has been classic in the national mind of Germany in all later ages. If, in such a tribute paid by filial piety after a lapse of eighteen hundred years, we may, on the one hand, see something rather grotesquely characteristic of German deliberation, we may also find in it a proof of the awakening sense of reverence for ancient times in the heart of this nineteenth century. It seems to me, let me add, one of the healthful symptoms of a better spirit of the times, that a people should now deem it not too late to commemorate an heroic act of eighteen hundred years ago it is a change from that rash and revolutionary temper which was of late so rife—which looked upon the olden time with disdain, and with that insolence of selfsufficiency which vaunts, that

"Of old things, all are over old:

Of good things, none are good enough:
We'll show that we can help to frame

A world of other stuff."*

It is this victory of Hermann over the Romans that Arnold refers to when, during a tour in Germany, he says:-"Far before us lay the land of our Saxon and Teutonic forefathers--the land uncorrupted by Roman or any other mixture-the birthplace of the most moral races of men that the world has yet seen-of the soundest laws, the least violent passions, and the fairest domestic and civil virtues. I thought of that memorable defeat of Varus and his three legions, which forever confined the

* Wordsworth's "Rob Roy's Grave,” p. 243. "It is something to see reviving that filial feeling towards the years which begot us, which delights to own gratitude for the benefits received from them, and to deal reverently even with their faults, rather than to insult them by a perpetual boast of our own superiority." Quarterly Review, 1841. Vol. lxix. p. 113. W. B. R.

Romans to the western side of the Rhine, and preserved the Teutonic nation--the regenerating element in modern Europe-safe and free."* It was this battle, and the defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel, that Arnold used to rank as the two most important battles in the world. The victory in the forest of Teutoburg saved Germany from Roman subjugation, as the battle of Tours stayed the course of Saracenic aggression upon Western Christendom, preserving European civilization from Asiatic conquest, as, in ancient times, the victory of Marathonanother of the critical battles in the world's history--had saved Greece from Persian power.†

* Life and Correspondence. App. C. p. 454.

† The idea of a series of critical or decisive battles in the world's history, originating, perhaps, in an incidental remark of Mr. Hallam, has been cleverly elaborated in a work with this title by Professor Creasy, of University College, London; and I am glad of the occasion, valueless as my testimony may be, to bear it not only to the attractiveness, but the value of these volumes. The series extend from Marathon to Waterloo, with, as it seems to me, but one material omission,-for Mr. Creasy's view extends to this side of the Atlantic, -the battle on the Plains of Abraham, in 1759, by which the French Colonial America was destroyed, and North America became English beyond peradventure. Surely, this was a decisive battle.

From this work, I am tempted to make an extract illustrative of what is alluded to in the text,-the memorial of Arminius's victory."Nearly eighteen centuries after the death of Arminius, the modern Germans conceived the idea of rendering tardy homage to their great hero; and, accordingly, some eight or ten years ago, a general subscription was organized in Germany, for the purpose of erecting, on the Osning, (a conical mountain, which forms the highest summit of the Teutoburger Wald, and is eighteen hundred feet above the level of the sea,) a colossal bronze statue of Arminius. The statue was designed by Bandel. The hero was to stand, uplifting a sword in his right hand, and looking towards the Rhine. The height of the statue

Now the general historical view which I wish to impress on your minds is this-that the nations of Northern and Southern Europe were providentially kept apart until a period when intercourse should produce very different results from what would have followed had they come together sooner. When the people of the North came into continued contact with the Romans, the Roman Empire the fourth empire-had completed the mighty work which was assigned to it in the providential government of the earth. The office of the Roman Empire among nations, according to the well-known prophetical description in the book of Daniel, was to "devour," to "tread down," to "break in pieces;" and wonderfully did Rome fulfil her function; for, from the primal gathering upon the Palatine Hill, she went right onward for eight centuries, on a career of conquest as straight as her own great roads the Emilian or the Appian highway. That which was typified in the prophet's vision as the fourth beast, "dreadful and terrible and strong exceedingly,"the iron power of Rome,-achieved the work assigned

was to be eighty feet from the base to the point of the sword, and was to stand on a circular Gothic temple, ninety feet high, and supported by oak-trees as columns. The mountain, where it was to be erected, is wild and stern, and overlooks the scene of the battle. It was calculated that the statue would be clearly visible at a distance of sixty miles. The temple is nearly finished, and the statue itself has been cast at the copper-works of Lemago. But there, through want of funds to set it up, it has lain for some years, in disjointed fragments, exposed to the mutilating homage of relic-seeking travellers. The idea of honouring a hero who belongs to all Germany, is not one which the present rulers of that divided country have any wish to encourage; and the statue may long continue to lie there, and present too rue a type of the condition of Germany herself." Creasy's Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, vol. i. p. 250.

to it, by conquering the tribes and islands and nations, and absorbing them in her own vast unity-by converting an ancient dynasty like Egypt into a Roman province or sweeping away the last remnant of Greek freedom and the fragments of the Macedonian Empire— or by annihilating a commercial realm like Carthage with its colonies.

Bringing this to bear immediately on my subject, Britain, too, came within the scope of Rome's destiny; for Roman warfare was carried there and Roman power established. But it was slow and feeble and imperfect conquest, as in the evening of a well-fought day, when the soldier fights faintly or is sinking down to sleep on his field of battle—or in old age, when the veteran's arm is not so strong nor his passions so fierce. The conquest of Britain seems to me very different from the early conquests made by Rome; it was not such subjugation as destroys the elements of nationality. The whole power did not pass into the hands of the Romans, but was shared by victors and vanquished.

The Roman supremacy was established, and the independence of the Britons was destroyed, except in the west of the island, where the mountains of Wales gave a home to British freedom; still, the conquest was not of such a nature as either to sweep the original inhabitants from the land, or to reduce them to abject servitude. It was certainly conquest, and, doubtless, accompanied with much of the misery of conquest; but it partook also of the nature of alliance, or what may be intimated by a term which has become familiar of late to our ears-a kind of annexation. The Britons were Romanized, but they did not cease to be the British people. It was not

a revolution utterly destructive of national character or of religious and political institutions. The conquered race seemed to be more benefited than the conquerors. During the early period of Roman warfare in Britain, the evils of foreign invasion were cruelly inflicted; and we can easily credit the story of Boadicea-the slaughter of the Druids the captivity of Caractacus, and the forced exile of many from their homes to make room for the soldiers of the Roman legions. But when the fierceness of the war was over, the Roman and the Briton dwelt together; and, while Roman law was introduced, much of subordinate authority was preserved in the hands of British rulers. Under the Roman Empire there were British kings, and thus the royal title was perpetuated in an imperial province. To anticipate a term of the feudal system, Britain was a kind of vassal nation of the Roman Empire; and, while it kept its own national identity, it received and appropriated to itself much that was beneficial in Roman government. Tacitus is referred to as expressing surprise, if not indignation, at the facility and eagerness with which the Britons adopted the customs, the arts, the garb, and the refinement of their conquerors.*

In the play of Cymbeline, Shakspeare has portrayed the two nations in such a relation as that which I have been endeavouring to present to your minds. He is careful to preserve a certain degree of British independence, while Roman influence or supremacy is also recognised; and, with regard to national character, he shows, in the Italian villain of the play, how thoroughly demoralized. the Roman people had become-how much they had lost

*Tacitus, Vit. Agricolæ, c. xvi.