regard of treaties. It was a maxim among the states of Italy, that treaties or conventions made with one king or chief magistrate had no binding obligation upon his successor. This, says he, was a sort of law of nations among them. It were to be wished that ingenious writer had given some special authority for this very singular fact, instead of contenting himself with saying in general that it appears throughout the history of the kings of Rome.

In the subsequent periods of the Roman history, hostilities more generally commenced upon the part of the Romans than on that of their neighbors;, of which there seems to have been this simple cause, that the chief magistrates, the consuls, being changed every year, it was natural for every magistrate to endeavor to signalize himself as much as he could during the short period of his administration. Hence the consuls were always persuading the senate to some new military enterprise; and that body soon became glad of a pretext which, by employing the people in an occupation they were fond of, prevented all intestine disquiets and mutinies. That this continual engagement in war, and consequent characteristical military spirit of the Romans, was owing to nothing else than their situation, is rendered the more probable from this fact, that, excepting a small circle of the states immediately around and in their vicinity, which necessarily contracted the same military spirit, all the other nations of Italy were indolent, voluptuous, and inactive.

The regal government among the Romans subsisted for 244 years, and during all that time only seven kings are said to have reigned. This statement is extraordinary; and the more so when we consider that there was no hereditary succession, where sometimes an infant succeeds to an old man; but each king was advanced in life when he ascended the throne; that several of them died a violent death, and that the last of them lived thirteen years after his expulsion. These are circumstances which have suggested considerable doubt with regard to this period of the Roman history; and it must be acknowledged that, even during the first five centuries from the alleged period of the building of Rome, we can be very little assured that the detail of facts which is commonly received on the authority of Livy and Dionysius is perfectly authentic. It is an undisputed fact, that during the greater part of that time there were no historians. The first Roman who undertook to write the history of his country, was Fabius Pictor, who lived during the second Punic war, (A. U. c. 535, and B. c. 218,) to which period he brought down his work; but the materials from which it was compiled were, if we may credit Dionysius, in a great measure traditionary reports; nor is his chronology to be relied on. We know, indeed, with some certainty, that there were no authentic monuments of the early ages at this time existing among the Romans. Livv tells us, that almost all the

ancient records of their history perished by fire when the city was taken by the Gauls. This author, therefore, with great candor, gives his readers to understand that he does not warrant the authenticity of what he relates of those ancient times. "It has been allowed," says he, "to antiquity to mix what is human or natural with the divine or supernatural, and thus to magnify or exalt the origin of empires; but on such traditions I lay little stress; and what weight or authority may be given to them I shall not here. stop to consider.” *

From such and similar considerations, some critics have gone so far as to reject as entirely fabulous the whole history of those first five hundred years of the Roman story: but this is to push the skeptical spirit greatly too far. There is, indeed, a mist of doubt hanging over the origin of this great people, as over that of most of the ancient nations: and it is the part of sober and discriminating judgment to separate what has the probability of authenticity from what is palpably fabulous, and thus to form for itself a rational creed, even with regard to those ages where the materials of history are most deficient. It is not unreasonable to conceive that the great outlines of the revolutions and fortune of nations, in remote periods of time, may be preserved for many centuries by tradition alone, though extremely natural that, in this traditionary record, the truth may undergo a liberal intermixture of fable and romance.

CHAPTER III.

Interregnum-Consuls appointed with sovereign power--Conspiracy against the new Government-Patriotism of Brutus-Valerian Law-War with Porsena-Popular disturbances-Debts of the Poor-A Dictator appointedImpolitic conduct of the Patricians-Their Concessions-Tribunes of the People created-Change in the Constitution-Reflections on.

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS had trampled on all the constitutional restraints, and on all the regulations of the preceding sovereigns. He had never assembled the senate, nor called together the people

* Datur hæc venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis, primordia urbi um augustiora faciat.-Sed hæc et his similia, utcunque animadversa aut æsti mata erunt, haud equidem in magno ponam discrimine-Liv. Hist., lib. i Proem.

in the Comitia. He is even said to have destroyed or broken the tablets on which the laws were written, in order to efface all remembrance of them. It was necessary, therefore, after his expulsion, that new tablets should be framed, and these, we may presume, were much the-same with the former.

An interregnum took place for some time, and during this time the supreme power was lodged by the senate in the hands of Lucretius. Brutus having in his possession some writings of Servius Tullius, containing, as it is said, the plan of a republican government, these were read to the senate and people, and approved of. The regal government had become completely odious, and it was agreed to commit the supreme authority to two magistrates, to be annually elected by the people out of the order of the patricians. To these they gave the name of Consules; a modest title, says the Abbé de Vertot, which gave to understand that these magistrates were rather the counsellors of the republic than its sovereigns, and that the only point which they ought to have in view was its preservation and glory. But, in fact, the authority of the consuls differed scarcely any thing from that of the kings. They had the chief administration of justice, the absolute disposal of the public money, the power of convoking the senate, and assembling the people, of raising troops, naming all the officers, and the right of making peace, war, and alliance; in short, unless that their authority was limited to a year, they were in every respect kings. The consuls wore the purple robe, they had the sella curulis, or ivory chair of state, and each of them was attended by twelve lictors armed with the fasces, the symbols of their power of life and death. The two first consuls were Brutus and Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia.

These magistrates, we have said, were elected out of the body of the patricians; an exclusive privilege which, in fact, rendered the constitution purely aristocratical. But the jealousy of the people was not yet alarmed; and they were so well pleased to be freed from the despotic power of a single tyrant, that it did not occur to them that they had any thing to dread from a multitude of tyrants.

On this change of the government, solemn sacrifices were performed, the city was purified by an expiation or lustrum, and the people renewed their oath against the name and office of king. Tarquin was at this time in Etruria, where he prevailed on two of the most powerful cities, Veii and Tarquinii, to espouse his cause. These states sent ambassadors to Rome with a formal requisition, that the exiled prince might be allowed to return and give an account of his conduct; but as it must have been foreseen that such a proposal could meet with no regard, the true purpose of the embassy was to secure a party in the interest of Tarquin, who might coöperate in a meditated attempt to restore him to power; and this purpose they gained by a liberal employment of bribes

and promises. The conspiracy, however, was detected; and t was found that among the chief persons concerned were the two sons of Brutus, and the nephews of Collatinus. An example was now exhibited, severely virtuous indeed, but which the necessity. of circumstances required and justified. Brutus himself sat in judgment upon his two sons, and condemned them to be beheaded, himself witnessing their execution. Exuit patrem ut consulem ageret, orbusque vivere, quam publicæ vindicta devesse maluit.* Such is the reflection of Valerius Maximus, but that of Livy is more natural; he remarks that Brutus, resolute as he was in the performance of this severe duty, could not lay aside the character, nor suppress the feelings of a father. Quum inter omne tempus pater, vultusque et os ejus spectaculo esset, eminente animo patrio,. inter publicæ pœnæ ministerium.† Collatinus had not strength to imitate that example, and his endeavor to avert the punishment of his nephews procured his own deposition and banishment.

१.

War was now the last resource of Tarquin; and, at the head of the armies of Veii and Tarquinii, he marched against the Romans. He was met by the consuls Brutus and Publius Valerius, who, on the expulsion of Collatinus had been chosen in his room, and an engagement ensued, in which Brutus lost his life. The fate of the battle was doubtful; but the Romans claimed the victory, and Valerius was honored with a triumph, a ceremony henceforward usually conferred on a victorious general after a decisive engagement. A higher honor was paid to the memory of Brutus, for whom the whole city wore mourning for ten months.

So much was the ardor of liberty kept alive by the attempts of the exiled prince, and such the jealousy of the Romans, roused by the slightest indications of an ambitious spirit in any of the citizens, that Valerius, notwithstanding the high favor he enjoyed on account of his public services, had, from a few circumstances apparently of the most trifling nature, almost lost his whole popularity. He had neglected, for some time, to summon the comitia for the election of a new consul, and he had built a splendid dwelling for himself on the summit of the Palatine hill, which commanded a prospect of the whole city-strong symptoms, it was thought, of the most dangerous ambition. Whether, in reality, he entertained such designs as were attributed to him, may well be doubted; but it is generally believed that a hint of his danger made him at once so zealous a patriot, and so strenuous a champion for the rights of the people, that he thence acquired the ambiguous surname of Poplicola. He pulled down his aspiring palace, and

* "He sacrificed the feelings of a father to the obligations of chief magistrate, and preferred a childless old age to any failure of his duty to the state.”

"While all the time his looks betrayed the feelings of a father, the pure patriotism of his soul prevailed in the administration of public justice."

contented himself with a low mansion in an obscure quarter of the city. Whenever he appeared in public he ordered the consular fasces to be lowered before the people, and the axes to be laid aside, which henceforth were borne by the lictors only without the walls of the city. He caused a law to be passed, which made it death for any citizen to aim at being king; he refused to take custody of the money levied for the expenses of war, and caused that charge to be conferred on two of the senators. But of all sacrifices to liberty, that which in fact most materially enlarged the power of the people was a new law, which permitted any citizen who had been condemned to death by a magistrate, or even to banishment, or coporal punishment, to appeal to the peo ple; the sentence being suspended till their decision was given This law, which, from the name of its author was termed Valerian, struck most severely against the aristocracy; and from this era we may date the commencement of the democratic constitution of the Roman government. (A. U. C. 244.-B. c. 510.)

For thirteen years after the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, the Romans were involved in continual wars upon his account. Of these the most remarkable was the war with Porsena, king of Etruria, who had taken arms in behalf of the exiled prince. The detail of this war by the Roman writers would be extremely uninteresting, were it not embellished by some romantic stories which have much the air of fable. Such are the defence of a bridge by Horatius Cocles, single, against the whole Etrurian army; the attempt to assassinate Porsena by Mutius Scævola, and the proof he gave of his fortitude by holding his hand in the fire till it was consumed; the story of Clelia the hostage, and her companions, who swam across the Tiber amidst a shower of arrows ;-beautiful incidents, but scarcely entitled to the credit of historical facts. Such examples, however, of invincible resolution are said to have produced a striking effect on the mind of Porsena, and to have converted him from an enemy into a firm friend and ally of the Romans. Tarquin, nevertheless, found still a powerful support from the external enemies, and doubtless from some of the traitorous subjects of the republic. Thirty of the states of Latium continued still in his interest, and the war was carried on with as much animosity as ever.

The Romans were in a train of success when there arose among them such violent dissensions as had very near caused the most fatal consequences. As these domestic disturbances continued long to embroil the republic, and were the source of many important revolutions, it is proper to consider their origin with some attention.

We have already seen that in the time of Romulus, when the first partition was made of the lands, a certain proportion was reserved for the public uses, and the rest distributed among the people by equal shares of two acres to each Roman citizen.. After