timid and anxious state. Surrounded by dangers they could neither understand nor avoid, the imagination of man became inflamed; and a belief in supernatural intervention grew up. The mysterious and the invisible were thought to be present; and the emotions of fear and weakness thus engendered, laid the foundation of that superstition which was the basis of the religion, literature, and arts of those ancient countries.

The influence of the external world on the mind cannot be questioned. If it be sublime and terrific, as in the tropical countries referred to, it makes the imagination predominate over the reason; it inspires a spirit of reverence instead of one of inquiry, and, therefore, creates a disposition to neglect the investigation of natural causes, and to ascribe events to supernatural ones. It is in this way, argues Buckle, whose reasoning I have almost textually adopted, that the whole tropical civilization had to struggle with innumerable difficulties unknown to the temperate zones where European civilization first appeared. In all the civilizations exterior to Europe, nature conspired to increase the power of the imagination, and weaken the authority of the reason.

In Greece, where European civilization began, we see a country altogether the reverse of India. The works of nature, which in India are of startling magnitude, are in Greece far smaller, feebler, and less threatening to man. In Greece the aspects of nature are so entirely different that the very conditions of existence are changed. Dangers of all kinds were far less numerous than in the tropical countries. The climate was more healthy; earthquakes, hurricanes, wild beasts, more rare. This striking difference in the natural phenomena of the two countries gave

rise to corresponding differences in the mental associations. The tendency of the surrounding phenomena was, in India, to inspire fear; in Greece, to give confidence. In India, man was intimidated; in Greece, he was encouraged. In India, obstacles of every sort were so numerous, so alarming, so inexplicable, that the difficulties of life could only bé solved by appealing to the direct agency of supernatural causes. In Greece, nature was less dangerous, less intrusive, and less mysterious than in India: consequently, the human mind was less appalled and less superstitious. Natural causes began to be studied; and man, gradually waking to a sense of his own power, sought to investigate events with a boldness and success previously unknown.

The effect of these different habits of thought on the religion, literature, and arts of these two countries must be apparent. The works of nature in Greece being so much smaller and feebler, became more accessible-easier to experiment on, and to observe with minuteness. Thus an inquisitive and analytic spirit was encouraged; and the Grecian mind was tempted to generalize the appearances of nature, and refer them to the laws by which they were governed. In Greece, therefore, everything tended to exalt the dignity of man, while in India all tended to debase it.

To sum up the whole, it may be said the Greeks had more respect for human powers, and the Hindoos. more for superhuman. The first dealt more with the known and available, the second with the unknown and mysterious. In Greece, for the first time in the history of the world, the imagination was tempered and confined by the understanding: and the

gain was complete; for the inquiring and sceptical faculties of the understanding were cultivated, and the exuberance of the imagination checked. Whether or not the balance was accurately adjusted is another question; but it is certain the adjustment was more nearly arrived at in Greece than in any other previous civilization. Greek literature was, therefore, the first in which there was a deliberate and systematic attempt to test all opinions by their consonance with human reason, and thus vindicate the right of man to judge for himself on all matters which are of supreme importance.

From the pages of Buckle,* who investigated all authorities on the subject, I have abridged the foregoing explanation of the marvellous contrast between the civilization that sprang up in Europe and those that preceded it in Asia and Africa. The summary of this great writer's line of argument has, I hope, been of sufficient length to enable the reader to form some general idea why it was that the human mind, freed from the shackles that cramped it in Asia and Africa, expanded so suddenly in Greece, and rose to such wonderful altitudes. There may have been strong and sagacious intellects among the Priests and Kings of ancient India and Egypt; but the reasoning and the authorities. of Buckle prove that the tropical civilizations, however productive they might have been of Poets and Artists, never could have produced a mind so acute, powerful, and profound as that of Aristotle.

* It is evident that Buckle, in his analysis of the civilizations of Asia, Africa, and Europe, adopted the theories of Montesquieu, who, in his l'Esprit des Lois (1748), was the first to point out how radically the institutions and character of a nation are influenced by its climate, soil, and food.

2

ROME.

I will

My chief purpose is accomplished in having shown the birth and prominent features of European civilization; which was destined never wholly to die, though submerged in a deluge of barbarism. not, therefore, weary the reader with any details of Roman civilization, since it was nothing more than an inferior reproduction of what was borrowed from Greece. Rome produced Jurisconsults, Historians, Orators, Dramatists, and Poets-all of great eminence, but none that eclipsed their masters. The conspicuous feature of Roman history was her warlike spirit, which was only satiated by the conquest of the then known world. In legislation or philosophy, however, Rome begot nothing new, and added nothing to the knowledge the genius of Greece had created.

Two of the most remarkable intellects perhaps of the Latin world were Cicero, the Orator, and Tacitus, the Historian. Cicero was born in 107 B.C., and went to Athens in his twenty-sixth year to study his art. His greatest triumphs were achieved in oratory, but many of his writings prove that he was also a profound thinker. His work on Government, of which fragments only survive, displays a wonderful comprehension of the subject. I will quote one of its most striking passages, which I shall refer to hereafter, when I come to speak of the Constitution of the United States. "In my judgment," wrote Cicero,

"that is the best constituted government which, in moderation, is composed of these three original elements the Royal, the Aristocratic, the Popular." * Of course no such model form of government had ever existed; but it is none the less impressive that Cicero gave the weight of his authority in favour of the blending of the three elements in all good government.†

Hardly less remarkable, though written some 161 years later, was the opinion pronounced by Tacitus, the greatest of Roman historians, born 54 years after Christ. In his "Annals," which extend from the death of the Emperor Augustus to that of Nero, he remarks -"All nations and cities must be governed either by the People, the First men, or a Single ruler. A form of government constituted of these three it is easier to admire than to believe possible. If it should ever exist, it will be of short duration." -The fate of the American Constitution will decide the accuracy of this confident prediction.

Roman Jurisprudence has left enduring monuments. Three codes of law were compiled, the last of which is the most celebrated. This Code was drawn up after

* "Statuo esse optime constitutam rempublicam quæ ex tribus generibus illis, regali, optimo, et populari, modice confusa."-Cic. Fragm. + There were before Cicero several Greek writers of eminence, Plato, Aristotle, and notably Polybius, who discussed the conjunction of the three original elements as necessary for good government. Even as far back as 884 B.C., Lycurgus, in his marvellous Constitution of Sparta, attempted to combine these three elements. The opinion of Cicero, however, is entitled to special deference, not merely for his genius and learning, but that it was also founded on the experience and reflections of all the greatest writers and legislators who had preceded him.

+ "Nam cunctas nationes et urbes populus, aut primores aut singuli regunt, delecta ex his et constituta reipublicæ forma, laudari facilius quam evenire, vel, si evenit, haud diuturna esse potest."-Tac Ann. iv.