the same time, their separate jurisdiction throughout the empire; the former, as the natural idiom of science; the latter, as the legal dialect of public transactions. Those who united letters with business, were equally conversant with both; and it was almost impossible, in any province, to find a Roman subject, of a liberal education, who was at once a stranger to the Greek and to the Latin language.

It was by such institutions that the nations of the empire insensibly melted away into the Roman name and people. But there still remained, in the centre of every province, and of every family, an unhappy condition of men, who endured the weight, without sharing the benefits, of society. In the free states of antiquity, the domestic slaves were exposed to the wanton rigour of despotism. The perfect settlement of the Roman empire was preceded by ages of violence and rapine. The slaves consisted, for the most part, of barbarian captives, taken in thousands by the chance of war, purchased at a vile price, accustomed to a life of

*

Claudius disfranchised an eminent Grecian for not understanding Latin. He was probably in some public office. Suetonius in Claud. c. 16.

* In the camp of Lucullus, an ox sold for a drachma, and a slave for four drachmæ, or about three shillings.-Plutarch in Lucull. p. 580. [It was by this practice, that the wars of ancient times were made so murderous and their battles so bloody. The immortal Robertson, in an excellent discourse on the state of the world at the period when Christianity was introduced, has drawn a picture of the fatal effects of slavery, in which are exhibited his profound views and solid judgment. There are passages in it which I shall place in opposition to some of Gibbon's reflections. Truths, which the latter either misconceived or intentionally neglected, are there found developed by one of the first among modern historians. It is necessary to notice them here, in order to bring facts to mind and their consequences. I shall often have occasion to refer to Robertson's discourse. 66 Captives taken in war," he said, 66 were, in all probability, the first persons subjected to perpetual servitude, and when the necessities or luxury of mankind increased the demand for slaves, every new war recruited their number by reducing the vanquished to that wretched condition. Hence proceeded the fierce and desperate spirit with which wars were carried on among ancient nations. While chains and slavery were the certain lot of the vanquished, battles were fought and towns defended with a rage and obstinacy which nothing but horror at such a fate could have inspired; but by putting an end to the cruel institution of slavery, Christianity extended its mild influences to the practice of war; and that barbarous art, softened by Christ's humane spirit, ceased to be so destructive. Secure, in every event, of personal liberty, the resistance of the vanquished became less obstinate, and the triumph of the

independence, and impatient to break and to revenge their fetters. Against such internal enemies, whose desperate insurrections had more than once reduced the republic to the brink of destruction,* the most severe regulations,† and

victor less cruel. Thus humanity was introduced into the exercise of war, and with which it appears to be almost incompatible; and it is to the merciful maxims of Christianity, much more than to any other cause, that we must ascribe the little ferocity and bloodshed, which accompany modern victories."-GUIZOT.] Diodorus Siculus in See a remarkable

Eclog. Hist. 1. 34 and 36. Florus, iii. 19, 20. instance of severity in Cicero in Verrem, v. 3. [How far the term "severity" is here correctly used, may be seen in the following account of the transaction to which this note points. While L. Domitius was acting as Prætor in Sicily, a slave killed a wild boar of an extraordinary size. The governor having heard of this man's skilful courage, wished to see him. The unfortunate slave, gratified by such a mark of distinction, obeyed the summons, and hoped to receive commendation and rewards. But Domitius, informed that he killed the animal with a common boar-spear, ordered him immediately to be crucified, on the barbarous plea, that the law forbade slaves to use this or any other weapon. The cruelty of Domitius is perhaps less surprising than the indifference with which it is related by the Roman orator, who was so little affected by it, that he said, "Durum hoc fortasse videatur, neque ego in ullam partem disputo." "This may be thought hard; but I express no opinion on either side." Yet in this very oration, we find the same speaker saying, "Facinus est vincire civem Romanum ; scelus verberare; prope parricidium necare; quid dicam in crucem tollere?" "To place a Roman citizen in bonds is an offence; to scourge him is a crime; to kill him is almost a parricide; in what words then shall I reprobate the act of crucifying him?" In his observations on slavery, Gibbon is guilty not only of a culpable indifference, but also of carrying impartiality to such an extreme, as to look like a want of honesty. He strives to extenuate all that was most frightful in the condition of the slaves, and the treatment which they underwent. The most atrocious inflictions, he considers, may be justified by necessity. Then by minute examination, he magnifies the slightest solace of so deplorable a lot; he attributes to "the virtue or the feeling" of rulers, the gradual improvement that had taken place, and leaves unnoticed its most efficient cause; he makes no mention of the influence of Christianity, which first alleviated the misery of the slaves and then assisted in freeing them from their sufferings and their chains. I might collect here the most fearful and heart-rending details of the tyranny exercised over them by their Roman masters. Volumes have been filled by such recitals, to which it is enough for me to make this general reference. Some of Robertson's other reflections, in the discourse from which I have already taken one extract, will show that Gibbon, while he traced the first mitigation of servitude to a period just subsequent to the introduction of Christianity, could not have failed to perceive the operation of this beneficent cause had he not been pre-determined to

the most cruel treatment, seemed almost justified by the great law of self-preservation. But when the principal nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, were united under the laws of one sovereign, the source of foreign supplies flowed with much less abundance, and the Romans were reduced to the milder, but more tedious, method of propagation. In their numerous families, and particularly in their country estates, they encouraged the marriage of their slaves.* The

66

pass it over in silence. "Upon establishing despotic government in the Roman empire," are the words of Robertson, "domestic tyranny rose in a short time to an astonishing height. In that rank soil, every vice which power nourishes in the great, or oppression engenders in the mean, thrived and grew up apace....It is not the authority of any single detached precept in the gospel, but the spirit and genius of the Christian religion, more powerful than any particular command, which hath abolished the practice of slavery throughout the world. The temper which Christianity inspired was mild and gentle, and the doctrines it taught added such dignity and lustre to human nature, as rescued it from the dishonourable servitude into which it was sunk." To keep up the number of their slaves is vainly then represented by Gibbon as the only motive which induced the Romans to treat them with greater kindness in the time of the emperors. The same cause had existed before, and had operated with a contrary tendency. How was its effect so suddenly changed? "The masters," he said, encouraged the marriage of their slaves. The sentiments of nature, the habits of education, contributed to alleviate the hardships of servitude." The offspring of slaves belonged to their master, and could be disposed of or alienated at will by him, like any other article of property. Can "the sentiments of nature" be developed in such a position, or the habits of education softened and confirmed in so dependent a state? Inadequate and ineffectual causes must not be assigned for effects which require a more energetic spring; and even if some working of such inferior agencies should be traced in their production, we must remember that these, themselves, are the effects of a first, a higher, and more extensive cause. This it was, which gave to mind and character a more disinterested and humane impulse, and disposed mankind to assist and promote, by their own conduct and by a total change of manners, the happy result which was to come forth.GUIZOT.] *The Romans allowed a kind of marriage (contubernium) among their slaves, as well in the earliest days of their republic as at a later period; and when they became mighty and wealthy, luxury soon required an increased number of these attendants. (Strabo, 1. 14, p. 668.) The regular means of supply were not equal to the demand, and they had recourse to the purchase of slaves, even in the eastern provinces annexed to their dominion. Slavery is well known not to be favourable to an increase of population; and in the present times, where there are slaves, although they are encouraged to marry, and provisions are cheap, still there is an annual loss of five or six per

sentiments of nature, the habits of education, and the possession of a dependant species of property, contributed to

cent, which is made good by new purchases. In after times marriage was more frequent among the Roman slaves in the country than in towns; in the latter, living was expensive, and it was cheaper to buy than to rear slaves.-WENCK.] [See Hume's Essays, and Malthus on the Principles of population, vol. i. p. 334.-GUIZOT.] [Dean Milman and others have condemned M. Guizot's want of candour in the foregoing notes on the subject of slavery. He either did not comprehend the spirit of Gibbon's observations, or went out of his way to attain an object in which he has failed. Modern writers have been too willing to flatter the pride of their contemporaries or the prejudices of their sect, by exaggerating their moral improvement under the benign influence of religion. It is to be wished that they could produce less vague and dubious proofs of what they assert. No code of ethics can be more pure, more perfect, than that which Christianity inculcates. To doubt its hitherto manifested efficacy, is neither to deny its excellence nor question its authority; and those by whom it is most sincerely admired, must blush the most, when they see how inefficacious it has actually been to check the animosities and contests of belligerent nations. Robertson's remarks on this subject, which M. Guizot so highly commends, are not those of an impartial observer. Vanity and hyperbole often allowed themselves an enormous latitude, in magnifying the destructive consequences of ancient victory. The very fact that the conqueror could sell his prisoner, no matter what the price he obtained, proves that he must have been more anxious to take his enemy alive than to put him to the sword. Defence may have been more obstinate, but surely assailants had a strong motive to be more merciful. To come however to facts, do any horrors of ancient warfare transcend those practised by Tilly in the Rhenish Palatinate and at Magdeburgh, (see Schiller's Thirty Years' War, Bohn, p. 138, &c.), by Alva in the Netherlands, by Cromwell at Drogheda, by the Russians at Jassy and Ismail, and even in these civilized times wherever a fortified town is taken by storm? Nor is it true that of old "chains and slavery were the certain lot of the conquered." History abounds with instances to the contrary, where captives were led way to colonize thinly-peopled districts and inhabit new towns. The ousands whom Ptolemy Soter took from their homes after he had subdued Judæa, were settled by him in comfort and happiness at Alexandria and Cyrene, as equal citizens (iroπoλíras) with the Macedonians (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 12, 1, 1,) patronized by him and his son, and allowed the free exercise of their religion; they were assisted, too, by money and privileges in the pursuits of industry, so that many of their countrymen followed voluntarily, and all were raised to opulence and consideration. Compare with these the surviving victims of "Pultowa's day," sent into Siberia, or the unfortunate prisoners who during our last long war with France pined in the barracks of Stilton and Dartmoor, or within the walls of Vincennes. When the Romans conquered, they no doubt made many slaves, but they made more allies and associates. Compare any of their subjugated realms with

alleviate the hardships of servitude.* The existence of a slave became an object of greater value; and though his happiness still depended on the temper and circumstances of the master, the humanity of the latter, instead of being restrained by fear, was encouraged by the sense of his own interest. The progress of manners was accelerated by the virtue or policy of the emperors; and by the edicts of Hadrian and the Antonines, the protection of the laws was extended to the most abject part of mankind. The jurisdiction of life and death over the slaves, a power long exercised and often abused, was taken out of private hands, and reserved to the magistrates alone. The subterraneous prisons were abolished; and, upon a just complaint of intolerable treatment, the injured slave obtained either his deliverance, or a less cruel master.†

Hope, the best comfort of our imperfect condition, was not denied to the Roman slave; and if he had any opportunity of rendering himself either useful or agreeable, he might very naturally expect that the diligence and fidelity of a few years would be rewarded with the inestimable gift of freedom. The benevolence of the master was so frequently prompted by the meaner suggestions of vanity and avarice, that the laws found it more necessary to restrain than to encourage a profuse and undistinguishing liberality, which might degenerate into a very dangerous abuse. It was a maxim of ancient jurisprudence that a slave had not the state of Poland, in Russian thraldom. Nor did Christianity "put an end to the cruel institution of slavery." The serfs of the feudal ages, and many such, still existing in Christian countries, the Mexican and Peruvian sufferers under Spanish tyranny and avarice, the longenduring and tardily emancipated sugar-cultivators under British dominion, and the still oppressed negroes in the American States, all disprove the assertion. We may rejoice at the ever-advancing improvement of society, but we ought to lament that religious principle still so often holds only a second place, and yields, even in Christian countries, to that which is, or seems to be, expedient and profitable. Let us then forgive Gibbon for having exercised his ingenuity in an endeavour to discover any alleviations of slavery amongst the Romans, and for ourselves let us take heed how we boast.-ED.] * See in Gruter, and the other collectors, a great number of inscriptions addressed by slaves to their wives, children, fellow-servants, masters, &c. They are all, most probably, of the imperial age. + See the Augustan History, and a Dissertation of M. de Burigny, in the 35th volume of the Academy of Inscriptions, upon the Roman slaves.

See another Dissertation of M. de Burigny, in the 37th volume, on the Roman freedmen.