who will be content to accept the conclusions which I present to him. In former works, which cover a large part of the course now before us, I have gone fully into the critical analysis of our historical authorities. In this shorter compendium 1 take the liberty of adopting the results at which I then arrived, and often of merely abridging my earlier narrative.*

But this little work may also claim the title of General, inasmuch as it traverses the whole career of Roman history from the reputed foundation of the city to its capture by the Vandals, and the extinction of the Western Empire a few years later. Roman history travels through three principal stages, which it may be interesting to define more particularly.

1. The first of these may be designated as the "antiquarian." The reputed history of the great conquering people presents this striking peculiarity, that while it continues for several centuries to be merely legendary both in its main features and its details, it is found on examination to be curiously adjusted to the existence of many actual institutions. The institutions survived; it is certain that they must have had an historical origin; their origin appears to be accounted for by the narrative before us. It is the function of the antiquarian to trace these institutions to their real foundation, to distinguish between the accounts we can accept as historical and those we are bound to reject as fictitious or imaginary; he must collect, compare, and sift the authorities, full as they are of inconsistency and contradiction; he must analyze and criticise them at every step; and while he is obliged to advance many conjectures, he must explain the grounds on which he forms them, and show the means by which they may be defended. After all the critical labors of

* I beg to acknowledge my obligation to the proprietors of the Encyclopædia Britannica for the use they have allowed me to make of my article on "Roman History" in that publication, and especially of the chapter on the history of "The City."

Niebuhr and his successors in the art of historical construction, we have really advanced but little beyond the rude destructive process of Perizonius and Beaufort; we have trampled upon a great deal which the earlier critics had upset before us, but we can hardly be said to have raised any substantial edifice in its place, since we have so generally agreed to reject as visionary the most brilliant theories of our great German master. The local discoveries of Mr. Parker have their historical value, inasmuch as they confirm the reputed sequence of events in various interesting particulars; but the inconsistencies of the narrative can still only be explained by referring them to legends and traditions of no historical character. For myself, I am constrained to admit that there is scarcely one particular of importance throughout three centuries of our pretended annals on the exact truth of which we can securely rely.

Nevertheless, the history of Rome must not be written without the relation of these particulars, as they have been handed down to us by the ancients. They were accepted as historical by the Romans themselves, and as so accepted they played their part in forming the char acter of the people, and even in directing its career. They sank deeply into the heart and moulded the genius of the Roman race. They constitute the basis of half the best Roman poetry, and swayed thereby the imagination of both conquerors and rulers. Virgil and Ovid more especially can be but half understood by any one who is not conversant with the poetic myths of Livy; the course of Roman thought and action can be but imperfectly appreciated by those who are not aware how strongly they were influenced by the legends which taught the people that they were the favorites of the gods, and that this favor had been manifested to them on a hundred imaginary battle-fields. It is impossible, as I have said, to sift our early records critically in a work like the present; but it would be a great mistake to pass them over

altogether. I have not disguised how little stress I lay upon them as historical documents; but my plain course was to relate the story which the Romans have themselves transmitted to us much as they would have themselves related it, for the sake of its antiquarian interest, while at the same time I do not fail to warn the reader of the insecurity of the ground over which it leads him.

2. The second period of Roman history may be des. ignated as the "dramatic." No other annals, it may be fairly said, either ancient or even modern, are so rich as these in the representation of human character. There is no personage of mark that comes across the stage, from the fifth to the ninth century of Rome, who does not leave a distinct personal impression on our recollection. From the Scipios to M. Aurelius we seem to traverse a long gallery of national portraits, every one of which brings a real individual man before us. The Sulla, the Marius, and the Cæsar of Roman history are there presented to us each with traits of character as subtly distinguished from the others as the Macbeth, the John, the Richard of our great English dramatist. The Brutus, the Cassius, the Antony of the historians stand apart from one another as clearly on their pages as in the tragic scenes of the most illustrious master of human character. Shakespeare, it will be remembered, has made no attempt to delineate any leading personage of the Grecian annals. Of all the heroes of Athens and Sparta, there was none presented to him to whom, as a painter of human portraits, he felt his genius attracted. But it would be worthy of a Shakespeare to discriminate between the shades of astuteness in an Augustus and a Tiberius, of selfish cruelty in a Caligula and a Nero, of military bluntness in a Vespasian and a Trajan; between the roving curiosity of a Hadrian and the morbid self-inspection of an Aurelius. But all these characters have been passed in review in the course of the works on Roman history which I have formerly published. The portion of the present volume which

deals with their careers is for the most part abridged from those ampler narratives; but I hope that in the lighter touch with which they are here treated I have not failed to preserve the truth and spirit of their portraits.

3. There is yet a third period or stage in Roman history, and one which to my own mind exceeds in vital interest either of the preceding, but I am at a loss for any single word to describe it. With the age of the Antonines commences the dissolution of ancient society, and the wonderful transmutation of ideas which issued in the general reception of the Christian religion. We enter at this crisis upon a history of opinion. The arts languish; arms, except on the distant frontiers of the empire, are piled upon the ground; but the exercise of thought is more widely spread and more generally active than ever. After the second century of our era the political history of the times becomes imperfect and fragmentary. The writers who have professed to transmit it have no grasp of the actual connection of events. They have no insight nor sympathy with individual character, and the portraits they have left us are mere unfinished sketches or careless daubs. Few public men stand prominently forward on their canvas, and these few, such as Constantine, Theodosius, Stilicho, or Alaric, seem still to elude our examination, so blurred and featureless are the likenesses which are offered us of them. But the history of these times is the history of masses rather than of individuals, of opinions rather than of events, of social rather than of civil or political movements. We lack human characters to analyze, but we have human ideas and moral principles placed vividly before us, in records which are of deep and enduring interest. The story of the conflict between the old and the new belief, such as we can decipher from these materials, is one of grave significance, and one to which we may be more particularly attracted at the present day from the similar strife of religious opinion which is now active among ourselves. The discussions of the

third and fourth centuries were not less vigorous nor less wide-reaching than those of our own. But to describe this latter period of Roman history effectively it would again be necessary to enter into critical investigations beyond the scope of these pages. A few years ago I could only have referred the curious reader to the great work of Gibbon, to arrange and interpret for him the existing monuments of antiquity from which it is to be collected. Since then Champagny, De Broglie, and Ozanam have treated of these times in full detail, and with a direct view to the history of opinion. It is to be regretted, indeed, that these able writers are too subject to the ecclesiastical influences of the Romish creed, and allow themselves, in my judgment, to overstep the true line of moderation both as to the Christian system they commend and the system they depreciate. Nor must I forget to specify the exact critical review of the "Destruction of Paganism" by Bengnot and Chastel, nor the impartial contributions to the history of the time in the admirable works of Ampére and Amedée Thierry. The English reader needs hardly to be referred to the fair and generous appreciation of all schools and parties by our own lamented Milman. For my own part, I have been constrained by the limits I have assigned myself to treat this portion of my subject also with a studied reserve, passing lightly over matters which require for their full eluci dation a careful comparison of authorities and balance of critical opinions. Nor am I nnaware that a history of the dissolution of Paganism, and the development of Christian usage and doctrine, should be the work of the philosopher rather than of the historian; that it requires not only the ripest scholarship, but the most vigorous powers of combination and reflection; that as it seems to me to be the worthiest object of all literary ambition, so it is perhaps the most delicate and difficult of any. To such a task I have long since confessed myself unequal:

Et mea jam longo meruit ratis æquore portum.