that there was less of the real speculative and mystical element embodied in them, than in other departments of philosophical inquiry. In moral, metaphysical, and theological disquisitions, we see a wider range given to the imagination, and constant efforts made to construct abstract and refined theories, in order to explain the varied phenomena appertaining to these respective divisions of human knowledge. In politics we have more of the practical than the systematic; more attention paid to what was, for the time, really expedient and necessary, than to the positive value and importance of general maxims or principles of national polity. The Grecian politicians seemed unwilling to trust themselves far out in the ocean of pure speculation, but rather to creep along the skirts of the coast, and be guided in their opinions and judgments by actual experience and matters of fact. Hence we find them continually appealing to the political institutions of various countries and cities; testing their general conclusions by practical examples more or less pointed and numerous. Pure theory touched upon political inquiries only at an oblique angle, and did not cast so dark a shadow over the labours of thinkers in the philosophy of citizenship, as in many other kindred subjects of mental speculation.

It is impossible to contemplate the political speculations of the Greeks, without feeling that they here, as in every other department of human knowledge, command our highest eulogy and admiration. There is nothing comparable to these speculations, in the history of any people, as being the pure offshoots or suggestions of unassisted reason and intelligence. Whether we examine the profound maxims on general

polity they developed, or consider them in the light of mere practical and party politicians, the character they assume, and the influence they have exercised over succeeding ages of action and thought, mark them out as a noble and highly intellectual people. Modern politicians, and historical writers, it is true, have entertained somewhat various and conflicting opinions as to the real value and character of Grecian writers on the abstract science of government; but none of these critics, distinguished as they really are, can deny the just claims of the political speculators of the Athenian republics, to be considered as energetic and correct thinkers in their day and generation. Their works, scanty and imperfect as they unfortunately are, will be read with interest and pleasure, so long as politics shall engross the attention of mankind.

It is interesting to have the opinion of such a distinguished man as Cicero, on the general character of the Grecian political writers; a man so deeply versed in the subject himself, and who lived but a few centuries from the ablest and best of the politicians of Greece. He says, "From the Platonic school the greatest light was cast over politics and laws. Afterwards, Aristotle illustrated all matters of civil jurisprudence in his elaborate essays, as did also Heraclites of Pontus, another of Plato's disciples. As for Theophrastus, who was instructed by Aristotle, he abounded, as you are aware, in disquisitions of this kind; and Dicœarchus, a disciple of the same master, was by no means deficient in jurisprudential science. After these, Demetrius Phalereus, drew legal learning by his admirable talents from the shades and seques

trations of the schools, into the open daylight of civil life, and gave it a practical point and efficacy, which are of the greatest service in all critical emergencies and conflicts. This combination of legal theory and practice is the more valuable, since we often find that men distinguished in politics are deficient in philosophy, and those celebrated in philosophy, are remarkably ignorant in legal affairs."*

* De Legibus, lib. 3.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE POLITICAL LITERATURE OF THE ROMANS, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES, TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA.

THE Roman speculations on the principles of politics, did not partake so much of the mythical character, as those of Greece. The Romans being a bold and warlike people, their fetes lay more in action than speculation. They became first acquainted with the opinions of the Grecians on philosophy and legislation through the medium of the political relations subsisting between the two countries; and when the works of Plato and Aristotle became known, and particularly the latter through the instrumentality of Tyrannion and Andronicus of Rhodes, a greater extension and a more scientific character, were imparted to the current though scanty stock of Roman political knowledge.

It will be necessary here, as in the preceding chapter, to make a direct reference to the Roman government, previous to entering upon the literature of the country, as it existed for several centuries. The elements of which this government was composed, enter so largely, both as matters of fact and comparison, into modern treatises on political knowledge, that it would be manifestly impossible for a general

reader to form a correct opinion on the leading features of political literature, unless he is, in some measure, acquainted with them, or at least, with Roman institutions. The notice, however, which we shall give, shall be as brief as is consistent with clearness and utility; and we shall avoid all merely controversial questions of a historical and antiquarian cast.

It must be borne in mind, that the Roman government has furnished the elements of every political fabric in modern Europe, and many of its chief institutions are at this moment the only instruments which vast communities of people have to guarantee their civil rights, and municipal privileges. Besides, the Roman government having always been since its establishment in active operation, it has become identified with the abstract principles of political science in every age, and has been the great and common store-house from which political writers, of all grades of opinion, have drawn their materials for discussion and illustration.

History does not furnish us with many very well authenticated materials, relative to the early political constitution of ancient Rome. In all accounts of the primitive government of the Roman people, a good deal of the marvellous is incorporated; but what we shall state in the following pages will, we hope, be borne out by the general testimony of the most creditable writers on the subject.

We find that when Romulus founded the city of Rome, he inquired of his followers whether they would have a republican or a monarchical form of government; and after duly weighing the nature of both systems, they declared for the latter, and appointed him to be