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."*

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

their king. After instituting some little matters of personal ceremony, calculated to inspire his subjects with a proper and becoming degree of reverence for the kingly office, he divided the people into three distinct classes called tribes. Each tribe was divided into ten curiæ, or companies of one hundred, and these one hundred persons were again divided into tens, under the name of decurio. The tribes, curiæ, and decurice had each an officer or commander under the title of Tribune, Centurio, and Decurio.

The lands were divided into three parts, but not equally. One part was appropriated to religious purposes, another to the support of the kingly office, and the third or largest portion, was divided among thirty curiæ, which division gave to each person about two acres of ground.

In each curia, a priest was appointed under the title of curio, for the due performance of all the rites and ceremonies of heathen worship. Two of the principal inhabitants were also chosen out of each curia, to administer justice, who were stiled duumviri.

The whole of the citizens of Rome were, for legislative purposes, divided by Romulus into two distinct classes, who for subsequent ages retained the appellations given to them. The one class were the patricians, composed of what were considered the most eminent men for birth, virtue, and wisdom; and the other were called plebeians, and embraced the humbler and less worthy portion of the inhabitants.

The Roman Senate was composed of a hundred of the most distinguished patricians, elected by the curiæ. The king claimed the privilege of naming the first senator, and he was appointed to take charge of the

Each tribe

city whenever Romulus might be absent. elected three more, and then the thirty curiæ elected three each, which made the number of one hundred senators. These public functionaries were held in the highest esteem by the Romans, who called them the fathers of their country. When the number of the senators was afterwards increased, those of the new creation were named conscript fathers; but in the course of time this designation became common to all the members of this assembly.

The Roman government was now composed of three distinct powers, the king, the senate, and the people. The legislative functions of each power were settled in nearly the following manner. The king made known the laws, and carried them into execution. He had the power to convene the senate, and the assemblies of the people; decided upon all important matters; was the head of the religion of the state; general of the army in time of war; and had charge of all the revenues of the exchequer. The powers of the senate were, to attend to the due observance of the laws; to take into deliberation all matters brought before them by the king; and to carry their decisions to the Comitia, or general assemblies of the people. The king as chief magistrate of the nation, had a seat in the senate, but he had no exclusive power, and was limited, like another senator, to one vote. The assemblies of the people had the power of proclaiming peace and war, the enacting of laws, and the creation of magistrates and priests; but to all these acts, the senate's approbation was necessary, before they could become invested with the force and authority of laws.

G