boasted justly, before 1789, a liberty which shone brightly in the middle of the silentious (sic) atmosphere of the Continental states. The disinterested observer does not examine if the scene where grave political questions are discussed is more or less vast, or if the actors are more or less numerous; he is only struck by the grandeur of the spectacle. Thus, far be from us the intention of blaming the nobility, any more in Rome than in England, for having preserved its preponderance by all the means which laws and habits placed at its disposal. The power was destined to remain with the patricians as long as they showed themselves worthy of it; and it cannot but be acknowledged, without their perseverance in the same policy, without that elevation of views, without that severe and inflexible virtue, the distinguishing character of the aristocracy, the work of Roman civilization would not have been accomplished."

Chapter 3rd, on "The Conquest of Italy," is very instructive; it contains a "Description of Italy," a notice of "The dispositions of the people of Italy in regard to Rome," of its treatment of the vanquished peoples, and a sketch of the Samnite and other wars. An account of the "Preponderance of Rome," and an estimate of the strength of its institutions, conclude the chapter, which is every here and there lightened up by Napoleonic ideas on politics and government, of which we may quote the following specimens :

"In the midst of so many hostile peoples, for a little state to succeed in raising itself above the others, and in subjugating them, it must have possessed peculiar elements of superiority. The peoples who surrounded Rome, warlike and proud of their independence, had neither the same unity nor the same incentives to action, nor the same powerful aristocratic organization, nor the same blind confidence in their destinies. They displayed more selfishness and ambition. When they fought, it was much more to increase their riches by pillage than to augment the number of their subjects. Rome triumphed, because alone, in prospect of a future, she made war not to destroy, but to conserve, and after the material conquest always set herself to accomplish the moral conquest of the vanquished.

"This general desire not to destroy the privilege, but to gain a place among the privileged, is a characteristic trait of the manners of antiquity. In the city not less than in the state, the insurgents or discontented did not seek, as in our modern societies, to overthrow, but to attain. So every one, according to his position, aspired to a legitimate object: the plebeians to enter into the aristocracy, not to destroy it; the Italic peoples to have a part in the sovereignty of Rome, not to contest it; the Roman provinces to be declared allies and friends of Rome, and not to recover their independence."

"That only is destroyed entirely which may be replaced advantageously."

Chapter 4th describes and explains the "Prosperity of the Basin of the Mediterranean before the Punic Wars." It is really an admirable sweep of view worthy of study and perusal. It closes with the following Napoleonic aspiration :

"This concise description of the countries bordering on the Mediterranean two or three hundred years before our era shows sufficiently the state of prosperity of the different peoples who inhabited them. The remembrance of such greatness inspires a very natural wish-namely, that henceforth the jealousy of the great powers may no longer prevent the East from shaking off the dust of twenty centuries, and from being born again to life and civilization."

In the 5th chapter the story of the "Punic Wars and Wars of Macedonia and Asia" is told well. 66 Everything disappears before the Roman power. The independence of peoples, kingdoms, and republics ceases to exist. Carthage is destroyed, Greece gives up her arms, Macedonia loses her liberty, that of Spain perishes at Numantia, and shortly afterwards Pergamus undergoes the same fate." The criticism on Cato, the censor, in this chapter is exceedingly unfavourable, and sometimes equally unfair, though too lengthy to be quoted and controverted here. It is too true that "too much success dazzles nations as well as kings," and Rome had been too successful. Not only had those conquests above noted been made, but "continental Greece, her isles, Asia Minor up to Mount Taurus, all this country, the cradle of civilization, has entered into the Roman empire. The rest of Asia receives her laws and obeys her influence. Egypt, the most powerful of the kingdoms which made part of the heritage of Alexander, is under her tutelage. The Jews implore her alliance. The Mediterranean has become a Roman lake. The Republic vainly seeks an adversary worthy of her aims. But if from without no serious danger seems to threaten her, within exist great interests not satisfied and peoples discontented."

The 6th chapter, with which Book I. concludes, is one the analysis of which would be very interesting. It treats of "The Gracchi, Marius and Sylla." It includes the period of the Jugurthian war and the wars with the allies, and presents us with the following melancholy picture of the state of the mistress of the universe: "The age of disinterestedness and stoic virtues was past; it had lasted nearly 400 years, and during that period the antagonism created by divergency of opinions and interests had never led to sanguinary conflicts. The patriotism of the aristocracy, and the good sense of the people, had prevented this fatal extremity; but dating from the first years of the seventh century, everything had changed, and at every proposal of reform or desire of power nothing was seen but sedition, civil wars, massacres, and proscriptions." A record of these is given, and it is interspersed with expositions of policy often acute and always cunning. But the chapter seems to have been mainly written to lead to the following reflections: :

"The history of the last fifty years, and especially the dictatorship of Sylla, show beyond doubt that Italy demanded a master. Everywhere institutions gave way before the power of an individual, sustained not only by his own partisans, but also by the irresolute multitude, which, fatigued by the action and reaction of so many opposite parties, aspired to order and repose. If the conduct of Sylla had been moderated, what is called the Empire would probably have commenced with him; but his power was so cruel and so partial, that after his death the abuses of liberty were forgotten in the memory of abuses of tyranny. The more the democratic spirit had expanded, the more the ancient institutions lost their prestige. In fact, as democracy, trusting and passionate, believes always that its interests are better represented by an individual than by a political body, it was incessantly

disposed to deliver its future to the man who raised himself above others by his own merit. The Gracchi, Marius and Sylla, had in turn disposed at will of the destinies of the Republic, and trampled under foot with impunity ancient institutions and ancient customs; but their reign was ephemeral, for they only represented factions. Instead of embracing collectively the hopes and interests of all the peninsula of Italy, they favoured exclusively particular classes of society. Some sought before all to secure the prosperity of the proletaries of Rome, or the emancipation of the Italiotes, or the preponderance of the knights; others, the privileges of the aristocracy. They failed.

Το

"To establish a durable order of things there wanted a man who, raising himself above vulgar passions, should unite in himself the essential qualities and just ideas of each of his predecessors, avoiding their faults as well as their errors. the greatness of soul and love of the people of certain tribunes, it was needful to join the military genius of great generals and the strong sentiments of the Dictator in favour of order and the hierarchy.

"The man capable of so lofty a mission already existed; but perhaps, in spite of his name, he might have still remained long unknown if the penetrating eye of Sylla had not discovered him in the midst of the crowd, and, by persecution, pointed him out to public attention. That man was Cæsar."

Our introduction, like that of the book before us, has been so lengthy, that we must postpone our analysis of, and our remarks on, the History of Cæsar, with which Book II. concerns itself. We have but briefly given a hasty glimpse of the first 300 pages of this book. We must give greater care to the more strictly biographical matter and the lessons deduced from them which lie before us. This we shall strive our best to accomplish faithfully in a succeeding issue. We need not scruple to say, however, that the work appears to us somewhat irregular and rather defective in critical sagacity, as far as scholarly research goes. For insight into men and manners, government polity, and the influence of change on peoples, it is really valuable, but exceedingly sly. There can be little doubt that political rather than literary importance is to be attached to the work, and that many opinions are expressed which bear more closely on things present than on things past.

Let us also say that printers' blunders abound in the book, that the translation is crude and foreigner-like, often Gallicised, and sometimes wholly unintelligible. An imperial book should have received more care even from a people's periodical publisher.

The Topic.

IS PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION ADVANTAGEOUS ?