikes, aided by the heavily armed cavalry, allunder the strictest military discipline and animated by patriotic ardor. This terrible Macedonian phalanx was a great advance over the earlyarmies of the Greeks, who fought without discipline in a hand to handencounter, with swords and spears, after exhausting their arrows. Theyhad learned two things of great importance, --a rigid discipline, and aconcentration of forces which made an army a machine. Under Alexander, the grand phalanx consisted of 16, 384 men, made up of four divisions andsmaller phalanxes. 

In Roman armies we see a still further advance in the military art, asit existed in the time of Augustus, which required centuries to perfect. The hardy physique and stern nature of the Romans, exercised andcontrolled by their organizing genius, evolved the Roman legion, whichlearned to resist the impetuous assaults of the elephants of the East, the phalanx of the Greeks, and the Teutonic barbarians. The indomitablecourage of the Romans, trained under severest discipline and directed bymeans of an organization divided and subdivided and officered almost asperfectly as our modern corps and divisions and brigades and regimentsand companies and squads, marched over and subdued the world. 

The Roman soldier was trained to march twenty miles a day, under aburden of eighty pounds; to swim rivers, to climb mountains, topenetrate forests, and to encounter every kind of danger. He was taughtthat his destiny was to die in battle: death was at once his duty andhis glory. He enlisted in the army with little hope of revisiting hishome; he crossed seas and deserts and forests with the idea of spendinghis life in the service of his country. His pay was only a denariusdaily, equal to about sixteen cents of our money. Marriage for him wasdiscouraged or forbidden. However insignificant the legionary was as aman, he gained importance from the great body with which he wasidentified: he was both the servant and the master of the State. He hadan intense _esprit de corps_; he was bound up in the glory of hislegion. Both religion and honor bound him to his standards; the goldeneagle which glittered in his front was the object of his fondestdevotion. Nor was it possible to escape the penalty of cowardice ortreachery or disobedience; he could be chastised with blows by hiscenturion, and his general could doom him to death. Never was theseverity of military discipline relaxed; military exercises wereincessant, in winter as in summer. In the midst of peace the Romantroops were familiarized with the practice of war. 

It was the spirit which animated the Roman legions, and the disciplineto which they were inured that gave them their irresistible strength. When we remember that they had not our firearms, we can but be surprisedat their efficiency, especially in taking strongly fortified cities. Jerusalem was defended by a triple wall, the most elaboratefortifications, and twenty-four thousand soldiers, besides the aidreceived from the citizens; and yet it fell in little more than fourmonths before an army of eighty thousand under Titus. How great musthave been the military science that could reduce a place of suchstrength, in so short a time, without the aid of other artillery thanthe ancient catapult and battering-ram! Whether the military science ofthe Romans was superior or inferior to our own, no one can question thatit was as perfect as it could be, lacking any knowledge of gunpowder; wesurpass them only in the application of this great invention, especiallyin artillery. There can be no doubt that a Roman army was superior to afeudal army in the brightest days of chivalry. The world has produced nogenerals greater than Caesar, Pompey, Sulla, and Marius. No armies everwon greater victories over superior numbers than the Roman, and noarmies of their size ever retained in submission so vast an empire, andfor so long a time. At no period in the history of the Roman empire werethe armies so large as those sustained by France in time of peace. Twohundred thousand legionaries, and as many more auxiliaries, controlleddiverse nations and powerful monarchies. The single province of Syriaonce boasted of a military force equal in the number of soldiers to thatwielded by the Emperor Tiberius. Twenty-five Roman legions made theconquest of the world, and retained that conquest for five hundredyears. The self-sustained energy of Caesar in Gaul puts to the blushthe efforts of all modern generals, unless we except Frederic II. , Marlborough, Napoleon, Wellington, Grant, Sherman, and a few other greatgeniuses whom warlike crises have developed; nor is there a bettertext-book on the art of war than that furnished by Caesar himself in hisCommentaries. The great victories of the Romans over barbarians, overGauls, over Carthaginians, over Greeks, over Syrians, over Persians, were not the result of a short-lived enthusiasm, like those of Attilaand Tamerlane, but extended over a thousand years. 

The Romans were essentially military in all their tastes and habits. Luxurious senators and nobles showed the greatest courage and skill inthe most difficult campaigns. Antony, Caesar, Pompey, and Lucullus athome were enervated and self-indulgent, but at the head of their legionsthey were capable of any privation and fatigue. 

The Roman legion was a most perfect organization, a great mechanicalforce, and could sustain furious attacks after vigor, patriotism, andpublic spirit had fled. For three hundred years a vast empire wassustained by mechanism alone. The legion is coeval with the foundationof Rome, but the number of the troops of which it was composed varied atdifferent periods. It rarely exceeded six thousand men; Gibbon estimatesthe number at six thousand eight hundred and twenty-six men. For manycenturies it was composed exclusively of Roman citizens. Up to the yearB. C. 107, no one was permitted to serve among the regular troops exceptthose who were regarded as possessing a strong personal interest in thestability of the republic. Marius admitted all orders of citizens; andafter the close of the Social War, B. C. 87, the whole free population ofItaly was allowed to serve in the regular army. Claudius incorporatedwith the legion the vanquished Goths, and after him the barbariansfilled up the ranks on account of the degeneracy of the times. Butduring the period when the Romans were conquering the world everycitizen was trained to arms, like the Germans of the present day, andwas liable to be called upon to serve in the armies. In the early age ofthe republic the legion was disbanded as soon as the special service wasperformed, and was in all essential respects a militia. For threecenturies we have no record of a Roman army wintering in the field; butwhen Southern Italy became the seat of war, and especially when Rome wasmenaced by foreign enemies, and still more when a protracted foreignservice became inevitable, the same soldiers remained in activity forseveral years. Gradually the distinction between the soldier and thecivilian was entirely obliterated. The distant wars of therepublic--such as the prolonged operations of Caesar in Gaul, and thecivil contests--made a standing army a necessity. During the civil warsbetween Caesar and Pompey the legions were forty in number; underAugustus, but twenty-five. Alexander Severus increased them tothirty-two. This was the standing force of the empire, --from one hundredand fifty thousand to two hundred and forty thousand men, stationed inthe various provinces. 

The main dependence of the legion was on the infantry, which wore heavyarmor consisting of helmet, breastplate, greaves on the right leg, andon the left arm a buckler, four feet in length and two and a half inwidth. The helmet was originally made of leather or untanned skin, strengthened and adorned by bronze or gold, and surmounted by a crestwhich was often of horse-hair, and so made as to give an imposing look. The crests served not only for ornament, but to distinguish thedifferent centurions. The breastplate, or cuirass, was generally made ofmetal, and sometimes was highly ornamented. Chain-mail was also used. The greaves were of bronze or brass, with a lining of leather or felt, and reached above the knees. The shield worn by the heavy-armed infantrywas not round, like that of the early Greeks, but oval or oblong, adapted to the shape of the body, such as was adopted by Philip andAlexander, and was made of wood or wicker-work. The weapons were a lightspear, a pilum, or javelin, over six feet long, terminated by a steelpoint, and a short cut-and-thrust sword with a double edge. Besides thearmor and weapons of the legionary, he usually carried on the marchesprovisions for two weeks, three or four stakes used in forming thepalisade of the camp, besides various tools, --altogether a burden ofsixty or eighty pounds per man. The legion was drawn up eight deep, andthree feet intervened between rank and file, which disposition gavegreat activity, and made it superior to the Macedonian phalanx, thestrength of which depended on sixteen ranks of long pikes wedgedtogether. The general period of service for the infantry was twentyyears, after which the soldier received a discharge, together with abounty in money or land. 

The cavalry attached to each legion consisted of three hundred men, whooriginally were selected from the leading men in the State. They weremounted at the expense of the State, and formed a distinct order. Thecavalry was divided into ten squadrons. To each legion was attached alsoa train of ten military engines of the largest size, and fifty-five ofthe smaller, --all of which discharged stones and darts with greateffect. This train corresponded with our artillery. 

The Roman legion--whether it was composed of four thousand men, as inthe early ages of the republic, or six thousand, as in the time ofAugustus--was divided into ten cohorts, and each cohort was composed ofHastati (raw troops), Principes (trained troops), Triarii (veterans), and Velites (light troops, or skirmishers). The soldiers of the firstline, called Hastati, consisted of youths in the bloom of manhood, whowere distributed into fifteen companies, or maniples. Each companycontained sixty privates, two centurions, and a standard-bearer. Twothirds were heavily armed, and bore the long shield; the remaindercarried only a spear and light javelins. The second line, the Principes, was composed of men in the full vigor of life, divided also into fifteencompanies, all heavily armed, and distinguished by the splendor of theirequipments. The third body, the Triarii, was composed of tried veterans, in fifteen companies, the least trustworthy of which were placed in therear; these formed three lines. The Velites were light-armed troops, employed on out-post duty, and mingled with the horsemen. The Hastatiwere so called because they were armed with the _hasta_, or spear; thePrincipes for being placed so near to the front; the Triarii, fromhaving been arrayed behind the first two lines as a body of reserve. TheTriarii were armed with the pilum, thicker and stronger than the Grecianlance, four and a half feet long, of wood, with a barbed head ofiron, --so that the whole length of the weapon was six feet nine inches. It was used either to throw or thrust with, and when it pierced theenemy's shield the iron head was bent, and the spear, owing to the twistin the iron, still held to the shield. Each soldier carried two of theseweapons, and threw the heavy pilum over the heads of their comrades infront, in order to break the enemy's line. In the time of the empire, when the legion was modified, the infantry wore cuirasses and helmets, and carried a sword and dagger. The select infantry were armed with along spear and a shield; the rest, with a pilum. Each man carried a saw, a basket, a mattock, a hatchet, a leather strap, a hook, a chain, andprovisions for three days. The Equites (cavalry) wore helmets andcuirasses, like the infantry, having a broadsword at the right side, andin the hand a long pole. A buckler swung at the horse's flank. They werealso furnished with a quiver containing three or four javelins. 

The artillery were used both for hurling missiles in battle, and for theattack on fortresses. The _tormentum_, which was an elastic instrument, discharged stones and darts, and was held in general use until thediscovery of gunpowder. In besieging a city, the ram was employed fordestroying the lower part of a wall, and the _balista, _ which dischargedstones, was used to overthrow the battlements. The balista would projecta stone weighing from fifty to three hundred pounds. The _aries_, orbattering-ram, consisted of a large beam made of the trunk of a tree, frequently one hundred feet in length, to one end of which was fasteneda mace of iron or bronze resembling in form the head of a ram; it wasoften suspended by ropes from a beam fixed transversely over it, so thatthe soldiers were relieved from supporting its weight, and were able togive it a rapid and forcible swinging motion backward and forward. Whenthis machine was further perfected by rigging it upon wheels, andconstructing over it a roof, so as to form a _testudo_, which protectedthe besieging party from the assaults of the besieged, there was notower so strong, no wall so thick, as to resist a long-continued attack, the great length of the beam enabling the soldiers to work across thedefensive ditch, and as many as one hundred men being often employedupon it. The Romans learned from the Greeks the art of building thisformidable engine, which was used with great effect by Alexander, butwith still greater by Titus in the siege of Jerusalem; it was first usedby the Romans in the siege of Syracuse. The _vinea_ was a sort of roofunder which the soldiers protected themselves when they underminedwalls. The _helepolis_, also used in the attack on cities, was a squaretower furnished with all the means of assault. This also was a Greekinvention; and the one used by Demetrius at the siege of Rhodes, B. C. 306, was one hundred and thirty-five feet high and sixty-eight wide, divided into nine stories. The _turris_, a tower of the same class, wasused both by Greeks and Romans, and even by Asiatics. Mithridates usedone at the siege of Cyzicus one hundred and fifty feet in height. Thesemost formidable engines were generally made of beams of wood covered onthree sides with iron and sometimes with rawhides. They were higher thanthe walls and all the other fortifications of a besieged place, anddivided into stories pierced with windows; in and upon them werestationed archers and slingers, and in the lower story was abattering-ram. The soldiers in the turris were also provided withscaling-ladders, sometimes on wheels; so that when the top of the wallwas cleared by means of the turris, it might be scaled by means of theladders. It was impossible to resist these powerful engines except byburning them, or by undermining the ground upon which they stood, or byoverturning them with stones or iron-shod beams hung from a mast on thewall, or by increasing the height of the wall, or by erecting temporarytowers on the wall beside them. 

Thus there was no ancient fortification capable of withstanding a longsiege when the besieged city was short of defenders or provisions. Withforces equal between the combatants an attack was generally a failure, for the defenders had always a great advantage; but when the number ofdefenders was reduced, or when famine pressed, the skill and courage ofthe assailants would ultimately triumph. Some ancient cities made a mostobstinate resistance, like Tarentum; like Carthage, which stood a siegeof four years; like Numantia in Spain, and like Jerusalem. When citieswere of immense size, population, and resources, like Rome when besiegedby Alaric, it was easier to take them by cutting off all ingress andegress, so as to produce famine. Tyre was taken by Alexander only bycutting off the harbor. Cyrus could not have taken Babylon by assault, since the walls were of such enormous height, and the ditch was too widefor the use of battering-rams; he resorted to an expedient of which theblinded inhabitants of that doomed city never dreamed, which renderedtheir impregnable fortifications useless. Nor probably would the Romanshave prevailed against Jerusalem had not famine decimated and weakenedits defenders. Fortified cities, though scarcely ever impregnable, wereyet more in use in ancient than modern times, and greatly delayed theoperations of advancing armies; and it was probably the fortified campof the Romans, which protected an army against surprises and othermisfortunes, that gave such permanent efficacy to the legions. 

The chief officers of the legion were the Tribunes; and originallythere was one in each legion from the three tribes, --the Ramnes, Luceres, and Tities. In the time of Polybius the number in each legionwas six. Their authority extended equally over the whole legion; but toprevent confusion, it was the custom for them to divide into threesections of two, and each pair undertook the routine duties for twomonths out of six; they nominated the centurions, and assigned each tothe company to which he belonged. These tribunes at first were chosenthe commanders-in-chief, by the kings and consuls; but during the palmydays of the republic, when the patrician power was pre-eminent, theywere elected by the people, that is, the citizens. Later they werenamed, half by the Senate and half by the consuls. No one was eligibleto this great office who had not served ten years in the infantry orfive in the cavalry. The tribunes were distinguished by their dress fromthe common soldier. Next in rank to the tribunes, who corresponded tothe rank of brigadiers and colonels in our times, were the Centurions, of whom there were sixty in each legion, --men who were more remarkablefor calmness and sagacity than for courage and daring valor; men whowould keep their posts at all hazards. It was their duty to drill thesoldiers, to inspect arms, clothing, and food, to visit the sentinelsand regulate the conduct of the men. They had the power of inflictingcorporal punishment. They were chosen for merit solely, until the laterages of the empire, when their posts were bought, as is the case to someextent to-day in the English army. The centurions were of unequalrank, --those of the Triarii before those of the Principes, and those ofthe Principes before those of the Hastati. The first centurion of thefirst maniple of the Triarii stood next in rank to the tribunes, and hada seat in the military councils. His office was very lucrative. To hischarge was intrusted the eagle of the legion. As the centurion mightrise from the ranks by regular gradation through the different maniplesof the Hastati, Principes, and Triarii, there was great inducement heldout to the soldiers. It would, however, appear that the centurionreceived only twice the pay of the ordinary legionary. There was nottherefore so much difference in rank between a private and a captain asthere is in our day. There were no aristocratic distinctions in theancient world so marked as those existing in the modern. In the Romanlegion there was nevertheless a regular gradation of rank, althoughthere were but few distinct offices. The gradation was determined not bylength of service, but for merit alone, of which the tribunes were thesole judges; hence the tribune in a Roman legion had more power thanthat of a modern colonel. As the tribunes named the centurions, so thecenturions appointed their lieutenants, who were called sub-centurions. Still below these were two sub-officers, or sergeants, and the_decanus_, or corporal, to every ten men. 

There was a change in the constitution and disposition of the legionafter the time of Marius, until the fall of the republic. The legionswere thrown open to men of all grades; they were all armed and equippedalike; the lines were reduced to two, with a space between every twocohorts, of which there were five in each line; the young soldiers wereplaced in the rear; the distinction between Hastati, Principes, andTriarii ceased; the Velites disappeared, their work being done by theforeign mercenaries; the cavalry ceased to be part of the legion, andbecame a distinct body; and the military was completely severed from therest of the State. Formerly no one could aspire to office who had notcompleted ten years of military service, but in the time of Cicero a mancould pass through all the great dignities of the State with a verylimited experience of military life. Cicero himself did military servicein but one campaign. 

Under the emperors there were still other changes. The regular armyconsisted of legions and supplementa, --the latter being subdivided intothe imperial guards and the auxiliary troops. 

The Auxiliaries (_Socii_) consisted of troops from the States inalliance with Rome, or those compelled to furnish subsidies. Theinfantry of the allies was generally more numerous than that of theRomans, while the cavalry was three times as numerous. All theauxiliaries were paid by the State; their infantry received the same payas the Roman infantry, but their cavalry received only two thirds ofwhat was paid to the Roman cavalry. The common foot-soldier received inthe time of Polybius three and a half asses a day, equal to about threecents; the horseman three times as much. The praetorian cohorts receivedtwice as much as the legionaries. Julius Caesar allowed about six assesa day as the pay of the legionary, and under Augustus the daily pay wasraised to ten asses, --little more than eight cents per day. Domitianraised the stipend still higher. The soldier, however, was fed andclothed by the government. 

The Praetorian Cohort was a select body of troops instituted by Augustusto protect his person, and consisted of ten cohorts, each of onethousand men, chosen from Italy. This number was increased by Vitelliusto sixteen thousand, and they were assembled by Tiberius in a permanentcamp, which was strongly fortified. They had peculiar privileges, andwhen they had served sixteen years received twenty thousand sesterces, or more than one hundred pounds sterling. Each praetorian had the rankof a centurion in the regular army. Like the body-guard of Louis XIV. They were all gentlemen, and formed gradually a great power, like theJanissaries at Constantinople, and frequently disposed of thepurple itself. 

Our notice of the Roman legion would be incomplete without somedescription of the camp in which the soldier virtually lived. A Romanarmy never halted for a single night without forming a regularintrenchment capable of holding all the fighting men, the beasts ofburden, and the baggage. During the winter months, when the army couldnot retire into some city, it was compelled to live in the camp, whichwas arranged and fortified according to a uniform plan, so that everycompany and individual had a place assigned. We cannot tell when thispractice of intrenchment began; it was matured gradually, like all otherthings pertaining to all arts. The system was probably brought toperfection during the wars with Hannibal. Skill in the choice of ground, giving facilities for attack and defence, and for procuring water andother necessities, was of great account with the generals. An area ofabout five thousand square feet was allowed for a company of infantry, and ten thousand feet for a troop of thirty dragoons. The form of a campwas an exact square, the length of each side being two thousand andseventeen feet; there was a space of two hundred feet between theramparts and the tents to facilitate the marching in and out ofsoldiers, and to guard the cattle and booty; the principal street wasone hundred feet wide, and was called Principia. The defences of thecamp consisted of a ditch, the earth from which was thrown inward, andof strong palisades of wooden stakes driven into the top of theearthwork so formed; the ditch was sometimes fifteen feet deep, and the_vallum_, or rampart, ten feet in height. When the army encamped for thefirst time the tribunes administered an oath to each individual, including slaves, to the effect that they would steal nothing out of thecamp. Every morning at daybreak the centurions and the equites presentedthemselves before the tents of the tribunes, and the tribunes in likemanner presented themselves before the praetorian, to learn the ordersof the consuls, which through the centurions were communicated to thesoldiers. Four companies took charge of the principal street, to seethat it was properly cleaned and watered; one company took charge of thetent of the tribune; a strong guard attended to the horses, and anotherof fifty men stood beside the tent of the general, that he might beprotected from open danger and secret treachery. The _velites_ mountedguard the whole night and day along the whole extent of the vallum, andeach gate was guarded by ten men; the _equites_ were intrusted with theduty of acting as sentinels during the night, and most ingeniousmeasures were adopted to secure their watchfulness and fidelity. Thewatchword for the night was given by the commander-in-chief. "On thefirst signal being given by the trumpet, the tents were all struck andthe baggage packed; at the second signal, the baggage was placed uponthe beasts of burden; and at the third, the whole army began to move. Then the herald, standing at the right hand of the general, demandsthrice if they are ready for war, to which they all respond with loudand repeated cheers that they are ready, and for the most part, beingfilled with martial ardor, anticipate the question, 'and raise theirright hands on high with a shout. '" [3]

[Footnote 3: Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, article "Castra. "]

From what has come down to us of Roman military life, it appears to havebeen full of excitement, toil, danger, and hardship. The pecuniaryrewards of the soldier were small; he was paid in glory. No professionbrought so much honor as the military; and it was from the undividedattention of a great people to this profession, that it was carried toall the perfection which could be attained before the great invention ofgunpowder changed the art of war. It was not the number of men employedin the Roman armies which particularly arrests attention, but the geniusof organization which controlled and the spirit which animated them. The Romans loved war, but so reduced it to a science that it requiredcomparatively small armies to conquer the world. Sulla defeatedMithridates with only thirty thousand men, while his adversarymarshalled against him over one hundred thousand. Caesar had only tenlegions to effect the conquest of Gaul, and none of these were ofItalian origin. At the great decisive battle of Pharsalia, when most ofthe available forces of the empire were employed on one side or theother, Pompey commanded a legionary army of forty-five thousand men, andhis cavalry amounted to seven thousand more, but among them wereincluded the flower of the Roman nobility; the auxiliary force has notbeen computed, although it was probably numerous. In the same battleCaesar had under him only twenty-two thousand legionaries and onethousand cavalry. But every man in both armies was prepared to conqueror die. The forces were posted on the open plain, and the battle wasreally a hand-to-hand encounter, in which the soldiers, after hurlingtheir lances, fought with their swords chiefly; and when the cavalry ofPompey rushed upon the legionaries of Caesar, no blows were wasted onthe mailed panoply of the mounted Romans, but were aimed at the facealone, as that only was unprotected. The battle was decided by thecoolness, bravery, and discipline of Caesar's veterans, inspired by thegenius of the greatest general of antiquity. Less than one hundredthousand men, in all probability, were engaged in one of the mostmemorable conflicts which the world has seen. 

Thus it was by blended art and heroism that the Roman legions prevailedover the armies of the ancient world. But this military power was notgained in a say; it took nearly two hundred years, after the expulsionof the kings, to regain supremacy over the neighboring people, andanother century to conquer Italy. The Romans did not contend withregular armies until they were brought in conflict with the king ofEpirus and the phalanx of the Greeks, "which improved their militarytactics, and introduced between the combatants those mutual regards ofcivilized nations which teach men to honor their adversaries, to sparethe vanquished, and to lay aside wrath when the struggle is ended. "

After the consolidation of Roman power in Italy, it took but one hundredand fifty years more to complete the conquest of the world, --of NorthernAfrica, Spain, Gaul, Illyria, Epirus, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Pontus, Syria, Egypt, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamus, and the islands ofthe Mediterranean. The conquest of Carthage left Rome without a rival inthe Mediterranean, and promoted intercourse with the Greeks. TheIllyrian wars opened to the Romans the road to Greece and Asia, anddestroyed the pirates of the Adriatic. The invasion of Cisalpine Gaul, now that part of Italy which is north of the Apennines, protected Italyfrom the invasion of barbarians. The Macedonian War against Philip putGreece under the protection of Rome, and that against Antiochus laidSyria at her mercy; when these kingdoms were reduced to provinces, theway was opened to further conquests in the East, and the Mediterraneanbecame a Roman lake. 

But these conquests introduced luxury, wealth, pride, and avarice, whichdegrade while they elevate. Successful war created great generals, andfounded great families; increased slavery, and promoted inequalities. Meanwhile the great generals struggled for supremacy; civil warsfollowed in the train of foreign conquests; Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, Augustus, sacrificed the State to their own ambitions. Good men lamented and protested, and hid themselves; Cato, Cicero, Brutus, spoke in vain. Degenerate morals kept pace with civil contests. Rome revelled in the spoils of all kingdoms and countries, wasintoxicated with power, became cruel and tyrannical, and aftersacrificing the lives of citizens to fortunate generals, yielded at lasther liberties, and imperial despotism began its reign. War had addedempire, but undermined prosperity; it had created a great militarymonarchy, but destroyed liberty; it had brought wealth, but introducedinequalities; it had filled the city with spoils, but sown the vices ofself-interest. The machinery remained perfect, but life had fled. Ithenceforth became the labor of Emperors to keep together their vastpossessions with this machinery, which at last wore out, since there wasneither genius to repair it nor patriotism to work it. It lasted threehundred years, but was broken to pieces by the barbarians. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Wilkinson is the best authority pertaining to Egyptian armies. Thehighest authority in relation to the construction of an army isPolybius, contemporary with Scipio, when Roman discipline was mostperfect. The eighth chapter of Livy is also very much prized. Salmasiusand Lepsius wrote learned treatises. Tacitus, Sallust, Livy, DionCassius, Pliny, and Caesar reveal incidentally much that we wish toknow, the last giving us the liveliest idea of the military habits andtactics of the Romans. Gibbon gives some important facts. The subject ofancient machines is treated by Folard's Commentary attached to histranslation of Polybius. Josephus describes with great vividness thesiege of Jerusalem. Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities is full of detailsin everything pertaining to the weapons, the armor, the militaryengines, the rewards and punishments of the soldiers. The articles"Exercitus, " in Smith's Dictionary, and "Army, " in the EncyclopediaBritannica, give a practical summary of the best writers. 

CICERO. 

106-43 B. C. 

ROMAN LITERATURE. 

Marcus Tullius Cicero is one of the great lights of history, because hisgenius and influence were directed to the conservation of what was mostprecious in civilization among the cultivated nations of antiquity. 

He was not a warrior, like so many of the Roman Senators, but hisexcellence was higher than that of a conqueror. "He was doomed, by hisliterary genius, to an immortality, " and was confessedly the mostprominent figure in the political history of his time, next to Caesarand Pompey. His influence was greater than his power, reaching down toour time; and if his character had faults, let us remember that he wasstained by no crimes and vices, in an age of violence and wickedness. Until lately he has received almost unmixed praise. The Fathers of theChurch revered him. To Erasmus, as well as to Jerome and Augustine, hewas an oracle. 

In presenting this immortal benefactor, I have no novelties to show. Novelties are for those who seek to upturn the verdicts of past ages byoffering something new, rather than what is true. 

Cicero was born B. C. 106, in the little suburban town of Arpinum, aboutfifty miles from Rome, --the town which produced Marius. The period ofhis birth was one of marked national prosperity. Great military roadswere built, which were a marvel of engineering skill; canals were dug;sails whitened the sea; commerce was prosperous; the arts of Greece wereintroduced, and its literature also; elegant villas lined the shores ofthe Mediterranean; pictures and statues were indefinitelymultiplied, --everything indicated an increase of wealth and culture. With these triumphs of art and science and literature, we are compelledto notice likewise a decline in morals. Money had become the god whicheverybody worshipped. Religious life faded away; there was a generaleclipse of faith. An Epicurean life produced an Epicurean philosophy. Pleasure-seeking was universal, and even revolting in the sports of theAmphitheatre. Sensualism became the convertible word for utilities. TheRomans were thus rapidly "advancing" to a materialistic millennium, --anoutward progress of wealth and industries, but an inward decline in"those virtues on which the strength of man is based, " accompanied withseditions among the people, luxury and pride among the nobles, andusurpations on the part of successful generals, --when Cicero began hismemorable career. 

He was well-born, but not of noble ancestors. The great peculiarity ofhis youth was his precocity. He was an intellectual prodigy, --like Pitt, Macaulay, and Mill. Like them, he had a wonderful memory. He earlymastered the Greek language; he wrote poetry, studied under eminentprofessors, frequented the Forum, listened to the speeches of differentorators, watched the posture and gestures of actors, and plunged intothe mazes of literature and philosophy. He was conscious of hismarvellous gifts, and was, of course, ambitious of distinction. 

There were only three ways at Rome in which a man could rise to eminenceand power. One was by making money, like army contractors and merchants, such as the Equites, to whose ranks he belonged; the second was bymilitary service; and the third by the law, --an honorable profession. Like Caesar, a few years younger than he, Cicero selected the law. Buthe was a _new man_, --not a patrician, as Caesar was, --and had fewpowerful friends. Hence his progress was not rapid in the way ofclients. He was twenty-five years of age before he had a case. He wastwenty-seven when he defended Roscius, which seems to have brought himinto notice, --even as the fortune of Erskine was made in the GreenwichHospital case and that of Daniel Webster in the case of DartmouthCollege. To have defended Roscius against all the influence of Sulla, then the most powerful man in Rome, was considered bold and audacious. His fame for great logical power rests on his defence of Milo, --theadmiration of all lawyers. 

Cicero was not naturally robust. His figure was tall and spare, his necklong and slender, and his mouth anything but sensual. He looked morelike an elegant scholar than a popular public speaker. Yet he wasimpetuous, ardent, and fiery, like Demosthenes, resorting to violentgesticulations. The health of such a young man could not stand thestrain on his nervous system, and he was obliged to leave Rome forrecreation; he therefore made the tour of Greece and Asia Minor, whichevery fashionable and cultivated man was supposed to do. Yet he did notabandon himself to the pleasures of cities more fascinating than Romeitself, but pursued his studies in rhetoric and philosophy under eminentmasters, or "professors" as we should now call them. He remained abroadtwo years, returning when he was thirty years of age and settling downin his profession, taking at first but little part in politics. Hemarried Terentia, with whom he lived happily for thirty years. 

But the Roman lawyer was essentially a politician, looking ultimately topolitical office, since only through the great public offices could heenter the Senate, --the object of ambition to all distinguished Romans, as a seat in Parliament is the goal of an Englishman. The Roman lawyerdid not receive fees, like modern lawyers, but derived his support frompresents and legacies. When he became a political leader, a man ofinfluence with the great, his presents were enormous. Ciceroacknowledged, late in life, to have received what would now be equal tomore than a million of dollars from legacies alone. The great politicalleaders and orators were the stipendiaries of Eastern princes and nobleswho wanted favors from the Senate, and who knew as well how to rewardsuch services as do the railway kings in our times. 

Before Cicero, then, could be a Senator, he must pass through thosegreat public offices which were in the gift of the people. The firststep on the ladder of advancement was the office of quaestor, whichentailed the duty of collecting revenues in one of the provinces. Thisoffice he was sufficiently influential to secure, being sent to Sicily, where he distinguished himself for his activity and integrity. At theend of a year he renewed his practice in the courts at Rome, --beinghardly anything more than a mere lawyer for five years, when he waselected an Aedile, to whom the care of the public buildings wasintrusted. 

It was while he was aedile-elect that Cicero appeared as the publicprosecutor of Verres. This was one of the great cases of antiquity, andthe one from which the orator's public career fairly dates. Hisresidence in Sicily had prepared him for this duty; and he secured theconviction of this great criminal, whose peculations and corruptionswould amaze our modern New Yorkers and all the "rings" of our greatcities combined. But the Praetor of Sicily was a provincialgovernor, --more like Warren Hastings than Tweed. For this public serviceCicero gained more _éclat_ than Burke did for his prosecution ofHastings; since Hastings, though a corrupt man, laid, after Clive, thefoundation of the English empire in India, and was a man of immensetalents, --greater than those of any who has since filled his place. Hence the nation screened Hastings. But Verres had no virtues and nogreat abilities; he was an outrageous public robber, and hoped, from hiswealth and powerful connections, to purchase immunity for his crimes. Inthe hands of such an orator as Cicero he could not escape the penalty ofthe law, powerful as he was, even at Rome. This case placed Cicero aboveHortensius, hitherto the leader of the Roman bar. 

It was at this period that the extant correspondence of Cicero began, which is the best picture we have of the manners and habits of the Romanaristocracy at the time. History could scarcely spare those famousletters, especially to Atticus, in which also the private life andcharacter of Cicero shine to the most advantage, revealing no vices, notreacheries, --only egotism, vanity, and vacillation, and a way that somehave of speaking about people in private very differently from what theysay in public, which looks like insincerity. In these letters Ciceroappears as a very frank man, genial, hospitable, domestic, witty, whosesociety and conversation must have been delightful. In no moderncorrespondence do we see a higher perfection in the polished courtesiesand urbanities of social life, with the alloy of vanity, irony, anddiscontent. But in these letters he also evinces a friendship which isimmortal; and what is nobler than the capacity of friendship? In thesehe not only shines as a cultivated scholar, but as a great statesman andpatriot, living for the good of his country, though not unmindful of theluxuries of home and the charms of country retirement, and thoseenjoyments which are ever associated with refined and favored life. Weread here of pictures, books, medals, statues, curiosities of everykind, all of which adorned his various villas, as well as hismagnificent palace on Mount Palatine, which cost him what would be equalin our money to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. To keep up thistown house, and some fifteen villas in different parts of Italy, and tofeast the greatest nobles, like Pompey and Caesar, would imply that hisincome was enormous, much greater than that of any modern professionalman. And yet he seems to have lived, like Bacon and our Webster, beyondhis income, and was in debt the greater part of his life, --another flawin his character; for I do not wish to paint him without faults, butonly as a good as well as a great man, for his times. His privatecharacter was as lofty as that of Chatham or Canning, --if we couldforget his vanity, which after all is not so offensive as theintellectual pride of Burke and Pitt, and of sundry other great lightswho might be mentioned, conscious of their gifts and attainments. Thereis something very different in the egotism of a silly and self-seekingaristocrat from that of a great benefactor who has something to be proudof, and with whose private experiences the greatest national deeds areconnected. I speak of this fault because it has been handled tooseverely by modern critics. What were the faults of Cicero, comparedwith those of Theodosius or Constantine, to say nothing of hiscontemporaries, like Caesar, before whom so much incense hasbeen burned?

At the age of forty Cicero became Praetor, or Supreme Judge. Thisoffice, when it expired, entitled him to a provincial government, --thegreat ultimate ambition of a senator; since the administration of aprovince, even for a single year, usually secured an enormous fortune. But this tempting offer he resigned, since he felt he could not bespared from Rome in such a crisis of public affairs, when the fortunategenerals were grasping power and the demagogues were almost preparingthe way for despotism. Some might say he was a far-sighted and ambitiousstatesman, who could not afford to weaken his chances of being madeConsul by absence from the capital. 

This great office, the consulship, the highest in the gift of thepeople, --which gave supreme executive control, --was rarely conferred, although elective, upon any but senators of ancient family and enormouswealth. It was as difficult for a "new man" to reach this dignity, underan aristocratic Constitution, as for a commoner a hundred years ago tobecome prime minister of England. Transcendent talents and servicesscarcely sufficed. Only generals who had won great military fame, or thehighest of the nobles, stood much chance. For a lawyer to aim at thehighest office in the State, without a great family to back him, wouldhave been deemed as audacious as for such a man as Burke to aspire to aseat in the cabinet during the reign of George III. A lawyer at Rome, like a lawyer in London, might become a lord chancellor or praetor, butnot easily a prime minister: he would be defeated by aristocraticinfluence and jealousies. Although the people had the right of election, they voted at the dictation of those who had money and power. Yet Ciceroobtained the consulship, probably with the aid of senators, which hejustly regarded as a great triumph. It was a very unusual thing. It wasmore marvellous than for a Jew to reign in Great Britain, or, likeMordecai, in the court of a Persian king. 

The most distinguished service of Cicero as consul was to ferret out theconspiracy of Catiline. Now, this traitor belonged to the very highestrank in a Senate of nobles; he was like an ancient duke in the BritishHouse of Peers. It was no easy thing for a plebeian consul to bring tojustice so great a culprit. He was more formidable than Essex in thereign of Elizabeth, or Bassompierre in the time of Richelieu. He was aman of profligate life, but of marked ability and boundless ambition. Hehad a band of numerous and faithful followers, armed and desperate. Hewas also one of those oily and aristocratic demagogues who bewitch thepeople, --not, as in our times, by sophistries, but by flatteries. He wasas debauched as Mirabeau, but without his patriotism, though like him heaimed to overturn the Constitution by allying himself with thedemocracy. The people, whom he despised, he gained by his money andpromises; and he had powerful confederates of his own rank, so that hewas on the point of deluging Rome with blood, his aim being nothing lessthan the extermination of the Senate and the magistrates byassassination, and a general division of the public treasure, withpersonal assumption of public power. 

But all his schemes were foiled by Cicero, who added unwearied activityto extraordinary penetration. For this great and signal service Ciceroreceived the highest tribute the State could render. He was called thesavior of his country; and he succeeded in staving off for a time thefall of his country's liberties. It was a mournful sight to him to seethe ascendency which demagogues had already gained, since it betokenedthe approaching destruction of the Constitution, which, good or bad, wasdear to him, and which as an aristocrat he sought to conserve. 

Cicero's evil star was not Catiline, but Clodius, --another aristocraticdemagogue whose crimes he exposed, although he failed to bring him tojustice. Clodius was shielded by his powerful connections; and he was, besides, a popular favorite, as well as a petted scion of one of thegreatest families. Clodius showed his hostility to Cicero, and soughtrevenge by artfully causing the people to pass or revive a law thatwhoever had inflicted capital punishment on a citizen without a trialshould be banished. This seemed to the people to be a protection totheir liberties. Now Cicero, when consul, had executed some of theconspirators associated with Catiline, for which he was called thesavior of his country. But by the law which was now passed or revived bythe influence of Clodius, Cicero was himself a culprit, and it wouldseem that all the influence of the Senate and his friends could notprevent his exile. He appealed to his friend Pompey, but Pompey turned adeaf ear; and also to Caesar, but Caesar was then outside the walls ofthe city in command of an army. In fact, both these generals wished himout of the way, although they equally admired and feared him; for eachof them was bent on being the supreme ruler of Rome. 

So it was permitted for the most illustrious patriot which Rome thenheld to go into exile. What a comment on the demoralization of thetimes! Here was the best, the most gifted, and the most accomplished manof the Republic, --a man who had rendered invaluable and acknowledgedservices, that man of consular dignity and one of the leaders of theSenate, --sent into inglorious banishment, on a mere technicality and foran act which saved the State. And the "magnanimous" Caesar and the"illustrious" Pompey allowed him to go! Where was salvation to aRepublic which banished its savior, and for having saved it? The heartsickens over such a fact, although it occurred two thousand years ago. When the citizens of Rome saw that great man depart mournfully fromamong them, and to all appearance forever, for having rescued them fromviolence and slaughter, and by their own act, --they ought to have knownthat the days of the Republic were numbered. But this only a fewfar-seeing patriots felt. And not only was Cicero banished, but hispalace was burned and his villas confiscated. He was not only disgraced, but ruined; he was an exile and a pauper. What a fall! What an unmeritedtreatment!

Very few people conceive what a dreadful punishment it was in Greece andRome to be banished; or, as the formula went, "to be interdicted fromfire and water, "--the sacred fire of the hearth, the lustral water whichserved for sacrifices. The exile was deprived of these by being forcedto extinguish the hearth-fire, --the elemental, fundamental religion of aGreek and Roman. "He could not, deprived of this, hold property; havingno longer a worship, he had no longer a family. He ceased to be ahusband and father; his sons were no longer in his power, his wife wasno longer his wife, and when he died he had not the right to be buriedin the tombs of his ancestors. " [4]

[Footnote 4: Coulanges: Ancient City. ]

Is it to be wondered at that even so good and great a man as Ciceroshould bitterly feel his disgrace and misfortunes? Is it surprisingthat, philosopher as he was, he should have given way to grief anddespondency. He would have been more than human not to have lost hisspirits and his hopes. How natural were grief and despair, in suchcomplicated miseries, especially to a religious man! Chrysostom couldsupport _his_ exile with dignity; for Christianity had abolished thesuperstitions of Greece and Rome as to household gods. Cicero could not:he was not great enough for such a martyrdom. It is true we should haveesteemed him higher, had he accepted his fate with resignation: no manshould yield to despair. Had he been as old as Socrates, and had heaccomplished his mission, possibly he would have shown more equanimity. But his work was not yet done. He was cut off in his prime and in themidst of usefulness from his home, his religion, his family, his honor, and his influence; he was utterly ruined. I think the critics make toomuch of the grief and misery of Cicero in his banishment. We may bedisappointed that Cicero was not equal to his circumstances; but we neednot be hard on him. My surprise is, not that he was overwhelmed withgrief, but that he did not attempt to drown his grief in books andliterature. His sole relief was in pathetic and unmanly letters. 

The great injustice of this punishment naturally produced a reaction. Nor could the Romans afford to lose the services of their greatestorator. They also craved the excitement of his speeches, more thrillingand delightful than the performance of any actor. So he was recalled. Cicero ought to have anticipated this; it seems, however, he had thatunfortunate temperament which favors alternate depression andexhilaration of spirits, without measure or reason. 

His return was a triumph, --a grand ovation, an unbounded tribute to hisvanity. His palace was rebuilt at the expense of the State, and hisproperty was restored. His popularity was regained. In fact, hisinfluence was never lost; and, because it was so great, his enemieswished him out of the way. He was one of the few who retain influenceafter they have lost power. 

The excess of his joy on his restoration to home and friends andproperty and fame and position, was as great as the excess of his griefin his short exile. But this is a defect in temperament, in his mentalconstitution, rather than a flaw in his character. We could have wishedmore placidity and equanimity; but to condemn him because he was notgreat in everything is unjust. 

On his return to Rome Cicero resumed his practice in the courts withgreater devotion than ever. He was now past fifty years of age, in theprime of his strength and in the height of his forensic fame. But, notwithstanding his success and honors, his life was saddened by thegrowing dissensions between Caesar and Pompey, the decline of publicspirit, and the approaching fall of the institutions in which hegloried. It was clear that one or the other of these fortunate generalswould soon become the master of the Roman world, and that liberty wasabout to perish. His eloquence now became sad; he sings the death-songof departing glories; he wails his Jeremiads over the demoralizationwhich was sweeping away not merely liberty, but religion, andextinguishing faith in the world. To console himself he retired to oneof his beautiful villas and wrote that immortal essay, "De Oratore, "which has come down to us entire. His literary genius now blazed equallywith his public speeches in the Forum and in the Senate. Literature washis solace and amusement, not a source of profit, or probably ofcontemporary fame. He wrote treatises on the same principles that hetalked with friends, or that Fra Angelico painted pictures. He renewedhis attempts in poetry, but failed. His poetry is in the transcendentrhythm of his prose compositions, like that of Madame de Staël, andMacaulay, and Rousseau. 

But he was dragged from his literary and forensic life to accept theoffice of a governor of a province. It was forced upon him, --an honor tohim without a charm. Had he been venal and unscrupulous, he would haveseized it with avidity. He was too conscientious to enrich himself bypublic corruption, as other Senators did, and unless he could accumulatea fortune the command of a distant province was an honorable exile. Hewas fifty-six years of age when he became Proconsul of Cilicia, anEastern province; and all historians have united in praising hisproconsulate for its justice, its integrity, and its ability. Hecommitted no extortions, and returned home, when his term of officeexpired, as poor as when he went. One of the highest praises which canbe given to a public man who has chances of enriching himself is, thathe remains poor. When a member of Congress, known not to be worth tenthousand dollars, returns to his home worth one hundred thousanddollars, the public have an instinct that he has, somehow or other, beenuntrue to himself and his country. When a great man returns home fromWashington poorer than when he went, his influence is apt to survive hispower; and this perpetuated influence is the highest glory of a publicman, --the glory of Jefferson, of Hamilton, of Washington, like the voiceof Gladstone during his retirement. Now Cicero had pre-eminently thisinfluence as long as he lived; and it was ever exerted for the good ofhis country. Had his country been free, he would have died in honor. Buthis country was enslaved, and his voice was drowned, and he had to paythe penalty of speaking the truth about those unscrupulous men whousurped authority. 

On his return to Rome the state of public affairs was most alarming. Caesar and Pompey were in antagonism. He must choose between them, andhe distrusted both. Caesar was the more able, accomplished, andmagnanimous, but he was the more unscrupulous and dangerous. He hadventured to cross the Rubicon, --the first general who ever dared thusopenly to assail his country's liberties. Pompey was pompous, overrated, and proud, and had been fortunate in the East. But then he sided withthe Constitutional authorities, --that is, with the Senate, --so far ashis ambition allowed. So Cicero took his side feebly, reluctantly, asthe least of the evils he had to choose, but not without vacillation, which is one of the popular charges against him. "His distraction almosttook the form of insanity. " "His inconsistency was an incoherence. "Never did a more wretched man than Cicero resort to Pompey's camp, wherehe remained until his cause was lost. He returned, after the battle ofPharsalia, a suppliant at the feet of Caesar, the conqueror. This, tome, is one of his weakest acts. It would have been more lofty and heroicto have perished in the camp of Pompey's sons. 

In the midst of these public misfortunes which saddened his soul, hisprivate miseries began. He was now prematurely an old man, under sixtyyears of age, almost broken down with grief. His beloved daughterTullia, with whom his life was bound up, died; and he was divorced fromhis wife Terentia, --a proceeding the cause of which remains a mystery. Neither in his most confidential letters, nor in his conversations withmost intimate friends, does it appear that he ever unbosomed himself, although he was the frankest and most social of men. In his impressivesilence he has set one of the noblest examples of a man afflicted withdomestic infelicities. He buries his conjugal troubles in eternalsilence; although he is forced to give vent to sorrows, so plaintive andbitter that both friend and foe were constrained to pity. He expects nosympathy, even at Rome, for the sundering of conjugal relations, and hecommunicates no secrets. In his grief and sadness he does, however, amost foolish thing: he marries a young lady one-third his age. Sheaccepted him for his name and rank; he sought her for her beauty, heryouth, and her fortune. This union of May with December was of course afailure. Both parties were soon disenchanted and disappointed. Neitherparty found happiness, only discontent and chagrin. The everlastingincongruities of such a relation--he sixty and she nineteen--soon led toanother divorce. _He_ expected his young wife to mourn with him the lossof his daughter Tullia. _She_ expected that her society and charmswould be a compensation for all that he had lost; yea, more, enough tomake him the most fortunate and happy of mortals. In truth, he was tooold a man to have married a young woman whatever were the inducements. It was the great folly of his life; an illustration of the fact that, asa general thing, the older a man grows the greater fool he becomes, sofar as women are concerned; a folly that disgraced and humiliated thetwo wisest and greatest men who ever sat on the Jewish throne. 

In his accumulated sorrows Cicero now plunged for relief into literarylabors. It was thus that his private sorrows were the means whichProvidence employed to transmit his precious thoughts and experiences tofuture ages, as the most valued inheritance he could bestow onposterity. What a precious legacy to the mind of the world was the bookof "Ecclesiastes, " yet by what bitter experiences was its wisdom earned!

It was in the short period when Caesar rejoiced in the mighty powerwhich he transmitted to the Roman Emperors that Cicero wrote, incomparative retirement, his history of "Roman Eloquence, " his inquiry asto the "Greatest Good and Evil, " his "Cato, " his "Orator, " his "Natureof the Gods, " and his treatises on "Glory, " on "Fate, " on "Friendship, "on "Old Age, " and his grandest work of all, the "Offices. "--the bestmanual in ethics which has come down to us from heathen antiquity. Inhis studious retirement he reminds us of Bacon after his fall, when onhis estate, surrounded with friends, and in the enjoyment of elegantleisure, he penned the most valued of his immortal compositions. And inthose degenerate days at Rome, when liberty was crushed under footforever, it is beautiful to see the greatest of Roman statesmen andlawyers consoling himself and instructing posterity by his exhaustivetreatises on the fundamental principles of law, of morality, and ofphilosophy. 

The assassination of Caesar by Roman senators, which Cicero seems tohave foreseen, and in which he rejoiced, at this time shocked anddisturbed the world. For nearly two thousand years the verdict of thecivilized world respecting this great conqueror has been unanimous. ButMr. Froude has attempted to reverse this verdict, as he has in referenceto Henry VIII. , and as Carlyle--another idolater of force--has attemptedin the cases of Oliver Cromwell and Frederick II. This remarkableword-painter, in his Life of Caesar, --which is, however, interestingfrom first to last, as everything he writes is interesting, --haspresented him as an object of unbounded admiration, as I have alreadynoticed in my lecture on Caesar. Whether in his eagerness to saysomething new, or from an ill-concealed hostility to aristocratic andreligious institutions, or from an admiration of imperialism, or disdainof the people in their efforts at self-government, this able specialpleader seems to hail the Roman conqueror as a benefactor to the causeof civilization. But imperialism crushed all alike, --the people, nolonger able to send their best men to the Senate through the higheroffices perchance to represent their interests, and the nobles, shorn ofthe administration of the Empire. Soldiers, not civilians, henceforthwere to rule the world, --a dreary thought to a great lawyer like Cicero, or a landed proprietor like Brutus. Even if such a terrible revolutionas occurred in Rome under Caesar may have been ordered wisely by aSuperintending Power for those degenerate times, and as a preservationof the peace of the world, that Christianity might take root and spreadin countries where all religions were dead, --still, the prostration ofwhat was dearest to the hearts of all true citizens by the sword was acrime; and men are not to be commended for crime, even if those crimesmay be palliated. "It must need be that offences come, but woe to thoseby whom they come. "

Cicero was now sixty-three, prematurely old, discouraged, andheart-broken. And yet he braced himself up for one more grandeffort, --for a life and death struggle with Antony, one of the ablestof Caesar's generals; a demagogue, eloquent and popular, butoutrageously cruel and unscrupulous, and with unbridled passions. Had itnot been for his infatuated love of Cleopatra, he probably would havesucceeded to the imperial sceptre, for it was by the sword that he toosought to suppress the liberties of the Senate and people. Against him, as the enemy of his country, Cicero did not scruple to launch forth themost terrible of his invectives. In thirteen immortal philippics--someof which, however, were merely written and never delivered, after thefashion of Demosthenes, with whom as an orator and a patriot he canalone be compared--he denounced the unprincipled demagogue and generalwith every offensive epithet the language afforded, --unveiling hisdesigns, exposing his forgeries, and proving his crimes. Noblereloquence was never uttered, and wasted, than that with which Ciceropursued, in passionate vengeance, the most powerful and the mostunscrupulous man in the Roman Empire. And Cicero must have anticipatedthe fate which impended over him if Antony were not decreed a publicenemy. But the protests of the orator were in vain. He lived to utterthem, as a witness of truth; and nothing was left to him but to die. 

Of course Antony, when he became Triumvir, --when he made a bargain thathe never meant to keep with Octavius and Lepidus for a division of theEmpire between them, --would not spare such an enemy as Cicero. Thebroken-hearted patriot fled mechanically, with a vacillating mind, whenhis proscription became known to him, --now more ready to die than live, since all hope in his country's liberties was utterly crushed. Perhapshe might have escaped to some remote corner of the Empire. But he didnot wish for life, any more than did Socrates when summoned before hisjudges. Desponding, uncertain, pursued, he met his fate with the heroismof an ancient philosopher. He surrendered his wearied and exhausted bodyto the hand of the executioner, and his lofty soul to the keeping ofthat personal and supreme God in whom he believed as firmly as any man, perhaps, of Pagan antiquity. And surely of him, more than of any otherRoman, could it be said, --as Sir Walter Scott said of Pitt, and asGladstone quoted, and applied to Sir Robert Peel, --

 "Now is the stately column broke, The _beacon light_ is quenched in smoke; The trumpet's silver voice is still, The warder silent on the hill. "

With the death--so sad--of the most illustrious of the Romans whose famewas not earned on the battlefield, I should perhaps close my lecture. Yet it would be incomplete without a short notice of those serviceswhich--as statesman, orator, and essayist--he rendered to his countryand to future ages and nations. 

In regard to his services as a statesman, they were rendered chiefly tohis day and generation, for he elaborated no system of political wisdomlike Burke, which bears (except casually and indirectly) on moderngovernments and institutions. It was his aim, as a statesman, tocontinue the Roman Constitution and keep the people from civil war. Nordoes he seem to have held, like Rousseau, the _vox populi_ as the voiceof God. He could find no language sufficiently strong to express hisabhorrence of those who led the people for their own individualadvancement. He was equally severe on corrupt governors and venaljudges. He upheld morality and justice as the only guides in publicaffairs. He loved popularity, but he loved his country better. He hatedanarchy as much as did Burke. Like Bright, he looked upon civil war asthe greatest of national calamities. He advocated the most enlightenedviews, based on the principles of immutable justice. He wished topreserve his country equally from unscrupulous generals and unprincipledpoliticians. 

As for his orations, they also were chiefly designed for his owncontemporaries. They are not particularly valuable to us, except asmodels of rhetorical composition and transcendent beauty and grace ofstyle. They are not so luminous with fundamental principles as they arevivid with invective, sarcasm, wit, and telling exaggeration, --sometimespersuasive and working on the sensibilities, and at other times full ofwithering scorn. They are more like the pleadings of an advocate than anappeal to universal reason. He lays down no laws of politicalphilosophy, nor does he soar into the region of abstract truth, evolvinggreat deductions in morals. But as an orator he was transcendentlyeffective, like Demosthenes, though not equal to the Greek in force. Hissentences are perhaps too involved for our taste; yet he always swayedan audience, whether the people from the rostrum, or the judges at thebar, or the senators in the Curia. He seldom lost a case; no one couldcontend with him successfully. He called out the admiration of critics, and even of actors. He had a wonderful electrical influence; his verytones and gestures carried everything before him; his action was superb;and his whole frame quivered from real (or affected) emotion, likeEdward Everett in his happiest efforts. He was vehement in gesture, likeBrougham and Mirabeau. He was intensely earnest and impressive, likeSavonarola. He had exceeding tact, and was master of the passions of hisaudience. There was an irresistible music in his tones of voice, likethat of St. Bernard when he fanned crusades. He was withering in hisdenunciations, like Wendell Phillips, whom in person he somewhatresembled. He was a fascination like Pericles, and the people could notlong spare him from the excitement he produced. It was their desire tohear him speak which had no small share in producing his recall frombanishment. They crowded around him as the people did around Chrysostomin Antioch. He amused like an actor, and instructed like a sage. Hissentences are not short, terse, epigrammatic, and direct, but elaborateand artificial. Yet with all his arts of eloquence his soul, fired withgreat sentiments, rose in its inspired fervor above even the melody ofvoice, the rhythm of language, and the vehemence of action. A listener, who was not a critic, might fancy it was gesture, voice, and languagecombined; but, after all, it was the _man_ communicating his soul tothose who hung upon his lips, and securing conviction by his sincerityand appeals to conscience. He must have had a natural gift for oratory, aside from his learning and accomplishments and rhetorical arts, --atalent very rare and approaching to creative genius. But to his naturalgifts--like Luther, or Henry Clay, born an orator--he added marvellousattainments. He had a most retentive memory. He was versed in the wholehistory of the world. He was always ready with apt illustrations, whichgave interest and finish to his discourses. He was the most industriousand studious man of his age. His attainments were prodigious. He wasmaster of all the knowledge then known, like Gladstone of our day. Hewas not so learned a man as Varro; but Varro's works have perished, asthe great monuments of German scholars are perhaps destined to perish, for lack of style. Cicero's style embalmed his thoughts and made themimperishable. No writer is immortal who is not an artist; Cicero was aconsummate artist, and studied the arrangement of sentences, like thehistorian Tacitus and the Grecian Thucydides. 

But greater than as an artist was he in the loftiness of his mind. Heappealed to what is noblest in the soul. Transcendent eloquence ever"raises mortals to the skies" and never "pulls angels down. " Love ofcountry, love of home, love of friends, love of nature, love of law, love of God, is brought out in all his discourses, exalting the noblestsentiments which move the human soul. He was the first to give to theLatin language beauty and artistic finish. He added to its richness, copiousness, and strength; he gave it music. For style alone he would bevalued as one of the immortal classics. All men of culture have admiredit, from Augustine to Bossuet, and acknowledged their obligations tohim. We accord to the great poets the formation of languages, --Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakspeare; but I doubt if either Virgil or Horacecontributed to the formation of the Latin language more than Cicero. Certainly they have not been more studied and admired. In everysucceeding age the Orations of Cicero have been one of the first bookswhich have been used as textbooks in colleges. Is it not something tohave been one of the acknowledged masters of human composition? What agreat service did Cicero render to the education of the Teutonic races!Whatever the Latin language has done for the modern world, Cicero comesin for a large share of the glory. More is preserved of his writingsthan of any other writer of antiquity. 

But not for style alone--seen equally in his essays and in hisorations--is he admirable. His most enduring claim on the gratitude ofthe world is the noble tribute he rendered to those truths which savethe world. His testimony, considering he was a pagan, is remarkable inreference to what is sound in philosophy and morals. His learning, too, is seen to most advantage in his ethical and philosophical writings. Itis true he did not originate, like Socrates and Plato; but he condensedand sifted the writings of the Greeks, and is the best expounder oftheir philosophy. Who has added substantially to what the Greeks workedout of their creative brain? I know that no Roman ever added to thedomain of speculative thought, yet what Roman ever showed such acomprehension and appreciation of Greek philosophy as did Cicero? He wasprofoundly versed in all the learning the Grecians ever taught. LikeSocrates, he had a contempt for physical science, because science in hisday was based on imperfect inductions. There were not facts enough knownof the material world to construct sound theories. Physical science atthat time was the most uncertain of all knowledge, although there weregreat pretenders then, as now, who maintained it was the only certainty. But the speculations of scientists disgusted him, for he saw nothing inthem upon which to base incontrovertible truth. They were mere dreamsand baseless theories on the origin of the universe. They were evenpuerile; and they were then, as now, atheistic in their tendency. Theymocked the consciousness of mankind. They annihilated faith andProvidence. At best, they made all things subject to necessity, to animmutable fate, not to an intelligent and ever-present Creator. ButCicero, like Socrates, believed in God and in providentialinterference, --in striking contrast with Caesar, who believed nothing. He taught moral obligation, on the basis of accountability to God. Herepudiated expediency as the guide in life, and fell back on theprinciples of eternal right. As an ethical writer he was profounder andmore enlightened than Paley. He did not seek to overturn the popularreligion, like Grecian Sophists, only (like Socrates) to overturnignorance, before a sound foundation could be laid for any system oftruth. Nor did he ridicule religion, as Lucian did in after-times, butsoared to comprehend it, like the esoteric priests of Egypt in the timeof Moses or Pythagoras. He cherished as lofty views of God and his moralgovernment as any moralist of antiquity. And all these lofty views hetaught in matchless language, --principles of government, principles oflaw, of ethics, of theology, giving consolation not only to the men ofhis day, but to Christian sages in after-times. And there is nothingpuerile or dreamy or demoralizing in his teachings; they all areluminous for learning as well as genius. He rivalled Bacon in thevariety and profundity of his attainments. He gloried in the certitudeswhich consciousness reveals, as well as in the facts which experienceand history demonstrate. With these he consoled himself in trouble; onthese he reposed in the hour of danger. Like Pascal he meditated on thehighest truths which task the intellect of man, but, unlike him, did notdisdain those weapons which _reason_ forged, and which no one used moretriumphantly than Pascal himself. And these great meditations hetransmitted for all ages to ponder, as among the most precious of thelegacies of antiquity. 

Thus did he live, a shining light in a corrupt and godless age, in spiteof all the faults which modern critics have enlarged upon in theirambitious desire for novelties, or in their thoughtless or malignantdesire? to show up human frailties. He was a patriot, taking the side ofhis country's highest interests; a statesman, seeking to conserve thewisdom of his ancestors; an orator, exposing vices and defending theinnocent; a philosopher, unfolding the wisdom of the Greeks; a moralist, laying down the principles of immutable justice; a sage, pondering themysteries of life; ever active, studious, dignified; the charm andfascination of cultivated circles; as courteous and polished as theornaments of modern society; revered by friends, feared by enemies, adored by all good people; a kind father, an indulgent husband, agenerous friend; hospitable, witty, magnificent, --a most accomplishedgentleman, one of the best men of all antiquity. What if he was vain andegotistical and vacillating, and occasionally weak? Can you expectperfection in him who "is born of a woman"? We palliate the backslidingsof Christians; we excuse the crimes of a Constantine, a Theodosius, aCromwell: shall we have no toleration for the frailties of a Pagan, inone of the worst periods of history? I have no patience with thosecritics who would hurl him from the pedestal on which he has stood fortwo thousand years. Contrast him with other illustrious men. How fewRomans or Greeks were better than he! How few have rendered such exaltedservices! And even if he has not perpetuated a faultless character, hehas yet bequeathed a noble example; and, more, has transmitted a legacyin the richness of which we forget the faults of the testator, --a legacyof imperishable thought, clothed in the language of imperishable art, --alegacy so valuable that it is the treasured inheritance of all civilizednations, and one which no nation can afford to lose. 

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Plutarch's Life of Cicero, Appian, Dion Cassius, Villeius Paterculus, are the original authorities, --next to the writings of Cicero himself, especially his Letters and Orations. Middleton's Life is full, butone-sided. Forsyth takes the opposite side in his Life. The last work inEnglish is that of Anthony Trollope. In Smith's Biographical Dictionaryis an able article. Dr. Vaughan has written an interesting lecture. Merivale has elaborately treated this great man in his valuable Historyof the Romans. Colley Cibber's Character and Conduct of Cicero, Drumann's Roman History, Rollin's Ancient History, BiographicUniverselle. Mr. Froude alludes to Cicero in his Life of Caesar, takingnearly the same view as Forsyth. 

CLEOPATRA. 

69-30 B. C. 

THE WOMAN OF PAGANISM. 

It is my object in this lecture to present the condition of woman underthe influences of Paganism, before Christianity enfranchised andelevated her. As a type of the Pagan woman I select Cleopatra, partlybecause she was famous, and partly because she possessed traits andaccomplishments which made her interesting in spite of the vices whichdegraded her. She was a queen, the heir of a long line of kings, andruled over an ancient and highly civilized country. She wasintellectual, accomplished, beautiful, and fascinating. She lived in oneof the most interesting capitals of the ancient world, and by birth shewas more Greek than she was African or Oriental. She lived, too, in agreat age, when Rome had nearly conquered the world; when Roman senatorsand generals had more power than kings; when Grecian arts and literaturewere copied by the imperial Romans; when the rich and fortunate wereluxurious and ostentatious beyond all precedent; when life had reachedthe highest point of material splendor, and yet when luxury had notdestroyed military virtues or undermined the strength of the empire. The"eternal city" then numbered millions of people, and was the grandestcapital ever seen on this earth, since everything was thereconcentrated, --the spoils of the world, riches immeasurable, literatureand art, palaces and temples, power unlimited, --the proudest centre ofcivilization which then existed, and a civilization which in itsmaterial aspects has not since been surpassed. The civilized world wasthen most emphatically Pagan, in both spirit and forms. Religion as acontrolling influence was dead. Only a very few among speculativephilosophers believed in any god, except in a degrading sense, --as ablind inexorable fate, or an impersonation of the powers of Nature. Thefuture state was a most perplexing uncertainty. Epicureanself-indulgence and material prosperity were regarded as the greatestgood; and as doubt of the darkest kind hung over the future, the bodywas necessarily regarded as of more value than the soul. In fact, it wasonly the body which Paganism recognized as a reality; the soul, God, andimmortality were virtually everywhere ignored. 

It was in this godless, yet brilliant, age that Cleopatra appears uponthe stage, having been born sixty-nine years before Christ, --about acentury before the new revolutionary religion was proclaimed in Judea. Her father was a Ptolemy, and she succeeded him on the throne of Egyptwhen quite young, --the last of a famous dynasty that had reigned nearlythree hundred years. The Ptolemies, descended from one of Alexander'sgenerals, reigned in great magnificence at Alexandria, which was thecommercial centre of the world, whose ships whitened theMediterranean, --that great inland lake, as it were, in the centre of theRoman Empire, around whose shores were countless cities and villas andworks of art. Alexandria was a city of schools, of libraries andmuseums, of temples and of palaces, as well as a mart of commerce. Itsfamous library was the largest in the world, and was the pride of theage and of the empire. Learned men from all countries came to thiscapital to study science, philosophy, and art. It was virtually aGrecian city, and the language of the leading people was Greek. It wasrivalled in provincial magnificence only by Antioch, the seat of the oldSyrian civilization, also a Greek capital, so far as the governingclasses could make it one. Greece, politically ruined, still sent forththose influences which made her civilization potent in every land. 

Cleopatra, the last of the line of Grecian sovereigns in Egypt, wasessentially Greek in her features, her language, and her manners. Therewas nothing African about her, as we understand the term African, exceptthat her complexion may have been darkened by the intermarriage of thePtolemies; and I have often wondered why so learned and classical a manas Story should have given to this queen, in his famous statue, suchthick lips and African features, which no more marked her than Indianfeatures mark the family of the Braganzas on the throne of Brazil. Shewas not even Coptic, like Athanasius and Saint Augustine. On the ancientcoins and medals her features are severely classical. 

Nor is it probable that any of the peculiarities of the ancient Egyptiankings marked the dynasty of the Ptolemies. No purely Egyptian customslingered in the palaces of Alexandria. The old deities of Isis andOsiris gave place to the worship of Jupiter, Minerva, and Venus. Thewonders of pristine Egypt were confined to Memphis and Thebes and thedilapidated cities of the Nile. The mysteries of the antique Egyptiantemples were no more known to the learned and mercantile citizen ofAlexandria than they are to us. The pyramids were as much a wonder thenas now. The priests and jugglers alike mingled in the crowd of Jews, Syrians, Romans, Greeks, Parthians, Arabs, who congregated in thislearned and mercantile city. 

So we have a right to presume that Cleopatra, when she first appearedupon the stage of history as a girl of fourteen, was simply a verybeautiful and accomplished Greek princess, who could speak severallanguages with fluency, as precocious as Elizabeth of England, skilledin music, conversant with history, and surrounded with eminent masters. She was only twenty-one when she was an object of attraction to Caesar, then in the midst of his triumphs. How remarkable must have been herfascinations if at that age she could have diverted, even for a time, the great captain from his conquests, and chained him to her side! Thatrefined, intellectual old veteran of fifty, with the whole world at hisfeet, loaded down with the cares of government, as temperate as he wasambitious, and bent on new conquests, would not have been chained andenthralled by a girl of twenty-one, however beautiful, had she not beenas remarkable for intellect and culture as she was for beauty. Nor is itlikely that Cleopatra would have devoted herself to this weather-beatenold general, had she not hoped to gain something from him besidescaresses, --namely, the confirmation of her authority as queen. She alsomay have had some patriotic motives touching the political independenceof her country. Left by her father's will at the age of eighteen jointheir of the Egyptian throne with her brother Ptolemy, she soon foundherself expelled from the capital by him and the leading generals of thearmy, because they did not relish her precocious activity ingovernment. Her gathered adherents had made but little advance towardsregaining her rights when, in August, 48, Caesar landed in pursuit ofPompey, whom he had defeated at Pharsalia. Pompey's assassination leftCaesar free, and he proceeded to Alexandria to establish himself for thewinter. Here the wily and beautiful young exile sought him, and won hisinterest and his affection. After some months of revelry and luxury, Caesar left Egypt in 47 to chastise an Eastern rebel, and was in 46followed to Rome by Cleopatra, who remained there in splendid stateuntil the assassination of Caesar drove her back to Egypt. Her wholesubsequent life showed her to be as cunning and politic as she wasluxurious and pleasure-seeking. Possibly she may have loved sointeresting and brilliant a man as the great Caesar, aside from theadmiration of his position; but he never became her slave, although itwas believed, a hundred years after his death, that she was actuallyliving in his house when he was assassinated, and was the mother of hisson Caesarion. But Froude doubts this; and the probabilities are that heis correct, for, like Macaulay, he is not apt to be wrong in facts, butonly in the way he puts them. 

Cleopatra was twenty-eight years of age when she first met Antony, --"aperiod of life, " says Plutarch, "when woman's beauty is most splendid, and her intellect is in full maturity. " We have no account of the styleof her beauty, except that it was transcendent, --absolutelyirresistible, with such a variety of expression as to be calledinfinite. As already remarked, from the long residence of her family inEgypt and intermarriages with foreigners, her complexion may have beendarker than that of either Persians or Greeks. It probably resembledthat of Queen Esther more than that of Aspasia, in that dark richnessand voluptuousness which to some have such attractions; but in grace andvivacity she was purely Grecian, --not like a "blooming Eastern bride, "languid and passive and effeminate, but bright, witty, and intellectual. Shakspeare paints her as full of lively sallies, with the power ofadapting herself to circumstances with tact and good nature, like aMadame Récamier or a Maintenon, rather than like a Montespan or aPompadour, although her nature was passionate, her manner enticing, andher habits luxurious. She did not weary or satiate, like a meresensual beauty. 

 "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety. "

She certainly had the power of retaining the conquests she hadwon, --which rarely happens except with those who are gifted withintellectual radiance and freshness. She held her hold on Antony foreleven years, when he was burdened with great public cares and duties, and when he was forty-two years of age. Such a superior man as he wasintellectually, and, after Caesar, the leading man of the empire, --astatesman as well as soldier, --would not have been enslaved so long byCleopatra had she not possessed remarkable gifts and attainments, likethose famous women who reigned in the courts of the Bourbons in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and who, by their wit and socialfascinations, gathered around their thrones the most distinguished menof France, and made them friends as well as admirers. The Pompadours ofthe world have only a brief reign, and at last become repulsive. ButCleopatra, like Maintenon, was always attractive, although she, couldnot lay claim to the virtues of the latter. She was as politic as theFrench beauty, and as full of expedients to please her lord. She mayhave revelled in the banquets she prepared for Antony, as Esther did inthose she prepared for Xerxes; but with the same intent, to please himrather than herself, and win, from his weakness, those political favorswhich in his calmer hours he might have shrunk from granting. Cleopatrawas a politician as well as a luxurious beauty, and it may have been hersupreme aim to secure the independence of Egypt. She wished to beguileAntony as she had sought to beguile Caesar, since they were the mastersof the world, and had it in their power to crush her sovereignty andreduce her realm to a mere province of the empire. Nor is thereevidence that in the magnificent banquets she gave to the Roman generalshe ever lost her self-control. She drank, and made him drink, butretained her wits, "laughing him out of patience and laughing him intopatience, " ascendant over him by raillery, irony, and wit. 

And Antony, again, although fond of banquets and ostentation, like otherRoman nobles, and utterly unscrupulous and unprincipled, as Romanlibertines were, was also general, statesman, and orator. He grew upamid the dangers and toils and privations of Caesar's camp. He was asgreedy of honors as was his imperial master. He was a sunburnt andexperienced commander, obliged to be on his guard, and ready foremergencies. No such man feels that he can afford to indulge hisappetites, except on rare occasions. One of the leading peculiarities ofall great generals has been their temperance. It marked Caesar, Charlemagne, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederic the Great, Cromwell, andNapoleon. When Alexander gave himself up to banquets, his conquestsended. Even such a self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking man as Louis XIV. Always maintained the decencies of society amid his dissipatedcourtiers. We feel that a man who could discourse so eloquently asAntony did over the dead body of Caesar was something more than asensualist or a demagogue. He was also the finest-looking man in Rome, reminding the people, it is said, of the busts of Hercules. He waslavish, like Caesar, but, like him, sought popularity, and cared butlittle what it cost. It is probable that Cicero painted him, in hisfamous philippics, in darker colors than he deserved, because he aimedto be Caesar's successor, as he probably would have been but for hisinfatuation for Cleopatra. Caesar sent him to Rome as master of thehorse, --a position next in power to that of dictator. When Caesar wasassassinated, Antony was the most powerful man of the empire. He wasgreater than any existing king; he was almost supreme. And afterCaesar's death, when he divided his sovereignty of the world withOctavius and Lepidus, he had the fairest chance of becoming imperator. He had great military experience, the broad Orient as his domain, andhalf the legions of Rome under his control. 

It was when this great man was Triumvir, sharing with only two othersthe empire of the world, and likely to overpower them, when he was inAsia consolidating and arranging the affairs of his vast department, that he met the woman who was the cause of all his calamities. He wasthen in Cilicia, and, with all the arrogance of a Roman general, hadsent for the Queen of Egypt to appear before him and answer to anaccusation of having rendered assistance to Cassius before the fatalbattle of Philippi. He had already known and admired Cleopatra in Rome, and it is not improbable that she divined the secret of his judicialsummons. His envoy, struck with her beauty and intelligence, advised herto appear in her best attire. Such a woman scarcely needed such a hint. So, making every preparation for her journey, --money, ornaments, gifts, --a kind of Queen of Sheba, a Zenobia in her pride and glory, aQueen Esther when she had invited the king and his minister to abanquet, --she came to the Cydnus, and ascended the river in amagnificent barge, such as had never been seen before, and prepared tomeet her judge, not as a criminal, but as a conqueror, armed with thoseweapons that few mortals can resist. 

 "The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne, Burn'd on the water; the poop was beaten gold; Purple the sails, and so perfumed that The winds were love-sick with them: the oars were silver, Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made The water, which they beat, to follow faster, As amorous of their strokes. For her own person, It beggar'd all description: she did lie In her pavilion (cloth-of-gold of tissue) O'er-picturing that Venus, where we see The fancy outwork nature: on each side her Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids, With diverse-color'd fans. .. . Her gentlewomen, like the Nereides, So many mermaids, tended her i' the eyes. . .. At the helm A seeming mermaid steers. .. . . .. From the barge A strange invisible perfume hits the sense Of the adjacent wharves. The city cast Her people out upon her; and Antony, Enthroned i' the market-place, did sit alone, Whistling to th' air; which, but for vacancy, Had gone to gaze on Cleopatra too, And made a gap in nature. "

On the arrival of this siren queen, Antony had invited her tosupper, --the dinner of the Romans, --but she, with woman's instinct, haddeclined, till he should come to her; and he, with the urbanity of apolished noble, --for such he probably was, --complied, and found abanquet which astonished even him, accustomed as he was to senatorialmagnificence, and which, with all the treasures of the East, he couldnot rival. From that fatal hour he was enslaved. She conquered him, notmerely by her display and her dazzling beauty, but by her wit. Her verytones were music. So accomplished was she in languages, that withoutinterpreters she conversed not only with Greeks and Latins, but withEthiopians, Jews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, and Parthians. So dazzledand bewitched was Antony, that, instead of continuing the duties of hisgreat position, he returned with Cleopatra to Alexandria, there to keepholiday and squander riches, and, still worse, his precious time, to theshame and scandal of Rome, inglorious and without excuse, --a Samson atthe feet of Delilah, or a Hercules throwing away his club to seize thedistaff of Omphale, confessing to the potency of that mysterious charmwhich the sage at the court of an Eastern prince pronounced thestrongest power on earth. Never was a strong man more enthralled thanwas Antony by this bewitching woman, who exhausted every art to pleasehim. She played at dice with him, drank with him, hunted with him, rambled with him, jested with him, angled with him, flattering andreproving him by turn, always having some new device of pleasure togratify his senses or stimulate his curiosity. Thus passed the winter of41-40, and in the spring he was recalled to Borne by politicaldissensions there. 

At this stage, however, it would seem that ambition was paramount withhim, not love; for his wife Fulvia having died, he did not marryCleopatra, but Octavia, sister of Octavius, his fellow-triumvir andgeneral rival. It was evidently from political considerations that hemarried Octavia, who was a stately and noble woman, but tedious in herdignity, and unattractive in her person. And what a commentary on Romanrank! The sister of a Roman grandee seemed to the ambitious general agreater match than the Queen of Egypt. How this must have piqued theproud daughter of the Ptolemies, --that she, a queen, with all hercharms, was not the equal in the eyes of Antony to the sister ofCaesar's heir! But she knew her power, and stifled her resentment, andwaited for her time. She, too, had a political end to gain, and was toopolitic to give way to anger and reproaches. She was anything but theimpulsive woman that some suppose, --but a great actress and artist, assome women are when they would conquer, even in their loves, which, ifthey do not feign, at least they know how to make appear greater thanthey are. For about three years Antony cut loose from Cleopatra, andpursued his military career in the East, as the rival of Octavius might, having in view the sovereignty that Caesar had bequeathed to thestrongest man. 

But his passion for Cleopatra could not long be suppressed, neither fromreasons of state nor from the respect he must have felt for theadmirable conduct of Octavia, who was devoted to him, and who was one ofthe most magnanimous and reproachless women of antiquity. And surely hemust have had some great qualities to call out the love of the noblestand proudest woman of the age, in spite of his many vices and hisabandonment to a mad passion, forgetful alike both of fame and duty. Hehad not been two years in Athens, the headquarters of his EasternDepartment, before he was called upon to chastise the Parthians, who hadthrown off the Roman yoke and invaded other Roman provinces. But hardlyhad he left Octavia, and set foot again in Asia, before he sent for hisEgyptian mistress, and loaded her with presents; not gold, and silver, and precious stones, and silks, and curious works of art merely, butwhole provinces even, --Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia, and a part of Judeaand Arabia, --provinces which belonged not to him, but to the RomanEmpire. How indignant must have been the Roman people when they heard ofsuch lavish presents, and presents which he had no right to give! Andwhen the artful Cleopatra feigned illness on the approach of Octavia, pretending to be dying of love, and wasting her body by fasting andweeping by turns, and perhaps tearing her hair in a seeming paroxysm ofgrief, --for an actress can do even this, --Antony was totally disarmed, and gave up his Parthian expedition altogether, which was treason to theState, and returned to Alexandria more submissive than ever. Thisabandonment of duty and official trust disgusted and incensed theRomans, so that his cause was weakened. Octavius became stronger everyday, and now resolved on reigning alone. This meant another civil war. How strong the party of Antony must have been to keep together andsustain him amid such scandals, treasons, and disgrace!

Antony, perceiving a desperate contest before him, ending in hissupremacy or ruin, put forth all his energies, assisted by thecontributions of Cleopatra, who furnished two hundred ships and twentythousand talents, --about twenty million dollars. He had five hundredwar-vessels, beside galleys, one hundred thousand foot and twelvethousand horse, --one of the largest armies that any Roman general hadever commanded, --and he was attended by vassal kings from the East. Theforces of Octavius were not so large, though better disciplined; nor washe a match for Antony in military experience. Antony with his superiorforces wished to fight upon the land, but against his better judgmentwas overruled by Cleopatra, who, having reinforced him with sixtygalleys, urged him to contend upon the sea. The rivals met at Actium, where was fought one of the great decisive battles of the world. For awhile the fortunes of the day were doubtful, when Cleopatra, from someunexplained motive, or from panic, or possibly from a calculatingpolicy, was seen sailing away with her ships for Egypt. And what wasstill more extraordinary, Antony abandoned his fleet and followed her. Had he been defeated on the sea, he still had superior forces on theland, and was a match for Octavius. His infatuation ended in a weaknessdifficult to comprehend in a successful Roman general. And never wasinfatuation followed by more tragic consequences. Was this madness sentupon him by that awful Power who controls the fate of war and thedestinies of nations? Who sent madness upon Nebuchadnezzar? Who blindedNapoleon at the very summit of his greatness? May not that memorabledefeat have been ordered by Providence to give consolidation and peaceand prosperity to the Roman Empire, so long groaning under thecomplicated miseries of anarchy and civil war? If an imperial governmentwas necessary for the existing political and social condition of theRoman world, --and this is maintained by most historians, --how fortunateit was that the empire fell into the hands of a man whose subsequentpolicy was peace, the development of resources of nations, and avigorous administration of government!

It is generally conceded that the reign of Octavius--or, as he is moregenerally known, Augustus Caesar--was able, enlightened, and efficient. He laid down the policy which succeeding emperors pursued, and whichresulted in the peace and prosperity of the Roman world until vicesprepared the way for violence. Augustus was a great organizer, and themachinery of government which he and his ministers perfected kept theempire together until it was overrun by the New Germanic races. HadAntony conquered at Actium, the destinies of the empire might have beenfar different. But for two hundred years the world never saw a moreefficient central power than that exercised by the Roman emperors or bytheir ministers. Imperialism at last proved fatal to genius and thehigher interests of mankind; but imperialism was the creation of JuliusCaesar, as a real or supposed necessity; it was efficiently andbeneficently continued by his grand-nephew Augustus; and itsconsolidated strength became an established institution which thecivilized world quietly accepted. 

The battle of Actium virtually settled the civil war and the fortunes ofAntony, although he afterwards fought bravely and energetically; but allto no purpose. And then, at last, his eyes were opened, and Shakspearemakes him bitterly exclaim, --

 "All is lost! This foul Egyptian hath betrayed me. . .. Betray'd I am: O this false soul of Egypt!"

And with his ruin the ruin of his paramour was also settled; yet herresources were not utterly exhausted. She retired into a castle ormausoleum she had prepared for herself in case of necessity, with hermost valuable treasures, and sent messengers to Antony, who reported tohim that she was dead, --that she had killed herself in despair. Hebelieved it all. His wrath now vanished in his grief. He could not live, or did not wish to live, without her; and he fell upon his own sword. The wound was mortal, but death did not immediately follow. He lived tolearn that Cleopatra had again deceived him, --that she was still alive. Even amid the agonies of the shadow of death, and in view of this lastfatal lie of hers, he did not upbraid her, but ordered his servants tobear him to her retreat. Covered with blood, the dying general wasdrawn up by ropes and through a window--the only entrance to the queen'sretreat that was left unbarred--into her presence, and soon expired. Shakspeare has Antony greet Cleopatra with the words, "I am dying, Egypt, dying!" This suggestive theme has been enlarged in a modern songof pathetic eloquence:--

 I am dying, Egypt, dying, Ebbs the crimson life-tide fast, And the dark Plutonian shadows Gather on the evening blast; Let thine arms, O Queen, enfold me, Hush thy sobs and bow thine ear, Listen to the great heart-secrets _Thou_, and thou _alone_, must hear. 

 * * * * *

 Should the base plebeian rabble Dare assail my name at Rome, Where my noble spouse Octavia Weeps within her widow'd home, Seek her; say the gods bear witness-- Altars, augurs, circling wings-- That her blood, with mine commingled, Yet shall mount the throne of kings. 

 As for thee, star-ey'd Egyptian! Glorious sorceress of the Nile! Light the path to Stygian horrors With the splendors of thy smile I can scorn the Senate's triumphs, Triumphing in love like thine. 

 * * * * *

 Ah! no more amid the battle Shall my heart exulting swell: Isis and Osiris guard thee! Cleopatra--Rome--farewell!

Thus perished the great Triumvir, dying like a Roman, whose blinded butpersistent love, whatever were its elements, ever shall make his namememorable. All the ages will point to him as a man who gave the worldaway for the caresses of a woman, and a woman who deceived andruined him. 

As for her, --this selfish, heartless sorceress, gifted and beautiful asshe was, --what does she do when she sees her lover dead, --dying for her?Does she share his fate? Not she. What selfish woman ever killedherself for love?

 "Some natural tears she shed, but wiped them soon. "

She may have torn her clothes, and beaten her breast, and disfigured herface, and given vent to mourning and lamentations. But she does not seekdeath, nor surrender herself to grief, nor court despair. She renews herstrength. She reserves her arts for another victim. She hopes to winOctavius as she had won Julius and Antony; for she was only thirty-nine, and still a queen. And for what? That she might retain her ownsovereignty, or the independence of Egypt, --still the most fertile ofcountries, rich, splendid, and with grand traditions which went backthousands of years; the oldest, and once the most powerful ofmonarchies. _Her_ love was ever subservient to her interests. Antonygave up ambition for love, --whatever that love was. It took possessionof his whole being, not pure and tender, but powerful, strange;doubtless a mad infatuation, and perhaps something more, since it neverpassed away, --admiration allied with desire, the worship of dazzlinggifts, though not of moral virtues. Would such a love have beenpermanent? Probably not, since the object of it did not shine in thebeauty of the soul, but rather in the graces and adornments of the body, intensified indeed by the lustre of bewitching social qualities and thebrightness of a cultivated intellect. It is hard to analyze a passionatelove between highly gifted people who have an intense development ofboth the higher and the lower natures, and still more difficult when theidol is a Venus Polyhymnia rather than a Venus Urania. But the love ofAntony, whether unwise, or mysterious, or unfortunate, was not feignedor forced: it was real, and it was irresistible; he could not help it. He was enslaved, bound hand and foot. His reason may have rallied to hissupport, but his will was fettered. He may have had at times dark andgloomy suspicions, --that he was played with, that he was cheated, thathe would be deserted, that Cleopatra was false and treacherous. And yetshe reigned over him; he could not live without her. She was all in allto him, so long as the infatuation lasted; and it had lasted fourteenyears, with increasing force, in spite of duty and pressing labors, thecalls of ambition and the lust of power. In this consuming and abandonedpassion, for fourteen years, --so strange and inglorious, and for a womanso unworthy, even if he were no better than she, --we see one of thegreat mysteries of our complex nature, not uncommon, but insoluble. 

I have no respect for Antony, and but little admiration. I speak of suchmad infatuation as a humiliating exhibition of human weakness. Any oneunder its fearful spell is an object of pity. But I have more sympathyfor him than for Cleopatra, although she was doubtless a very giftedwoman. He was her victim; she was not his. If extravagant and recklessand sensual, he was frank, generous, eloquent, brave, and true to her. She was artful, designing, and selfish, and used him for her own ends, although we do not know that she was perfidious and false to him. Butfor her he would have ruled the world. He showed himself capable of anenormous sacrifice. She made no sacrifices for him. She could even havetransferred her affections, since she afterwards sought to play herblandishments upon his rival. Conceive of Antony, if you can, as lovingany one else than her who led him on to ruin. In the very degradationof love we see its sacredness. In his fidelity we find some palliation. Nor does it seem that Octavia, the slighted wife of Antony, gave way tovengeance. Her sense of injury was overshadowed by her pity. This loftyand dignified matron even took his six surviving children, three of whomwere Cleopatra's, and brought them up in her own house as her own. CanPaganism show a greater magnanimity?

The fate of Cleopatra was tragic also. She too destroyed herself, notprobably by the bite of asps, as is the popular opinion, but by somepotent and subtile poison that she ever carried with her, and which hadthe effect of benumbing the body and making her insensible to pain. Yetshe does not kill herself because she cannot survive the death ofAntony, but because she is too proud to be carried to Rome to grace thetriumph of the new Caesar. She will not be led a captive princess up theCapitoline Hill. She has an overbearing pride. "Know, sir, " says she toProculeius, "that I

 "Will not wait pinion'd at your master's court, Nor once be chastis'd with the sober eye Of dull Octavia. .. . . .. Rather a ditch in Egypt Be gentle grave to me!"

But whether pride or whether shame was the more powerful motive incommitting suicide, I do not read that she was a victim of remorse. Shehad no moral sense. Nor did she give way to sentimental grief on thedeath of Antony. Her grief was blended with disappointment and rage. Nordid she hide her head, but wore a face of brass. She used all her artsto win Octavius. Her resources did not fail her; but she expended themon one of the coldest, most politic, and most astute men that everlived. And the disappointment that followed her defeat--that she couldnot enslave another conqueror--was greater than the grief for Antony. Nor during her whole career do we see any signs of that sorrow andhumility which, it would seem, should mark a woman who has made so greatand fatal a mistake, --cut off hopelessly from the respect of the worldand the peace of her own soul. We see grief, rage, despair, in hermiserable end, as we see pride and shamefacedness in her gilded life, but not remorse or shame. And when she dies by her own hand, it is notin madness, but to escape humiliation. Suicide was one of the worstfeatures of Pagan antiquity. It was a base and cowardly reluctance tomeet the evils of life, as much as indifference to the future and ablunted moral sense. 

So much for the woman herself, her selfish spirit, her vile career; butas Cleopatra is one of the best known and most striking examples of aPagan woman, with qualities and in circumstances peculiarlycharacteristic of Paganism, I must make a few remarks on these points. 

One of the most noticeable of these is that immorality seems to havebeen no bar to social position. Some of those who were most attractiveand sought after were notoriously immoral. Aspasia, whom Socrates andPericles equally admired, and whose house was the resort of poets, philosophers, statesmen, and artists, and who is said to have been oneof the most cultivated women of antiquity, bore a sullied name. Sappho, who was ever exalted by Grecian poets for the sweetness of her verses, attempted to reconcile a life of pleasure with a life of letters, andthrew herself into the sea because of a disappointed passion. Lais, aprofessional courtesan, was the associate of kings and sages as well asthe idol of poets and priests. Agrippina, whose very name is infamy, wasthe admiration of courtiers and statesmen. Lucilla, who armed herassassins against her own brother, seems to have ruled the court ofMarcus Aurelius. 

And all these women, and more who could be mentioned, were--likeCleopatra--cultivated, intellectual, and brilliant. They seem to havereigned for their social fascinations as much as by their physicalbeauty. Hence, that class of women who with us are shunned and excludedfrom society were not only flattered and honored, but the class itselfseems to have been recruited by those who were the most attractive fortheir intellectual gifts as well as for physical beauty. No woman, ifbright, witty, and beautiful, was avoided because she was immoral. Itwas the immoral women who often aspired to the highest culture. Theysought to reign by making their homes attractive to distinguished men. Their houses seem to have been what the _salons_ of noble andfascinating duchesses were in France in the last two centuries. Thehomes of virtuous and domestic women were dull and wearisome. In fact, the modest wives and daughters of most men were confined to monotonousdomestic duties; they were household slaves; they saw but little of whatwe now call society. I do not say that virtue was not held in honor. Iknow of no age, however corrupt, when it was not prized by husbands andfathers. I know of no age when virtuous women did not shine at home, andexert a healthful influence upon men, and secure the proud regard oftheir husbands. But these were not the women whose society was mostsought. The drudgeries and slaveries of domestic life among the ancientsmade women unattractive to the world. The women who were most attractivewere those who gave or attended sumptuous banquets, and indulged inpleasures that were demoralizing. Not domestic women, but bright women, carried away those prizes which turned the brain. Those who shone werethose that attached themselves to men through their senses, andpossibly through their intellects, and who were themselves strong inproportion as men were weak. For a woman to appear in public assemblieswith braided and decorated hair and ostentatious dress, and especiallyif she displayed any gifts of eloquence or culture, was to proclaimherself one of the immoral, leisurely, educated, dissolute class. Thisgives point to Saint Paul's strict injunctions to the women of Corinthto dress soberly, to keep silence in the assemblies, etc. The modestwoman was to "be in subjection. " Those Pagan converts to the "New Way"were to avoid even the appearance of evil. 

Thus under Paganism the general influence of women was to pull men downrather than to elevate them, especially those who were attractive insociety. Virtuous and domestic women were not sufficiently educated tohave much influence except in a narrow circle. Even they, in a socialpoint of view, were slaves. They could be given in marriage withouttheir consent; they were restricted in their intercourse with men; theywere confined to their homes; they had but few privileges; they had nobooks; they led a life of terror from the caprices of their lords andmasters, and hence inspired no veneration. The wives and daughters ofthe rich tyrannized over their servants, decked themselves with costlyornaments, and were merely gilded toys, whose society was vapid anduninteresting. The wives and daughters of the poor were drudges andmenials, without attraction or influence; noisy, quarrelsome, garrulouswomen, who said the least when they talked the most. 

Hence under Paganism home had none of those attractions which, inChristian countries, invest it with such charms. The home of the poorwas squalid and repulsive; the home of the rich was gaudy and tinselledenough, but was dull and uninspiring. What is home when women areignorant, stupid, and slavish? What glitter or artistic splendor canmake home attractive when women are mere butterflies or slaves withgilded fetters? Deprive women of education, and especially of thatrespect which Christian chivalry inspires, and they cannot rise to bethe equal companions of men. They are simply their victims or theirslaves. What is a home where women are treated as inferiors? Paganismnever recognized their equality with men; and if they ever ruled men, itwas by appealing to their lower qualities, or resorting to arts anddevices which are subversive of all dignity of character. When theirpersonal beauty fled, their power also departed. A faded or homelywoman, without intelligence or wit, was a forlorn object in a Paganhome, --to be avoided, derided, despised, --a melancholy object of pity orneglect, so far as companionship goes. She may have been valued as acook or drudge, but she was only a menial. Of all those sins of omissionof which Paganism is accused, the worst was that it gave to women nomental resources to assist them in poverty, or neglect, or isolation, when beauty or fortune deserted them. No home can be attractive wherewomen have no resources; and women can have no resources outside ofdomestic duties, unless educated to some art or something calculated todraw out their energies and higher faculties by which they win therespect and admiration, not of men only, but of their own sex. 

It was this lack of education which Paganism withheld from women whichnot only destroyed the radiance of home, but which really made womeninferior to men. All writers, poets, and satirists alike speak of theinferiority of women to men, --not physically only, but evenintellectually; and some authors made them more vicious than men innatural inclination. And when the mind was both neglected andundervalued, how could respect and admiration be kindled, or continueafter sensual charms had passed away? Paganism taught the inequality ofthe sexes, and produced it; and when this inequality is taught, orbelieved in, or insisted upon, then farewell to the glory of homes, toall unbought charms, to the graces of domestic life, to everything thatgilds our brief existence with the radiance of imperishable joy. 

Nor did Paganism offer any consolations to the down-trodden, injured, neglected, uninteresting woman of antiquity. She could not rise abovethe condition in which she was born. No sympathetic priest directed herthoughts to another and higher and endless life. Nobody wiped away hertears; nobody gave encouragement to those visions of beauty and serenityfor which the burdened spirit will, under any oppressions, sometimesaspire to enjoy. No one told her of immortality and a God offorgiveness, who binds up the bleeding heart and promises a future peaceand bliss. Paganism was merciful only in this, --that it did not openwounds it could not heal; that it did not hold out hopes and promises itcould not fulfil; that it did not remind the afflicted of miseries fromwhich they could not rise; that it did not let in a vision of glorieswhich could never be enjoyed; that it did not provoke the soul toindulge in a bitterness in view of evils for which there was no remedy;that it did not educate the mind for enjoyments which could never bereached; that it did not kindle a discontent with a condition from whichthere is no escape. If one cannot rise above debasement or misery, thereis no use in pointing it out. If the Pagan woman was not seemingly awareof the degradation which kept her down, and from which it was impossibleto rise, Paganism did not add stings to her misery by presenting it asan accident which it was easy to surmount. There would be nocontentment or submission among animals if they were endowed with thereason of men. Give to a healthy, but ignorant, coarse, uncultivatedcountry girl, surrounded only with pigs and chickens, almost withoutneighbors, a glimpse of the glories of cities, the wonders of art, thecharms of social life, the triumphs of mind, the capacities of the soul, and would she be any happier, if obliged to remain for life in herrustic obscurity and labor, and with no possible chance of improving hercondition? Such was woman under Paganism. She could rise only so far asmen lifted her up; and they lifted her up only further to consummate herdegradation. 

But there was another thing which kept women in degradation. Paganismdid not recognize the immaterial and immortal soul: it only had regardto the wants of the body. Of course there were exceptions. There weresages and philosophers among the men who speculated on the grandestsubjects which can elevate the mind to the regions of immortaltruth, --like Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, --even as therewere women who rose above all the vile temptations which surroundedthem, and were poets, heroines, and benefactors, --like Telessa, whosaved Argos by her courage; and Volumnia, who screened Rome from thevengeance of her angry son; and Lucretia, who destroyed herself ratherthan survive the dishonor of her house. There are some people who riseand triumph over every kind of oppression and injury. Under Paganismthere was the possibility of the emancipation of the soul, but not theprobability. Its genius was directed to the welfare of the body, --toutilitarian ends of life, to ornaments and riches, to luxury andvoluptuousness, to the pleasures which are brief, to the charms ofphysical beauty and grace. It could stimulate ambition and inculcatepatriotism and sing of love, if it coupled the praises of Venus with thepraises of wine. But everything it praised or honored had reference tothis life and to the mortal body. It may have recognized the mind, butnot the soul, which is greater than the mind. It had no aspirations forfuture happiness; it had no fears of future misery. Hence the frequencyof suicide under disappointment, or ennui, or satiated desire, or fearof poverty, or disgrace, or pain. 

And thus, as Paganism did not take cognizance of the soul in its futureexistence, it disregarded man's highest aspirations. It did notcultivate his graces; it set but a slight value on moral beauty; itthought little of affections; it spurned gentleness and passive virtues;it saw no lustre in the tender eye; it heard no music in the tones ofsympathy; it was hard and cold. That which constitutes the richestbeatitudes of love it could not see, and did not care for. Etherealblessedness it despised. That which raises woman highest, it wasindifferent to. The cold atmosphere of Paganism froze her soul, and madeher callous to wrongs and sufferings. It destroyed enthusiasm and poeticardor and the graces which shine in misfortune. Woman was not kindled bylofty sentiments, since no one believed in them. The harmonies of homehad no poetry and no inspiration, and they disappeared. The face ofwoman was not lighted by supernatural smiles. Her caresses had nospiritual fervor, and her benedictions were unmeaning platitudes. Takeaway the soul of woman, and what is she? Rob her of her divineenthusiasm, and how vapid and commonplace she becomes! Destroy heryearnings to be a spiritual solace, and how limited is her sphere! Takeaway the holy dignity of the soul, and how impossible is a loftyfriendship! Without the amenities of the soul there can be no realsociety. Crush the soul of a woman, and you extinguish her life, andshed darkness on all who surround her. She cannot rally from pain, orlabor, or misfortune, if her higher nature is ignored. Paganism ignoredwhat is grandest and truest in a woman, and she withered like a strickentree. She succumbed before the cold blasts that froze her noblestimpulses, and sunk sullenly into obscurity. Oh, what a fool a man is tomake woman a slave! He forgets that though he may succeed in keeping herdown, chained and fettered by drudgeries, she will be revenged; thatthough powerless, she will instinctively learn to hate him; and if shecannot defy him she will scorn him, --for not even a brute animal willpatiently submit to cruelty, still less a human soul become reconciledto injustice. And what is the possession of a human body without thesympathy of a living soul?

And hence women, under Paganism, --having no hopes of future joy, norecognition of their diviner attributes, no true scope for energies, nofield of usefulness but in a dreary home, no ennobling friendships, nohigh encouragements, no education, no lofty companionship; utterlyunappreciated in what most distinguishes them, and valued only ashousehold slaves or victims of guilty pleasure; adorned and bedeckedwith trinkets, all to show off the graces of the body alone, and withnothing to show their proud equality with men in influence, if not inpower, in mind as well as heart, --took no interest in what trulyelevates society. What schools did they teach or even visit? Whathospitals did they enrich? What miseries did they relieve? Whatcharities did they contribute to? What churches did they attend? Whatsocial gatherings did they enliven? What missions of benevolence didthey embark in? What were these to women who did not know what was themost precious thing they had, or when this precious thing was allowed torun to waste? What was there for a woman to do with an unrecognizedsoul but gird herself with ornaments, and curiously braid her hair, andransack shops for new cosmetics, and hunt for new perfumes, and reclineon luxurious couches, and issue orders to attendant slaves, and join inseductive dances, and indulge in frivolous gossip, and entice by thedisplay of sensual charms? Her highest aspiration was to adorn aperishable body, and vanity became the spring of life. 

And the men, --without the true sanctities and beatitudes of marriedlife, without the tender companionship which cultivated women give, without the hallowed friendships which the soul alone can keep alive, despising women who were either toys or slaves, --fled from their dull, monotonous, and dreary homes to the circus and the theatre and thebanqueting hall for excitement or self-forgetfulness. They did not seeksociety, for there can be no high society where women do not preside andinspire and guide. Society is a Christian institution. It was born amongour German ancestors, amid the inspiring glories of chivalry. It wasmade for women as well as men of social cravings and aspirations, whichhave their seat in what Paganism ignored. Society, under Paganism, wasconfined to men, at banquets or symposia, where women seldom entered, unless for the amusement of men, --never for their improvement, and stillless for their restraint. 

It was not until Christianity permeated the old Pagan civilization anddestroyed its idols, that the noble Paulas and Marcellas and Fabiolasarose to dignify human friendships, and give fascination to reunions ofcultivated women and gifted men; that the seeds of society were sown. Itwas not until the natural veneration which the Gothic nations seem tohave had for women, even in their native forests, had ripened intodevotion and gallantry under the teachings of Christian priests, thatthe true position of women was understood. And after their equality wasrecognized in the feudal castles of the Middle Ages, the _salons_ of theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries established their claims as theinspiring geniuses of what we call society. Then, and not till then, didphysical beauty pale before the brilliancy of the mind and the radianceof the soul, --at last recognized as the highest charm of woman. Theleaders of society became, not the ornamented and painted _heterae_which had attracted Grecian generals and statesmen and men of letters, but the witty and the genial and the dignified matrons who were capableof instructing and inspiring men superior to themselves, with eyesbeaming with intellectual radiance, and features changing with perpetualvariety. Modern society, created by Christianity, --since onlyChristianity recognizes what is most truly attractive and ennoblingamong women--is a great advance over the banquets of imperial Romansand the symposia of gifted Greeks. 

But even this does not satisfy woman in her loftiest aspirations. Thesoul which animates and inspires her is boundless. Its wants cannot befully met even in an assemblage of wits and beauties. The soul of Madamede Staël pined amid all her social triumphs. The soul cravesfriendships, intellectual banquetings, and religious aspirations. Andunless the emancipated soul of woman can have these wants gratified, shedroops even amid the glories of society. She is killed, not as a heroperishes on a battle-field; but she dies, as Madame de Maintenon saidthat she died, amid the imposing splendors of Versailles. It is only theteachings and influences of that divine religion which made Bethany thecentre of true social banquetings to the wandering and isolated Man ofSorrows, which can keep the soul alive amid the cares, the burdens, andthe duties which bend down every son and daughter of Adam, howevergilded may be the outward life. How grateful, then, should women be tothat influence which has snatched them from the pollutions and heartlessslaveries of Paganism, and given dignity to their higher nature! It isto them that it has brought the greatest boon, and made them triumphantover the evils of life. And how thoughtless, how misguided, howungrateful is that woman who would exchange the priceless blessingswhich Christianity has brought to her for those ornaments, thoseexcitements, and those pleasures which ancient Paganism gave as the onlysolace fox the loss and degradation of her immortal soul!

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Plutarch's Lives; Froude's Caesar; Shakspeare's Antony and Cleopatra;Plato's Dialogues; Horace, Martial, and Juvenal, especially among thepoets; Lord's Old Roman World; Suetonius's Lives of the Caesars; DionCassius; Rollin's Ancient History; Merivale's History of the Romans;Biographic Universelle; Rees's Encyclopedia has a good article. 

PAGAN SOCIETY. 

GLORY AND SHAME. 

50 B. C. 

We have now surveyed what was most glorious in the States of antiquity. We have seen a civilization which in many respects rivals all thatmodern nations have to show. In art, in literature, in philosophy, inlaws, in the mechanism of government, in the cultivated face of Nature, in military strength, in aesthetic culture, the Greeks and Romans wereour equals. And this high civilization was reached by the native andunaided strength of man; by the power of will, by courage, byperseverance, by genius, by fortunate circumstances. We are filled withadmiration by all these trophies of genius, and cannot but feel thatonly superior races could have accomplished such mighty triumphs. 

Yet all this splendid exterior was deceptive; for the deeper wepenetrate the social condition of the people, the more we feel disgustand pity supplanting all feelings of admiration and wonder. The Romanempire especially, which had gathered into its strong embrace the wholeworld, and was the natural inheritor of all the achievements of all thenations, in its shame and degradation suggests melancholy feelings inreference to the destiny of man, so far as his happiness and welfaredepend upon his own unaided efforts. 

It is a sad picture of oppression, injustice, crime, and wretchednesswhich I have now to present. Glory is succeeded by shame, strength byweakness, and virtue by vice. The condition of the mass is deplorable, and even the great and fortunate shine in a false and fictitious light. We see laws, theoretically good, practically perverted, and selfishnessand egotism the mainsprings of life; we see energies misdirected, andart corrupted. All noble aspirations have fled, and the good and thewise retire from active life in despair and misanthropy. Poets flatterthe tyrants who trample on human rights, while sensuality and luxuriouspleasure absorb the depraved thoughts of a perverse generation. 

The first thing which arrests our attention as we survey the civilizedcountries of the old world, is the imperial despotism of Rome. Theempire indeed enjoyed quietude, and society was no longer rent byfactions and parties. Demagogues no longer disturbed the public peace, nor were the provinces ransacked and devastated to provide for themeans of carrying on war. So long as men did not oppose the governmentthey were safe from molestation, and were left to pursue their businessand pleasure in their own way. Imperial cruelty was not often visited onthe humble classes. It was the policy of the emperors to amuse andflatter the people, while depriving them of political rights. Hencesocial life was free. All were at liberty to seek their pleasures andgains; all were proud of their metropolis, with its gilded glories andits fascinating pleasures. Outrages, extortions, and disturbances werepunished. Order reigned, and all classes felt secure; they could sleepwithout fear of robbery or assassination. In short, all the argumentswhich can be adduced in favor of despotism in contrast with civil warand violence, show that it was beneficial in its immediate effects. 

Nevertheless, it was a most lamentable change from that condition ofthings which existed before the civil wars. Roman liberties wereprostrated forever; noble sentiments and aspirations were rebuked. Underthe Emperors we read of no more great orators like Cicero, battling forhuman rights and defending the public weal. Eloquence was suppressed. Nor was there liberty of speech even in the Senate. It was treason tofind fault with any public acts. From the Pillars of Hercules to theCaspian Sea one stern will ruled all classes and orders. No one couldfly from the agents and ministers of the Emperor; he controlled thearmy, the Senate, the judiciary, the internal administration of theempire, and the religious worship of the people; all offices, honors, and emoluments emanated from him. All influences conspired to elevatethe man whom no one could hope successfully to rival. Revolt wasmadness, and treason absurdity. Nor did the Emperors attempt to checkthe gigantic social evils of the empire. They did not seek to preventirreligion, luxury, slavery, and usury, the encroachments of the richupon the poor, the tyranny of foolish fashions, demoralizing sports andpleasures, money-making, and all the follies which lax principles ofmorality allowed; they fed the rabble with corn, oil, and wine, and thusencouraged idleness and dissipation. The world never saw a more rapidretrogression in human rights, or a greater prostration of liberties. Taxes were imposed according to the pleasure or necessities of thegovernment. Provincial governors became still more rapacious and cruel;judges hesitated to decide against the government. Patriotism, in itsmost enlarged sense, became an impossibility; all lofty spirits werecrushed. Corruption in all forms of administration fearfully increased, for there was no safeguard against it. 

Theoretically, absolutism may be the best government, if rulers arewise and just; but practically, as men are, despotisms are generallycruel and revengeful. Despotism implies slavery, and slavery is theworst condition of mankind. 

It cannot be questioned that many virtuous princes reigned at Rome, whowould have ornamented any age or country. Titus, Hadrian, MarcusAurelius, Antoninus Pius, Alexander Severus, Tacitus, Probus, Carus, Constantine, Theodosius, were all men of remarkable virtues as well astalents. They did what they could to promote public prosperity. MarcusAurelius was one of the purest and noblest characters of antiquity. Theodosius for genius and virtue ranks with the most illustrioussovereigns that ever wore a crown, --with Charlemagne, with Alfred, withWilliam III. , with Gustavus Adolphus. 

But it matters not whether the Emperors were good or bad, if the régimeto which they consecrated their energies was exerted to crush theliberties of mankind. The imperial despotism, whether brilliant ordisgraceful, was a mournful retrograde step in civilization; it impliedthe extinction of patriotism and the general degradation of the people, and would have been impossible in the days of Cato, Scipio, or Metellus. 

If we turn from the Emperors to the class which before the dictatorshipof Julius Caesar had the ascendency in the State, and for severalcenturies the supreme power, we shall find but little that isflattering to a nation or to humanity. Under the Emperors thearistocracy had degenerated in morals as well as influence. They stillretained their enormous fortunes, originally acquired as governors ofprovinces, and continually increased by fortunate marriages andspeculations. Indeed, nothing was more marked and melancholy at Romethan the vast disproportion in fortunes. In the better days of therepublic, property was more equally divided; the citizens were notambitious for more land than they could conveniently cultivate. But thelands, obtained by conquest, gradually fell into the possession ofpowerful families. The classes of society widened as great fortunes wereaccumulated; pride of wealth kept pace with pride of ancestry; and whenplebeian families had obtained great estates, they were amalgamated withthe old aristocracy. The equestrian order, founded substantially onwealth, grew daily in importance. Knights ultimately rivalled senatorialfamilies. Even freedmen in an age of commercial speculation becamepowerful for their riches. The pursuit of money became a passion, andthe rich assumed all the importance and consideration which had oncebeen bestowed upon those who had rendered great public services. 

As the wealth of the world flowed naturally to the capital, Rome becamea city of princes, whose fortunes were almost incredible. It tookeighty thousand dollars a year to support the ordinary senatorialdignity. Some senators owned whole provinces. Trimalchio, a richfreedman whom Petronius ridiculed, could afford to lose thirty millionsof sesterces in a single voyage without sensibly diminishing hisfortune. Pallas, a freedman of the Emperor Claudius, possessed a fortuneof three hundred millions of sesterces. Seneca, the philosopher, amassedan enormous fortune. 

As the Romans were a sensual, ostentatious, and luxurious people, theyaccordingly wasted their fortunes by an extravagance in their livingwhich has had no parallel. The pleasures of the table and the cares ofthe kitchen were the most serious avocation of the aristocracy in thedays of the greatest corruption. They had around them regular courts ofparasites and flatterers, and they employed even persons of high rank astheir chamberlains and stewards. Carving was taught in celebratedschools, and the masters of this sublime art were held in higherestimation than philosophers or poets. Says Juvenal, --

 "To such perfection now is carving brought, That different gestures by our curious men Are used for different dishes, hare or hen. "

Their entertainments were accompanied with everything which couldflatter vanity or excite the passions; musicians, male and femaledancers, players of farce and pantomime, jesters, buffoons, andgladiators exhibited, while the guests reclined at table after thefashion of the Orientals. The tables were made of Thuja-root, with clawsof ivory or Delian bronze. Even Cicero, in an economical age, paid sixhundred and fifty pounds for his banqueting-table. Gluttony was carriedto such a point that the sea and earth scarcely sufficed to set offtheir tables; they ate as delicacies water-rats and white worms. Fishwere the chief object of the Roman epicures, of which the _mullus_, the_rhombus_, and the _asellus_ were the most valued; it is recorded that amullus (sea barbel), weighing but eight pounds, sold for eight thousandsesterces. Oysters from the Lucrine Lake were in great demand; snailswere fattened in ponds for cooking, while the villas of the rich hadtheir piscinae filled with fresh or salt-water fish. Peacocks andpheasants were the most highly esteemed among poultry, although theabsurdity prevailed of eating singing-birds. Of quadrupeds, the greatestfavorite was the wild boar, --the chief dish of a grand _coena_, --comingwhole upon the table; and the practised gourmand pretended todistinguish by the taste from what part of Italy it came. Dishes, thevery names of which excite disgust, were used at fashionable banquets, and held in high esteem. Martial devotes two entire books of his"Epigrams" to the various dishes and ornaments of a Roman banquet. 

The extravagance of that period almost surpasses belief. Cicero andPompey one day surprised Lucullus at one of his ordinary banquets, whenhe expected no guests, and even that cost fifty thousanddrachmas, --about four thousand dollars; his table-couches were ofpurple, and his vessels glittered with jewels. The halls of Heliogabaluswere hung with cloth of gold, enriched with jewels; his table and platewere of pure gold; his couches were of massive silver, and hismattresses, covered with carpets of cloth of gold, were stuffed withdown found only under the wings of partridges. His suppers never costless than one hundred thousand sesterces. Crassus paid one hundredthousand sesterces for a golden cup. Banqueting-rooms were strewed withlilies and roses. Apicius, in the time of Trajan, spent one hundredmillions of sesterces in debauchery and gluttony; having only tenmillions left, he ended his life with poison, thinking he might die ofhunger. Things were valued for their cost and rarity rather than theirreal value. Enormous prices were paid for carp, the favorite dish of theRomans as of the Chinese. Drusillus, a freedman of Claudius, caused adish to be made of five hundred pounds weight of silver. Vitellius hadone made of such prodigious size that he was obliged to build a furnaceon purpose for it; and at a feast which he gave in honor of this dish, it was filled with the livers of the scarrus (fish), the brains ofpeacocks, the tongues of parrots, and the roes of lampreys caught in theCarpathian Sea. 

The nobles squandered money equally on their banquets, their stables, and their dress; and it was to their crimes, says Juvenal, that theywere indebted for their gardens, their palaces, their tables, and theirfine old plate. 

Unbounded pride, insolence, inhumanity, selfishness, and scorn markedthis noble class. Of course there were exceptions, but the historiansand satirists give the saddest pictures of their cold-hearted depravity. The sole result of friendship with a great man was a meal, at whichflattery and sycophancy were expected; but the best wine was drunk bythe host, instead of by the guest. Provinces were ransacked for fish andfowl and game for the tables of the great, and sensualism was thought tobe no reproach. They violated the laws of chastity and decorum; theyscourged to death their slaves; they degraded their wives and sisters;they patronized the most demoralizing sports; they enriched themselvesby usury and monopolies; they practised no generosity, except at theirbanquets, when ostentation balanced their avarice; they measuredeverything by the money-standard; they had no taste for literature, butthey rewarded sculptors and painters who prostituted art to their vanityor passions; they had no reverence for religion, and ridiculed the gods. Their distinguishing vices were meanness and servility, the pursuit ofmoney by every artifice, the absence of honor, and unblushingsensuality. 

Gibbon has eloquently abridged the remarks of Ammianus Marcellinusrespecting these people:--

"They contend with each other in the empty vanity of titles andsurnames. They affect to multiply their likenesses in statues of bronzeor marble; nor are they satisfied unless these statues are covered withplates of gold. They boast of the rent-rolls of their estates; theymeasure their rank and consequence by the loftiness of their chariotsand the weighty magnificence of their dress; their long robes of silkand purple float in the wind, and as they are agitated by art oraccident they discover the under garments, the rich tunics embroideredwith the figures of various animals. Followed by a train of fiftyservants, and tearing up the pavement, they move along the streets as ifthey travelled with post-horses; and the example of the senators isboldly imitated by the matrons and ladies, whose covered carriages arecontinually driving round the immense space of the city and suburbs. Whenever they condescend to enter the public baths, they assume, ontheir entrance, a tone of loud and insolent command, and maintain ahaughty demeanor, which perhaps might have been excused in the greatMarcellus after the conquest of Syracuse. Sometimes these heroesundertake more arduous achievements: they visit their estates in Italy, and procure themselves, by servile hands, the amusements of the chase. And if at any time, especially on a hot day, they have the courage tosail in their gilded galleys from the Lucrine Lake to their elegantvillas on the sea-coast of Puteoli and Cargeta, they compare theseexpeditions to the marches of Caesar and Alexander; yet should a flypresume to settle on the silken folds of their gilded umbrellas, shoulda sunbeam penetrate through some unguarded chink, they deplore theirintolerable hardships, and lament, in affected language, that they werenot born in the regions of eternal darkness. In the exercise of domesticjurisdiction they express an exquisite sensibility for any personalinjury, and a contemptuous indifference for the rest of mankind. Whenthey have called for warm water, should a slave be tardy in hisobedience, he is chastised with a hundred lashes; should he commit awilful murder, his master will mildly observe that he is a worthlessfellow, and shall be punished if he repeat the offence. If a foreignerof no contemptible rank be introduced to these senators, he is welcomedwith such warm professions that he retires charmed with theiraffability; but when he repeats his visit, he is surprised and mortifiedto find that his name, his person, and his country are forgotten. Themodest, the sober, and the learned are rarely invited to their sumptuousbanquets, only the most worthless of mankind, --parasites who applaudevery look and gesture, who gaze with rapture on marble columns andvariegated pavements, and strenuously praise the pomp and elegancewhich he is taught to consider as a part of his personal merit. At theRoman table the birds, the squirrels, the fish, which appear of uncommonsize, are contemplated with curious attention, and notaries are summonedto attest, by authentic record, their real weight. Another method ofintroduction into the houses of the great is skill in games, which is asure road to wealth and reputation. A master of this sublime art, ifplaced at a supper below a magistrate, displays in his countenance asurprise and indignation which Cato might be supposed to feel whenrefused the praetorship. The acquisition of knowledge seldom engages theattention of the nobles, who abhor the fatigue and disdain theadvantages of study; and the only books they peruse are the 'Satires ofJuvenal, ' or the fabulous histories of Marius Maximus. The librariesthey have inherited from their fathers are secluded, like drearysepulchres, from the light of day; but the costly instruments of thetheatre--flutes and hydraulic organs--are constructed for their use. Intheir palaces sound is preferred to sense, and the care of the body tothat of the mind. The suspicion of a malady is of sufficient weight toexcuse the visits of the most intimate friends. The prospect of gainwill urge a rich and gouty senator as far as Spoleta; every sentiment ofarrogance and dignity is suppressed in the hope of an inheritance orlegacy, and a wealthy, childless citizen is the most powerful of theRomans. The distress which follows and chastises extravagant luxuryoften reduces the great to use the most humiliating expedients. Whenthey wish to borrow, they employ the base and supplicating style of theslaves in the comedy; but when they are called upon to pay, they assumethe royal and tragic declamations of the grandsons of Hercules. If thedemand is repeated, they readily procure some trusty sycophant tomaintain a charge of poison or magic against the insolent creditor, whois seldom released from prison until he has signed a discharge of thewhole debt. And these vices are mixed with a puerile superstition whichdisgraces their understanding. They listen with confidence to theproductions of haruspices, who pretend to read in the entrails ofvictims the signs of future greatness and prosperity; and thissuperstition is observed among those very sceptics who impiously deny ordoubt the existence of a celestial power. "

Such, in the latter days of the empire, was the leading class at Rome, and probably also in the cities which aped the fashions of the capital. Frivolity and luxury loosened all the ties of society. They were boundup in themselves, and had no care for the people except as they mightextract more money from them. 

As for the miserable class whom the patricians oppressed, theircondition became worse every day from the accession of the Emperors. Theplebeians had ever disdained those arts which now occupied the middleclasses; these were intrusted to slaves. Originally, they employedthemselves upon the lands which had been obtained by conquest; but theselands were gradually absorbed or usurped by the large proprietors. Thesmall farmers, oppressed with debt and usury, parted with their lands totheir wealthy creditors. Even in the time of Cicero, it was computedthat there were only about two thousand citizens possessed ofindependent property. These two thousand persons owned the world; therest were dependent and powerless, and would have perished but forlargesses. Monthly distributions of corn were converted into dailyallowance for bread. The people were amused with games and festivals, fed like slaves, and of course lost at last even the semblance ofmanliness and independence. They loitered in the public streets, anddissipated in gaming their miserable pittance; they spent the hours ofthe night in the lowest resorts of crime and misery; they expired inwretched apartments without attracting the attention of government;pestilence, famine, and squalid misery thinned their ranks, and theywould have been annihilated but for constant accession to their numbersfrom the provinces. 

In the busy streets of Rome might be seen adventurers from all parts ofthe world, disgraced by all the various vices of their respectivecountries. They had no education, and but small religious advantages;they were held in terror by both priests and nobles, --the priestterrifying them with Egyptian sorceries, the nobles crushing them byiron weight; like lazzaroni, they lived in the streets, or were crowdedinto filthy tenements; a gladiatorial show delighted them, but thecircus was their peculiar joy, --here they sought to drown theconsciousness of their squalid degradation; they were sold into slaveryfor trifling debts; they had no homes. The poor man had no ambition orhope; his wife was a slave; his children were precocious demons, whoseprattle was the cry for bread, whose laughter was the howl ofpandemonium, whose sports were the tricks of premature iniquity, whosebeauty was the squalor of disease and filth; he fled from a wife in whomhe had no trust, from children in whom he had no hope, from brothers forwhom he felt no sympathy, from parents for whom he felt no reverence;the circus was his home, the fights of wild beasts were his consolation;the future was a blank, death was the release from suffering. There wereno hospitals for the sick and the old, except one on an island in theTiber; the old and helpless were left to die, unpitied and unconsoled. Suicide was so common that it attracted no attention. 

Superstition culminated at Rome, for there were seen the priests anddevotees of all the countries that it governed, --"the dark-skinneddaughters of Isis, with drum and timbrel and wanton mien; devotees ofthe Persian Mithras; emasculated Asiatics; priests of Cybele, with theirwild dances and discordant cries; worshippers of the great goddessDiana; barbarian captives with the rites of Teuton priests; Syrians, Jews, Chaldaean astrologers, and Thessalian sorcerers. .. . The crowdswhich flocked to Rome from the eastern shores of the Mediterraneanbrought with them practices extremely demoralizing. The awful rites ofinitiation, the tricks of magicians, the pretended virtues of amuletsand charms, the riddles of emblematical idolatry with which thesuperstition of the East abounded, amused the languid voluptuaries whohad neither the energy for a moral belief nor the boldness requisite forlogical scepticism. "

We cannot pass by, in this enumeration of the different classes of Romansociety, the number and condition of slaves. A large part of thepopulation belonged to this servile class. Originally brought in byforeign conquest, it was increased by those who could not pay theirdebts. The single campaign of Regulus introduced as many captives asmade up a fifth part of the whole population. Four hundred weremaintained in a single palace, at a comparatively early period; afreedman in the time of Augustus left behind him forty-one hundred andsixteen; Horace regarded two hundred as the suitable establishment for agentleman; some senators owned twenty thousand. Gibbon estimates thenumber of slaves at about sixty millions, --one-half of the wholepopulation. One hundred thousand captives were taken in the Jewish war, who were sold as slaves, and sold as cheap as horses. William Blairsupposes that there were three slaves to one freeman, from the conquestof Greece to the reign of Alexander Severus. Slaves often cost twohundred thousand sesterces, yet everybody was eager to possess a slave. At one time the slave's life was at the absolute control of his master;he could be treated at all times with brutal severity. Fettered andbranded, he toiled to cultivate the lands of an imperious master, and atnight was shut up in a subterranean cell. The laws hardly recognized hisclaim to be considered a moral agent, --he was _secundum hominum genus_;he could acquire no rights, social or political, --he was incapable ofinheriting property, or making a will, or contracting a legal marriage;his value was estimated like that of a brute; he was a thing and not aperson, "a piece of furniture possessed of life;" he was his master'sproperty, to be scourged, or tortured, or crucified. If a wealthyproprietor died under circumstances which excited suspicion of foulplay, his whole household was put to torture. It is recorded that on themurder of a man of consular dignity by a slave, every slave in hispossession was condemned to death. Slaves swelled the useless rabbles ofthe cities, and devoured the revenues of the State. All manual laborwas done by slaves, in towns as well as the country; they were used inthe navy to propel the galleys. Even the mechanical arts were cultivatedby the slaves. Nay more, slaves were schoolmasters, secretaries, actors, musicians, and physicians, for in intelligence they were often on anequality with their masters. Slaves were procured from Greece and AsiaMinor and Syria, as well as from Gaul and the African deserts; they werewhite as well as black. All captives in war were made slaves, alsounfortunate debtors; sometimes they could regain their freedom, butgenerally their condition became more and more deplorable. What a stateof society when a refined and cultivated Greek could be made to obey themost offensive orders of a capricious and sensual Roman, withoutremuneration, without thanks, without favor, without redress! What wasto be expected of a class who had no object to live for? They became themost degraded of mortals, ready for pillage, and justly to be feared inthe hour of danger. 

Slavery undoubtedly proved the most destructive canker of the RomanState. It was this social evil, more than political misrule, whichundermined the empire. Slavery proved at Rome a monstrous curse, destroying all manliness of character, creating contempt of honestlabor, making men timorous yet cruel, idle, frivolous, weak, dependent, powerless. The empire might have lasted centuries longer but for thisincubus, the standing disgrace of the Pagan world. Paganism neverrecognized what is most noble and glorious in man; never recognized hisequality, his common brotherhood, his natural rights. It had nocompunction, no remorse in depriving human beings of their highestprivileges; its whole tendency was to degrade the soul, and to causeforgetfulness of immortality. Slavery thrives best when the generousinstincts are suppressed, when egotism, sensuality, and pride are thedominant springs of human action. 

The same influences which tended to rob man of the rights which God hasgiven him, and produce cruelty and heartlessness in the generalintercourse of life, also tended to degrade the female sex. In theearlier age of the republic, when the people were poor, and life wassimple and primitive, and heroism and patriotism were characteristic, woman was comparatively virtuous and respected; she asserted her naturalequality, and led a life of domestic tranquillity, employed upon thetraining of her children, and inspiring her husband to noble deeds. Butunder the Emperors these virtues had fled. Woman was miserably educated, being taught by a slave, or some Greek chambermaid, accustomed to ribaldconversation, and fed with idle tales and silly superstitions; she wasregarded as more vicious in natural inclination than man, and waschiefly valued for household labors; she was reduced to dependence; shesaw but little of her brothers or relatives; she was confined to herhome as if it were a prison; she was guarded by eunuchs and femaleslaves; she was given in marriage without her consent; she could beeasily divorced; she was valued only as a domestic servant, or as ananimal to prevent the extinction of families; she was regarded as theinferior of her husband, to whom she was a victim, a toy, or a slave. Love after marriage was not frequent, since woman did not shine in thevirtues by which love is kept alive. She became timorous or frivolous, without dignity or public esteem; her happiness was in extravagantattire, in elaborate hair-dressings, in rings and bracelets, in aretinue of servants, in gilded apartments, in luxurious couches, involuptuous dances, in exciting banquets, in demoralizing spectacles, infrivolous gossip, in inglorious idleness. If virtuous, it was not somuch from principle as from fear. Hence she resorted to all sorts ofarts to deceive her husband; her genius was sharpened by perpetualdevices, and cunning was her great resource. She cultivated no loftyfriendships; she engaged in no philanthropic mission; she cherished noennobling sentiments; she kindled no chivalrous admiration. Heramusements were frivolous, her taste vitiated, her education neglected, her rights violated, her sympathy despised, her aspirations scorned. And here I do not allude to great and infamous examples that history hashanded down in the sober pages of Suetonius and Tacitus, or thatunblushing depravity which stands out in the bitter satires of thosetimes; I speak not of the adultery, the poisoning, the infanticide, thedebauchery, the cruelty of which history accuses the Messalinas andAgrippinas of imperial Rome; I allude not to the orgies of the PalatineHill, or the abominations which are inferred from the paintings ofPompeii, --I mean the general frivolity and extravagance anddemoralization of the women of the Roman empire. Marriage was consideredinexpedient unless large dowries were brought to the husband. Numerouswere the efforts of Emperors to promote honorable marriages, but therelation was shunned. Courtesans usurped the privileges of wives, andwith unblushing effrontery. A man was derided who contemplatedmatrimony, for there was but little confidence in female virtue orcapacity, and woman lost all her fascination when age had destroyed herbeauty; even her very virtues were distasteful to her self-indulgenthusband. When, as sometimes happened, the wife gained the ascendency byher charms, she was tyrannical; her relatives incited her to despoil herhusband; she lived amid incessant broils; she had no care for thefuture, and exceeded man in prodigality. "The government of her house isno more merciful, " says Juvenal, "than the court of a Sicilian tyrant. "In order to render herself attractive, she exhausted all the arts ofcosmetics and elaborate hair-dressing; she delighted in magicalincantations and love-potions. In the bitter satire of Juvenal we get animpression most melancholy and loathsome:--

 "'T were long to tell what philters they provide, What drugs to set a son-in-law aside, -- Women, in judgment weak, in feeling strong, By every gust of passion borne along. To a fond spouse a wife no mercy shows; Though warmed with equal fires, she mocks his woes, And triumphs in his spoils; her wayward will Defeats his bliss and turns his good to ill. Women support the bar; they love the law, And raise litigious questions for a straw. Nay, more, they fence! who has not marked their oil, Their purple rigs, for this preposterous toil! A woman stops at nothing; when she wears Rich emeralds round her neck, and in her ears Pearls of enormous size, --these justify Her faults, and make all lawful in her eye. More shame to Rome! in every street are found The essenced Lypanti, with roses crowned; The gay Miletan and the Tarentine, Lewd, petulant, and reeling ripe with wine!"

In the sixth satire of Juvenal is found the most severe delineation ofwoman that ever mortal penned. Doubtless he is libellous andextravagant, for only infamous women can stoop to such arts anddegradations as would seem to have been common in his time. But with allhis probable exaggeration, we are forced to feel that but few women, even in the highest class, except those converted to Christianity, showed the virtues of a Lucretia, a Volumnia, a Cornelia, or an Octavia. The lofty virtues of a Perpetua, a Felicitas, an Agnes, a Paula, aBlessilla, a Fabiola, would have adorned any civilization; but the greatmass were, what they were in Greece even in the days of Pericles, whatthey have ever been under the influence of Paganism, what they ever willbe without Christianity to guide them, --victims or slaves of man, revenging themselves by squandering his wealth, stealing his secrets, betraying his interests, and deserting his home. 

Another essential but demoralizing feature of Roman society was to befound in the games and festivals and gladiatorial shows, whichaccustomed the people to unnatural excitement and familiarity withcruelty and suffering. They made all ordinary pleasures insipid; theyended in making homicide an institution. The butcheries of theamphitheatre exerted a fascination which diverted the mind fromliterature, art, and the enjoyments of domestic life. Very early theywere the favorite sport of the Romans. Marcus and Decimus Brutusemployed gladiators in celebrating the obsequies of their fathers, nearly three centuries before Christ. "The wealth and ingenuity of thearistocracy were taxed to the utmost to content the populace and providefood for the indiscriminate slaughter of the circus, where brute foughtwith brute, and man again with man, or where the skill and weapons ofthe latter were matched against the strength and ferocity of the first. "Pompey let loose six hundred lions in the arena in one day; Augustusdelighted the people with four hundred and twenty panthers. The games ofTrajan lasted one hundred and twenty days, when ten thousand gladiatorsfought, and ten thousand beasts were slain. Titus slaughtered fivethousand animals at a time; twenty elephants contended, according toPliny, against a band of six hundred captives. Probus reserved sixhundred gladiators for one of his festivals, and slaughtered on anothertwo hundred lions, twenty leopards, and three hundred bears; Gordian letloose three hundred African hyenas and ten Indian tigers in the arena. Every corner of the earth was ransacked for these wild animals, whichwere so highly valued that in the time of Theodosius it was forbidden bylaw to destroy a Getulian lion. No one can contemplate the statue of theDying Gladiator which now ornaments the capitol at Rome, withoutemotions of pity and admiration. If a marble statue can thus move us, what was it to see the Christian gladiators contending with the fiercelions of Africa! "The Christians to the lions!" was the cry of thebrutal populace. What a sight was the old amphitheatre of Titus, fivehundred and sixty feet long and four hundred and seventy feet wide, built on eighty arches and rising one hundred and forty feet into theair, with its four successive orders of architecture, and enclosing itseighty thousand seated spectators, arranged according to rank, from theEmperor to the lowest of the populace, all seated on marble benchescovered with cushions, and protected from the sun and rain by amplecanopies! What an excitement, when men strove not with wild beastsalone, but with one another; and when all that human skill and strength, increased by elaborate treatment, and taxed to the uttermost, were putforth in needless slaughter, until the thirsty soil was wet andsaturated with human gore! Familiarity with such sights must havehardened the heart and rendered the mind insensible to refinedpleasures. What theatres are to the French, what bull-fights are to theSpaniards, what horse-races are to the English, these gladiatorial showswere to the ancient Romans. The ruins of hundreds of amphitheatresattest the universality of the custom, not in Rome alone, but in theprovinces. 

Probably no people abandoned themselves to pleasures more universallythan the Romans, after war had ceased to be their master passion. Allclasses alike pursued them with restless eagerness. Amusements were thefashion and the business of life. At the theatre, at the greatgladiatorial shows, at the chariot races, emperors and senators andgenerals were always present in conspicuous and reserved seats of honor;behind them were the patricians, and then the ordinary citizens, and inthe rear of these the people fed at the public expense. The CircusMaximus, the Theatre of Pompey, the Amphitheatre of Titus, wouldcollectively accommodate over four hundred thousand spectators. We maypresume that over five hundred thousand persons were in the habit ofconstant attendance on these demoralizing sports; and the fashion spreadthroughout all the great cities of the empire, so that there wasscarcely a city of twenty thousand inhabitants which had not itstheatres, amphitheatres, or circus. And when we remember the heavy betson favorite horses, and the universal passion for gambling in everyshape, we can form some idea of the effect of these amusements on thecommon mind, --destroying the taste for home pleasures, and for all thatwas intellectual and simple. 

What are we to think of a state of society where all classes hadcontinual leisure for these sports! Habits of industry were destroyed, and all respect for employments that required labor. The rich weresupported by contributions from the provinces, since they were thegreat proprietors of conquered lands; the poor had no solicitude for aliving, since they were supported at the public expense. All thereforegave themselves up to pleasure. Even the baths, designed for sanatorypurposes, became places of resort and idleness, and ultimately ofintrigue and vice. In the time of Julius Caesar we find no less apersonage than the mother of Augustus making use of the publicestablishments; and in process of time the Emperors themselves bathed inpublic with the meanest of their subjects. The baths in the time ofAlexander Severus were not only kept open from sunrise to sunset, buteven during the whole night. The luxurious classes almost lived in thebaths. Commodus took his meals in the bath. Gordian bathed seven timesin the day, and Gallienus as often. They bathed before they took theirmeals, and after meals to provoke a new appetite; they did not contentthemselves with a single bath, but went through a course of baths insuccession, in which the agency of air as well as of water was applied;and the bathers were attended by an army of slaves given over to everysort of roguery and theft. Nor were water and air baths alone used; thepeople made use of scented oils to anoint their persons, and perfumedthe water itself with the most precious essences. Bodily health andcleanliness were only secondary considerations; voluptuous pleasure wasthe main object. The ruins of the baths of Titus, Caracalla, andDiocletian in Rome show that they were decorated with prodigalmagnificence, and with everything that could excite thepassions, --pictures, statues, ornaments, and mirrors. The baths werescenes of orgies consecrated to Bacchus, and the frescos on theexcavated baths of Pompeii still raise a blush on the face of everyspectator who visits them. I speak not of the elaborate ornaments, theNumidian marbles, the precious stones, the exquisite sculptures thatformed part of the decorations of the Roman baths, but of thedemoralizing pleasures with which they were connected, and which theytended to promote. The baths ultimately became, according to the ancientwriters, places of excessive and degrading debauchery. 

 "Balnea, vina, Venus corrumpunt corpora nostra. "

If it were possible to allude to an evil more revolting than the sportsof the amphitheatre and circus, or the extravagant luxuries of thetable, I would say that the universal abandonment to money-making, forthe enjoyment of the factitious pleasures it purchased, was even stillmore melancholy, since it struck deeper into the foundations whichsupported society. The leading spring of life was money. Boys were bredfrom early youth to all the mysteries of unscrupulous gains. Usury waspractised to such an incredible extent that the interest on loans insome instances equalled, in a few months, the whole capital; this wasthe more aristocratic mode of making money, which not even senatorsdisdained. The pages of the poets show how profoundly money was prized, and how miserable were people without it. Rich old bachelors, withoutheirs, were held in the supremest honor. Money was the first object inall matrimonial alliances; and provided that women were only wealthy, neither bridegroom nor parent was fastidious as to age, or deformity, ormeanness of family, or vulgarity of person. The needy descendants of theold patricians yoked themselves with fortunate plebeians, and theblooming maidens of a comfortable obscurity sold themselves, withoutshame or reluctance, to the bloated sensualists who could give them whatthey supremely valued, --chariots and diamonds. The giddy women in lovewith ornaments and dress, and the godless men seeking what they shouldeat, could only be satisfied with what purchased their pleasures. Thehaughtiest aristocracy ever known on earth, tracing their lineage to thetimes of Cato and boasting of their descent from the Scipios and thePompeys, accustomed themselves at last to regard money as the only testof their own social position. The great Augustine found himself utterlyneglected at Rome because of his poverty, --being dependent on hispupils, and they being mean enough to run away without paying him. Literature languished and died, since it brought neither honor noremolument. No dignitary was respected for his office, only for hisgains; nor was any office prized which did not bring rich emoluments. Corruption was so universal that an official in an important post wassure of making a fortune in a short time. With such an idolatry ofmoney, all trades and professions which were not favorable to itsaccumulation fell into disrepute, while those who administered to thepleasures of a rich man were held in honor. Cooks, buffoons, and dancersreceived the consideration which artists and philosophers enjoyed atAthens in the days of Pericles. But artists and scholars were very fewindeed in the more degenerate days of the empire; nor would they havehad influence. The wit of a Petronius, the ridicule of a Martial, thebitter sarcasm of a Juvenal were lost on a people abandoned to frivolousgossip and demoralizing excesses. The haughty scorn with which a sensualbeauty, living on the smiles and purse of a fortunate glutton, wouldpass in her gilded chariot some of the impoverished descendants of thegreat Camillus might have provoked a smile, had any one been found, evena neglected poet, to give them countenance and sympathy. But, alas!everybody worshipped at the shrine of Mammon; everybody was valued forwhat he _had_, rather than for what he _was_; and life was prized, notfor those pleasures which are cheap and free as heaven, not for quiettastes and rich affections and generous sympathies, --the gloriouscertitudes of love, esteem, and friendship, which, "be they what theymay, are yet the fountain-life of all our day, "--but for thegratification of depraved and expensive tastes, of those short-livedenjoyments which ended with the decay of appetite and the _ennui_ ofrealized expectation, --all of the earth, earthy; making a wreck of thedivine image which was made for God and heaven, preparing the way for amost fearful retribution, and producing on contemplative minds a sadnessallied with despair, driving them to caves and solitudes, and makingdeath the relief from sorrow. 

The fourteenth satire of Juvenal is directed mainly to the universalpassion for gain and the demoralizing vices it brings in its train, which made Rome a Vanity Fair and even a Pandemonium. 

The old Greek philosophers gloried in their poverty; but poverty was thegreatest reproach to a Roman. "In exact proportion to the sum of money aman keeps in his chest, " says Juvenal, "is the credit given to his oath. And the first question ever asked of a man is in reference to hisincome, rather than his character. How many slaves does he keep; howmany acres does he own; what dishes are his table spread with?--theseare the universal inquiries. Poverty, bitter though it be, has nosharper sting than this, --that it makes men ridiculous. Who was everallowed at Borne to become a son-in-law, if his estate was inferior?What poor man's name appears in any will?"

And with this reproach of poverty there were no means to escape from it. Nor was there alleviation. A man was regarded as a fool who gaveanything except to the rich. Charity and benevolence were unknownvirtues. The sick and the miserable were left to die unlamented andunknown. Prosperity and success, no matter by what means they werepurchased, secured reverence and influence. 

Such was imperial Rome, in all the internal relations of life, and amidall the trophies and praises which resulted from universal conquest, --asad, gloomy, dismal picture, which fills us with disgust as well asmelancholy. If any one deems it an exaggeration, he has only to readSaint Paul's first chapter in his epistle to the Romans. I cannotunderstand the enthusiasm of Gibbon for such a people, or for such anempire, --a grinding and resistless imperial despotism, a sensual andproud aristocracy, a debased and ignorant populace, enormouslydisproportionate conditions of fortune, slavery flourishing to a stateunprecedented in the world's history, women the victims and the toys ofmen, lax sentiments of public and private morality, a whole people givenover to demoralizing sports and spectacles, pleasure the master passionof the people, money the mainspring of society, a universal indulgencein all the vices which lead to violence and prepare the way for thetotal eclipse of the glory of man. Of what value was the cultivation ofNature, or a splendid material civilization, or great armies, or anunrivalled jurisprudence, or the triumph of energy and skill, when themoral health was completely undermined? A world therefore as fair andglorious as our own must needs crumble away. There were no powerfulconservative forces; the poison had descended to the extremities of thesocial system. A corrupt body must die when vitality has fled. The soulwas gone; principle, patriotism, virtue, had all passed away. Thebarbarians were advancing to conquer and desolate; there was no power toresist them but enervated and timid legions, with the accumulated vicesof all the nations of the earth, which they had been learning for fourhundred years. Society must needs resolve itself into its originalelements when men would not make sacrifices, and so few belonged totheir country. The machine was sure to break up at the first greatshock. No State could stand with such an accumulation of wrongs, withsuch complicated and fatal diseases eating out the vitals of theempire. No form of civilization, however brilliant and lauded, couldarrest decay and ruin when public and private virtue had fled. The housewas built upon the sand. 

The army might rally under able generals, in view of the approachingcatastrophe; philosophy might console the days of a few indignantcitizens; good Emperors might attempt to raise barriers againstcorruption, --still, nothing, according to natural laws, could save theempire. Even Christianity could not arrest the ruin. It had convertedthousands, and had sowed the seeds of future and better civilizations. It was sent, however, not to save a decayed and demoralized empire, butthe world itself. Not until the Germanic barbarians, with their noblerelements of character, had taken possession of the seats of the oldcivilization, were the real triumphs of Christianity seen. Had the Romanempire continued longer, Christianity might have become still morecorrupted; in the prevailing degeneracy it certainly could not save whatwas not worth preserving. The strong grasp which Rome had laid upon thesplendors of all the ancient Pagan Civilizations was to be relaxed. Antiquity had lived out its life. The empire of the Caesars was doomed. Retributive justice must march on in its majestic course. The empire hadaccomplished its mission; the time came for it to die. The Sibyllineoracle must needs be fulfilled: "O haughty Rome, the divine chastisementshall come upon thee; fire shall consume thee; thy wealth shall perish;foxes and wolves shall dwell among thy ruins: and then what land thatthou hast enslaved shall be thy ally, and which of thy gods shall savethee? For there shall be confusion over the face of the whole earth, andthe fall of cities shall come. "

 * * * * *

AUTHORITIES. 

Mr. Merivale has written fully on the condition of the empire. Gibbonhas occasional paragraphs which show the condition of Roman society. Lyman's Life of the Emperors should be read, and also DeQuincey's Livesof the Caesars. See also Niebuhr, Arnold, Mommsen, and Curtius, thoughthese writers have chiefly confined themselves to republican Rome. Butif one would get the truest and most vivid description, he must read theRoman poets, especially Juvenal and Martial. The work of Petronius istoo indecent to be read. Ammianus Marcellinus gives us some strikingpictures of the later Romans. Suetonius, in his lives of the Caesars, furnishes many facts. Becker's Gallus is a fine description of Romanhabits and customs. Lucian does not describe Roman manners, but he aimshis sarcasm at the hollowness of Roman life, as do the great satiristsgenerally. These can all be had in translations.