THE

AMERICAN

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY.

APRIL, 1843.

SECOND SERIES. NO, XVIII. WHOLE NO. L.

ARTICLE I.

CHARACTER AND THEOLOGY OF THE EARLY ROMANS.

By Rev. Albert Smith, Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, Middlebury Col., Vt.

Ir is a remark of Aristotle, that excellence in man depends on his acquaintance with something higher and better than himself. The truth and importance of this idea are illustrated by the whole history of our race. Nations never rise in their moral character above the qualities ascribed by them to the divinities they worship. If these are represented as virtuous and noble, a corresponding excellence and greatness of soul will be produced among the people, and this in proportion to their reverence for the objects of their adoration. But wherever the gods are imperfect or base, imperfection or baseness will belong to the worshippers. Nor is it by the force of example only that the influence of the higher nature is exerted. Truth, or that which is received as truth, rendered sacred by a connection real or supposed between man and some superior being, acts with moulding power on the character of nations. The religion of a nation is decisive of its character, because the combined impressions of divine example and theological belief on the human mind are more efficacious and controlling than any, and all other causes. The superiority of Christianity over every other form of religion consists in the adaptation of the double nature and the perfect character of our Saviour to the wants of man; SECOND SERIES, VOL. IX. NO. II. 1

in the necessity, purity, and authority of the peculiar doctrines of his religion; and in the truth of the system of philosophy and natural theology which in the Holy Scriptures is everywhere implied. So far as the character of Christ and the peculiar doctrines taught by him and the Apostles are concerned, there is in respect to an approach to the true religion very little ground for a comparison of heathen systems among themselves, but ample room for a contrast of them all with Christianity. But in regard to a true natural theology there is a wide difference between the systems of error which have constituted the creeds of nations. No religion is wholly false, for a system composed entirely of error could never secure belief. In proportion as religions have been free from the worst abominations of idolatry and the crudest absurdities of superstition, and have embraced more or less of the fundamental doctrines of a right theology, the destructive influence of heathenism has been neutralized, and the salutary impressions of truth secured. That this was to a certain extent the case among the early Romans it is the object of this article to prove. That the Romans had at any period orthodox notions of the Deity, that they admitted into their creed in its purest state no debasing errors, and that they conceived in their minds and practised in their lives the distinguishing virtues of Christianity, we neither assert nor believe. At the best as well as the worst periods of their history the Romans were a heathen people, and their religious system was a heathen system. But while this is admitted, it may at the same time be maintained that there was an important difference between the religious views of the early and those of the later Romans, that there was as great a difference in their characters, and that the latter difference was to a great extent the result of the former. This is what we affirm and shall endeavor to establish. It is by no means our purpose to draw a full length portrait of the ancient Roman, to state at length the articles of his theological belief, or to give a description of the rites, ceremonies, and symbols of his religion. Our object is much more humble and restricted. We propose in the present article, to point out some of the excellencies in the noble character of the early Romans, to establish the fact of their belief in certain theological truths, and to show that there was a connection between this belief and the moral character which was, we think, its fruit. The contrast between the character and theology of the early Romans and those of their

descendants may be exhibited by a description, in a future number, of the condition in later times of both morals and religion.

I. Credibility of the Early History of Rome.

The early history of all ancient nations is necessarily obscure. It is a mistake, however, to imagine that it is midnight with antiquity because it is not noonday. It is the obscurity of the twilight, and not impenetrable darkness, that rests on the primeval days of Rome. The assertion that "the early history of Greece and Rome is deserving of no credit whatever," is much too sweeping, and cannot be maintained. It may be improbable, that in a period of nearly two hundred and fifty years the Roman monarchy was governed by only seven kings. The dates connected with the reigns of these sovereigns may be wholly supposititious, and many of the legends related of them sheer fabrications. But the probability that there were other kings does not disprove the existence of those of whom we have

accounts.

Nor do the chronological impossibilities, and the interpolated fictions of a heroic age, destroy the historical foundation on which the common belief rests. Among others Niebuhr has been referred to as having annihilated the credibility of the early Roman history. But this writer states expressly that "there is no rational ground for doubting the personal existence of Tullus Hostilius." He thinks that from the commencement of the reign of this prince very few of the characters mentioned in the history are imaginary, and that many of the chronological statistics taken from the yearly records are as definite as could at so remote a period be expected. At the same time he supposes that some poetical legends are added to the true account of his reign, and that it is only in the reign of the fourth king, Ancus Martius, that the public records assume the character of an unvarnished statement of facts. "The lay of Tullus Hostilius is followed by a narrative of a course of events without any marvellous circumstances or poetical coloring." This historian seems to regard the received accounts of the first two kings either as fictions purely poetical, or as traditional tales in which truth and errror are confounded beyond hope of separation. He classes Romulus with Hercules and Siegfried, and thinks the legends respecting him and Numa belong to religious

poetry. "Romulus was a god, the son of a god, Numa a man, but connected with superior beings." And yet in another place he says that Numa was not a theme of song like Romulus; nor does he, whatever particular expressions may seem to imply, appear to be prepared to deny the existence of either. "If the tradition, however, about them both is in all its parts poetical fiction, the fixing the pretended duration of their reigus can only be explained by ascribing it either to mere caprice, or to numerical speculations."

It would not comport with the design of this article to enter upon an examination of the opinions and arguments of those historians whose authority, in connection with that of Niebuhr, has been appealed to in proof of the uncertainty of the early Roman history. Of Niebuhr it may be affirmed that his investigations have not always been able to abide the test of critical examination, and respecting the most distinguished of the other writers he has himself observed: "The soul of his book is skepticism he does nothing but deny and upset." That much of what is related of the early Roman heroes and events is fabulous no one doubts. It was evidently regarded as such by the most judicious of the ancient historians. That Romulus ascended to heaven on the wings of the lightning, that Numa received divine revelations from a goddess, that Jupiter thundered from the right or left at the bidding of an augur, that an ox spoke, or that a priest cut through a flint-stone with a razor, is of course incredible.* Such stories evidently originated in that love of the marvellous which is native to the human mind, and which exists in a high degree among every rude and superstitious people. Like other heathen nations, the Romans were disposed to connect their ancestors with the gods, and to ascribe to them supernatural power. But this disposition cannot convert the walls of their city into air, nor annihilate the civil and religious institutions which existed among them, and which can be proved to have descended from the earliest times. The admis

Respecting the credibility of Livy, Müller has the following remark. "The relation of prodigies proves nothing against his judgment: he reports what the ancient world believed, and what he perhaps was willing the Roman people should continue to believe." Allg. Geschichte, I. 182. Heerens Handbuch, 386, 382.

sion of Niebuhr at the commencement of his work, that long before any historical record of particular individuals occurs in those ages, the forms under which the commonwealth existed may be recognized with certainty, is both true and important. Whatever views may be entertained respecting the early periods of Roman history, there are certain points which cannot be questioned. Rome had a beginning. The city itself, with its civil and religious institutions, must have had a founder, or founders. The popular belief ascribed the origin of the city and its government to a man by the name of Romulus, while holy Numa was celebrated, first in poetical lays, and then in sober history, as the author of the national religion. If it is contended that the names of those chiefs are not genuine, that the hero who built the walls of the city was not called Romulus, and that his successor neither bore the name of Numa, nor received the additional title of Pompilius on account of the religious processions which he instituted, it may be replied that a name is of small importance. If it is affirmed that no such men existed, still the city and its institutions remain, and neither sprang spontaneously out of the earth. Their existence must be accounted for, and until some more plausible conjecture is started, it is safe to speak of Romulus as the founder of the city, and of Numa as the author of the national religion. Accordingly this has been the practice of the most judicious historians, even of those who have been often skeptical in regard to the narrations of the ancient writers. The following remarks respecting the sources of the first periods of Roman history will commend themselves to the good sense of the reader. "The earliest history of Rome is as incapable as that of Athens, or of any other city of antiquity, of being reduced to strictly historical truth; since it rests for the most part on traditions which were delivered by the poets and orators. That in connection with fiction they contain also truths, is proved in the clearest manner by the political institutions whose origin they relate, and which reach back with certainty to those times. To wish to draw a well defined boundary line between the mythical and the historical periods, is to misunderstand the nature of mythology." "The traditions of the fathers were in part preserved in historical songs; (of a larger epic we hear nothing;) in this sense there existed a poetical history; but the history is by no means on this account to be regarded as merely poetical. Even at so early a period, the traditions respecting the institu