by the community to the individual; a contract was valid only so far as the community by its representatives allowed it, a testament only so far as the community affirmed it." 1 The perfect subordination of the individual to the State, as well as certain other characters which the Romans exhibited, entitle them to be called the Spartans of Italy. Under other circumstances Rome might never have done more than Sparta did, but in the absence of the stern sense of patriotism to which all personal interests were sacrificed, she could not have attained to Italian supremacy or to the empire of the world. Until Italy almost ceased to be Italian by the draining off to foreign countries of her native inhabitants, and the influx of provincials, the old Roman virtue, the source of which Mr Newman has so well shown, displayed its influence, although with gradually weakened force. "Even in her most infantine state," says the author of Regal Rome, "Sabine Rome showed the germs of those peculiarities which at length made her so great; high aristocratical feeling, and an intense power of submitting to discipline; profound veneration for authority, and a rigid observance of order and precedent, devotion to the national religion, yet subjection of all religious officers to the State; honour to agriculture above all trades, and to arms above all accomplishments. In such a stage of half-developed morality, not to be warlike, is not to be virtuous; and not to be devoted to established religion, is not to have any deep-seated moral principle at all." 2

By reference to these principles alone, we shall be able to understand Latin morality. Devotion to religion included devotion to the state, of which the king, in the days of the monarchy, was the religious as well as the 1 op. cit., vol. i., p. 176.

2 P. 80.

political head.1 Roman virtue, therefore, must not be judged of from the modern standpoint. It certainly had a moral element, but as the particular phase was determined almost wholly by the relation of the individual to the state, its development showed results very different from what is usually associated with the idea of virtue. At the period when Roman morality was the purest, the interests of the state formed its only real test, and it is evident that this is consistent with many actions which the moral code of modern society could never sanction. The existence of the state in a vigorous condition of growth was the concern of all its citizens, and anything which interfered with that object was vigorously opposed and condemned.2 But where in itself conduct was harmless, so far as its influence on the welfare of the state was concerned, it was treated as innocent. On the other hand, actions which were condemned when they affected the relations between the members of the state were considered praiseworthy when directed towards a foreign enemy, and for its aggrandisement. This was doubtless the source of the perfidy which Rome displayed in her dealings with foreigners, and the explanation of her political conduct. With the Roman, it may almost be said that patriotism took the place of morality, and when it is affirmed that the downfall of the Empire was caused by the decay of the old Roman virtues, it may be taken as meaning that the sense of patriotism had become deadened, if not lost, and with it disappeared the civic virtues which constituted the real greatness of the Roman character. A curious analogy may be drawn between the Hebrews and the Romans in this relation. Both alike

3

1 This was so also at Sparta. (See Troplong, loc. cit., p 603.) 2 We have an instance of this in the persistent but unsuccessful efforts of the state to enforce marriage. (Merivale, op. cit., vol. iv., p. 37 seq.)

3 Smith's "Ancient History," vol. ii., p. 301.

lived under a strong sense of duty, both viewing their law with a superstitious veneration as having had a divine origin, and, therefore, as claiming his implicit obedience. While, however, the one people fixed their attention on the divine sanction of the law, the other dwelt chiefly on the object for which that law was instituted. Hence, the Roman lived for the state, and with him the sense of patriotism was the governing principle of conduct; but the Hebrew regarded, not so much the state itself, as the Being whose will was supposed to be expressed in its laws, and the religious sense had to supply that principle. That only was right on either hand which the law allowed; but with the depravation of the religious sense in the one case, and the loss of patriotism1 in the other, the motive to right action was gone, and morality itself almost disappeared.

When among the Romans the moral sense was thus paralysed, and the mere letter of the municipal law alone was left to restrain man from perfect freedom of action, we cannot be surprised at the appalling display of wickedness which the latter days of the Republic and those of the Empire exhibited. Even the influence of Christianity over the morals of the people was only temporary, and probably they were never at a lower ebb than when Constantine transplanted the seat of Empire from the Tiber to the Bosphorus. Unless, indeed, it was at a later date, during the reign of Julian, branded by his enemies as The Apostate, when, says Dr Milman, "Christianity was in a state of universal, fierce, and implacable discord, the chief cities of the Empire had run with bloodshed in religious quarrels. The sole object of the conflicting parties seemed to be to confine to

1 This was shown especially in the gradual increase of celibacy, and the neglect to rear children. See Mommsen, op. cit., vol. iv., p.

547.

themselves the temporal and spiritual blessings of the faith; to exclude as many as they might from that eternal life, and to anathematise to the eternal death, which were revealed by the gospel, and placed, according to the general belief, under the special authority of the clergy. Society seemed to be split up into irreconcileable parties; to the animosities of Pagan and Christian were now added those of Christian and Christian."1 This was utterly inconsistent with a high moral tone, and

no sooner had Christianity divorced morality as its inseparable companion through life, than it formed an unlawful connection with any dominant passion; and the strange and unnatural union of Christian faith with ambition, avarice, cruelty, fraud, and even licence, appeared in strong contrast with its primitive harmony of doctrine and inward disposition. Thus in a great degree, while the Roman world became Christian in outward worship and in faith, it remained heathen, or even at some periods worse than in the better times of heathenism, as to beneficence, gentleness, purity, social virtue, humanity, and peace."" That the Pagan Romans were not devoid of the active virtues was shown when treating of the altruistic sentiment.3 It could hardly be otherwise, considering the importance attached by the Romans to the "family," and the dependence of those virtues on the development of the family affections. But, notwithstanding their hospitality, a practice for which the early Romans were distinguished, private benevolence never attained to any great proportions among them. Their 1 "History of Christianity," vol. iii., p. 54.

2 Do., p. 528.

3 Supra, vol. i., p. 461.

As among the Greeks, hospitality was placed under the sanction of a god, Jupiter hospitalis, the character of a hospes, i.e., a person connected with a Roman by ties of hospitality, was deemed even more sacred, and to have greater claims upon the host, than that of a person connected by blood or affinity." "Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," Art. Hospitium.

morality, like that of the predatory races referred to in a former chapter, revealed itself rather in the passive virtues, which, however, at the brightest epoch of Roman history, would seem to have been concentrated on the glory and well-being of the State, as their chief if not only object.

THE GREEKS.

The study of history shows that primitively there was little, if anything, to distinguish the classic peoples of Southern Europe from the barbarous nations by whom they were surrounded. It was so, at least, with the Greeks, whose morality was not at any period of a very exalted type. The picture drawn by Mr Grote of Homeric Greece reminds us more of an aggregation of communities like the old robber clans of the Scottish border than of a cultivated nation. Thus the historian declares that, when we pass beyond the influence of private ties, "we find scarcely any other moralising forces in operation. The acts and adventures commemorated imply a community wherein neither the protection nor the restraints of law are practically felt, and wherein ferocity, rapine, and aggressive propensities generally, seem restrained by no internal counterbalancing scruples.. Homicide, especially, is of frequent occurrence—sometimes by open violence, sometimes by fraud; expatriation for homicide is among the most constantly recurring acts of the Homeric poems; and savage brutalities are often ascribed even to admired heroes with apparent indifference. Again, "the celebrity of Autolykus, maternal grandfather of Odysseus, in the career of wholesale robbery and perjury, and the wealth which it enabled him to acquire, are described with the same unaffected admiration as the wisdom of Nestôr or the strength of 1 History of Greece, vol. i., p. 480.

"1