bility, and, if not amended, would prove prejudicial to a part of the state or to the whole body, in proportion as it came to maturity. When, however, the period actually arrived for a more general, perfect, and systematic legislation, the ground plot marked out for the purpose, was almost always more limited than it should have been. Indeed, antiquity does not furnish us with a single legislator, who gave his country laws and regulations, which appear to have had any reference to the welfare of other nations, or been founded upon a plan, which originated in wisdom, design, and benevolence, of greater extent than we have described.

63. It is true that the Romans thought they found decisive marks among the nations of heathen antiquity, indicating that they had been destined, even from those remote ages, in which their history was lost in the obscurity of fable, to become the rulers of the world. This thought is also known to have produced a powerful effect upon them, and greatly to have contributed to raise them to that degree of power and authority, to which they afterwards attained. It did not originate, however, with the founder of this nation. Romulus certainly never had the great object, the immense plan in view, of giving his rising state such regulations as should, in the sequel, enable it to swallow up all others.* This thought originated in a lie of necessity, which was first confirmed by a false oath, and afterwards maintained by superstition, by which means, however, it acquired a sufficient degree of honorable authority, to produce a permanent impression upon the rough

*Several writers, indeed, as Plutarch observes, have been inclined to attribute something of the kind, to this founder of the Roman empire. But Plutarch himself rejects the supposition as improbable, and gives a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the seizure of the Sabine women, in which Romulus engaged, and which these writers, strangely enough, would deduce from his great plan, by recurring to the condition of the city, which had then hardly begun to exist. In Romul. e. XIV. p. 103, Reisk. ed. [Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, translated by Langhorne, &c., Vol. I. p. 40, Phil., 1822. TR.] Comp. also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquit. Rom., 1. II. cap. 31. p. 301, Reisk. ed.

and warlike hearts of the Romans.* The first Roman legislator, the peaceful Numa, does not appear to have been very favorable to this opinion, for he evidently intended, out of his Romans, to form a quiet and happy nation. Nor can we say that express reference was had to it, in the formation of laws in after times. Indeed, the Roman constitution was always destitute of proper stability, and so deficient as to its entire groundwork, in unity and lasting connexion, that it was necessary for it to undergo the most important changes to accommodate it to circumstances. The thought, therefore, that Rome was to become the mistress of the world, does not appear to have been sustained by legislation, or to have served as a guide in the formation of laws; but, on the other hand, it often served rather to divest the constitution of its unhappy influence, by binding the people in all their difficulties with the government, in some measure, to the state.§ If we admit, however, that Rome ever had a legislator, who, in anticipation, devised the very extensive plan of giving his nation a constitution, which should prove the means of making it the first nation on the globe, even this

*To this place belong the accounts taken from Livy's Hist., 1. I. c. XVI. and LV., and also the remarks of Plutarch, in Romul., c. XXVIII. p. 139 seq. [Plutarch's Lives, translated by Langhorne, &c., Vol. I. p. 57. TR.] Speaking in this place, of the powerful effect which this well known fiction of Proculus is said to have produced, Plutarch says; "It gained credit with the Romans, who were caught with enthusiasm, as if they had actually been inspired; and, far from contradicting what they had heard, they bade adieu to all their suspicions of its authenticity, united in deifying Quirinus, and addressed their devotions to him, as a new, tutelar god of the nation." What was better calculated to fill a nation as rough and warlike as the Romans of that day were, with fiery zeal, than a miracle so flattering to their passions?

+ Plutarch infers this very correctly from the regulations of this king in general, and particularly from the manner in which he favored agriculture; in Numa, c. VIII. p. 254, and c. XVI. p. 282. [Reisk. Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, ed. as above, Vol. I. p. 118. TR.]

This is said in express terms by Polybius, that sagacious judge of the history of Rome and its constitution, in Reliquiis lib. Hist., VI. p. 478. Tom. II. Schweighäus. ed.

§ Vid. Plutarch in Camill., c. XXXI. p. 561. [Reisk. Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, &c. Vol. I. p. 227. TR.]

would not be the plan for which we are seeking, but evidently the project of a conqueror, prejudicial to happiness and repose, and evincing more roughness and savage barbarity, than true wisdom and nobleness of spirit. Indeed, it was the idea of universal dominion, so peculiar to the Romans, which cherished in them that insatiable desire of war, which did so much mischief to the best part of the world, and could not be satisfied with torrents of human blood.*

$ 64. I dare not declare the assertion, made with such positiveness, by the author of a book respecting the happiness of nations, that all civil governments originated in violence and strength, to be perfectly correct. Perhaps many arguments can be adduced from history in proof of the contrary. This author, however, is unquestionably correct in saying, that all the civil govern

*This cannot be said in fewer words and a better manner, than Tacitus makes his Calgacus express it: "Raptores orbis (Romani) postquam cuncta vastantibus defuere terrae, et mare scrutantur; si locuples hostis est, auari; si pauper, ambitiosi; quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiauerit; soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari affectu concupiscunt. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium, atque vbi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. In vita Agricol., c. 30. [Much instruction upon this subject is contained in Richter's two programmata; "Quae impedimenta offece

rint sensui humanitatis in iuvenibus Romanis excitando," Guben 1803 and 1804; where it is shown, that the cultivation of humanity was hindered, not only by the warlike spirit that universally prevailed among the Romans, but also by their whole military constitution, which so often called the citizens to arms, and smothered all human feelings, as well as by the severity of paternal government, the state of slavery, and the furious combats in vogue. The desire of a triumph cherished in them a love of murder and war, and the solemnities with which one was celebrated, filled them with pride. For a long time, the arts and sciences were not cultivated at all, and even at a later date, they were really esteemed and zealously attended to but by a few, and hence they could never produce their entire, legitimate effect. The Romans had such an exalted opinion of their own worth, that they despised all other nations, and treated them with contempt; and even their religion was calculated to foster arrogance and propagate rudeness of manners.]

+ De la Félicité publique ou Considerations sur le sort des Hommes dans les différentes Epoques de l'Histoire, Tom. I. p. 6.

ments of antiquity, the Israelitish alone excepted, were modelled chiefly with reference to offensive and defensive war, and that legislators, as a body, were at particular pains to cherish a certain warlike spirit among their countrymen, and inspire them with dispositions and feelings, rather hostile towards other nations, than benevolent. Their attempts to soften the rough wildness of their fellow citizens, and excite in them sociable and humane inclinations, had no immediate reference to strangers, but were merely intended to prevent those gross outbreakings of cruelty, which would necessarily prove destructive to order and harmony, if suffered to exist in the bosom of society. Most legislators were obliged to content themselves, if they accomplished even this limited object, and succeeded in instilling into the rude multitudes, which they sought to tame, any love to the common good, any forbearance towards those with whom they were immediately connected.* Few went so far as to think of what they owed to strangers. Very many, on the other hand, labored to keep such duties out of the view of their fellow creatures;- -a fact which shines forth with such clearness from some of their civil constitutions, as to fill us with aversion and horror, at the indifference which these legislators must have felt to other nations, and to human blood. Of this, the Lacedemonians present us with a notable example. One cannot indeed refrain from admiring the penetrating mind of the legislator, who could devise and execute a plan, which would certainly have been declared chimerical, had it not been followed in Sparta.† It is easy to perceive, however, that his system of laws, though it has often been admired, exhibits but little goodness of

* Comp. Heyne's treatise, entitled, "Delibantur nonnulla in vitae humanae initiis a primis Graeciae legumlatoribus ad morum mansu. etudinem sapienter instituta," in the Opusc. Academ., Tom. I. p. 207 seqq., which, notwithstanding its great brevity, contains matter, enough for more extensive contemplations upon this subject.

* Vid. Plutarch in Lycurg., c. XXXI. p. 233, [Reisk. Vol. I.] [Plutarch's lives &c. Vol. I. p. 97. TR.]

heart, little humanity and benevolence.* Now this lack of humanity, this inclination to oppression and violence, was absolutely favored and justified to a greater or less degree, by all the ancient constitutions, so far as we are acquainted with them. Even that of the Egyptians, which was the most peaceful of them all, inculcated upon its citizens a

* The ancients themselves have said much upon this subject that is correct. Vid. Isocrates here and there, especially in his Panathenaicon; also the well known funeral discourse of Pericles in Thucidides, 1. II. c. 37 ff. Later writers have exhibited this in a still clearer light; for example, the author of the work just named, Sur la Félicité publique, Tom. I. p. 59 ss., and Abbt's Letters upon modern literature, Th. XXII. S. 93 ff. De Pauw, in his Recherches philosophiques sur les Grecs, Tom. II. part IV. p. 231 ss., has, unquestionably, exaggerated the matter; to him, therefore, I will not presume to appeal. [Nast has shown, in a very convincing manner, in his treatise upon the excellencies and the defects of the Lycurgian legislation and state constitution, Kleine akadem. Geleg. Schriften, I. nr. 5, Tub., 1820, how completely they were modelled with reference exclusively to the virtue of Sparta and her citizens, and how much the object which Lycurgus had in view, when compared with that of humanity, deserves our most hearty disapprobation. According to Zoëga, Ueber Lykurg und die Sparter, (Abhandlungen, herausg. v. Welcker, Gött. 1817, S. 316-324,) a more unhappy people than the Laconians were, could hardly be found. Their constitution was calculated to advance the welfare of a few, at the misery and expense of the multitude. Manso in his classical work, Sparta, Ein Versuch zur Aufklärung der Geschichte und Verfassung dieses Staates, B. 3. Th. 1. at the end, L. 1800-1805, thus concludes his investigations: "As to his worth, in relation to the world and to humanity, there can be no doubt. Not a flower sprung up in Laconian soil, that acquired healthful strength or fragrant growth, and neither the gladdening voice of the poet has come down to us from thence, nor have the obscurities of nature and the depths of the human mind, received new light from the investigations of any of its wise men; but the nation itself stands before us as an instructive and warning example, and as such speaks in an audible voice. It has solved a problem not so unnatural as not at least to have been once taken up, put into practice, and brought to a result, in a manner which clearly shows what part of it lies within the limits of attainableness, and how far it can be performed. As often as the historian and philosopher speak of heroic virtues and the means of advancing them, they will make mention of this Spartan, and the influence of his legislation. Whenever they glance at the higher objects to which man is to attain, and the harmonious development and formation of all the faculties in his possession, they will think with admiration upon the man, who even sacrificed himself for the state, but they will hardly dwell upon him with love.”]