impulse in philosophy by turning his attention away from physical science to the study of the human mind. This new direction was of inestimable service to science; but it seems as if a certain narrowness was imparted by it to the Platonic school, which has ever adhered to that body. Few, we believe, are the names and small the success of natural philosophers belonging to the Academy. They have usually looked on the study with dread or contempt, either as leading to atheism or as employed about transitory and particular things. But here again the one-sided tendency is unfortunate. At least it may well be doubted whether physics and metaphysics can be understood fully when disconnected, and whether the observation of events and of nature is not as essential even to a true theology as the intuitions of reason. Is not every general process in nature a contribution to our knowledge of God? Could the essential excellence of justice convince us that God was just, if we did not discover here on earth precisely such a system of imperfect justice, as is possible in a probationary state? Is not the fact open to our observation that " the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord" as necessary to satisfy our minds as are the original convictions of our reason upon that subject? But it is said there is a decay of faith at the present age. The leaning is towards materialism. There may be truth in this, but we may doubt whether the cry on this subject is not too loud, as long as we see the numbers of devout naturalists who flourish in these times, and especially as long at we see that it is a most religious age, full of hope and full of effort for the spread of Christianity. This certainly does not look like the increase of atheism. and unbelief. We would wish then to see a milder spirit than many now exhibit, shown towards the reigning philosophy. It has made known a multitude of particulars calculated to throw light on the wisdom of God, and to fill the mind with wonder and reverence. It is an humble philosophy: so far from boasting that it has opened the inner chambers of nature, it only claims to have just reached the threshold. If charged with not having the nature of true science, which is concerned with the absolute and the invariable, it quietly replies, that however that may be, it has treasured up a store of facts and of laws, if they may be called so, for future generations and younger philosophies to use. If accused of being noisy, it may urge that however loudly its achievements may be talked of, it is not noisy in its own nature. Its path is along the still valley and on the hills, where the solitary flower and the lonely 1845.] W. A. Becker on Roman Slavery. 565 crystal have their abode; its communion is with the silent stars; it evaporates its liquids, and analyses its compounds in noiseless experiments. It may have tendencies which need to be resisted, but it is nevertheless not to be despised as a helper in acquainting us with God. ARTICLE VI. ROMAN SLAVERY. Translated from the German of Dr. W. A. Becker, Professor in the University of Leipsic. By J. O. Lincoln, Prof. of Latin in Brown University. [The following article is a translation from a learned work of Prof. W. A. Becker, entitled "A Manual of Roman Antiquities," now in course of publication in Germany. The first Part appeared in 1843, and is devoted to the subject of Roman Topography. It consists of two minor parts, the first embracing the sources of information, and the literature of the subject; and the second, the Topography itself. Accompanying this Part are a Plan of the City, prepared under the personal direction of the author, and four Plates, illustrative of the Fora, the Capitol, Fragments of the Capitoline Plan and Roman Coins. This Treatise on Topography has attracted great attention in Germany; and has been the subject, for the most part, of very favorable criticism; and even its severe reviewer, Prof. Preller of Dorpat, in the Jena Journal,1 concedes to it the highest distinction in this department of labor, and calls it "the most useful Manual of Roman Antiquities." This review has elicited a rejoinder from the author, which has appeared as a Supplement to the First Part of the Manual, under the significant title of "A Warning," and, we fancy, will effect the author's purpose, of clearing the lists of all antagonists, who are not duly armed and equipped for the contest. The controversy involves the merits of what may be called the Italian and the German schools of Roman Topography; and Prof. Preller, a distinguished laborer in classical Archaeology, having spent the winter of 1843-44 in Rome, and prosecuted his topographical investigations in habits of daily intercourse with Canina and with the scholars there associated * Jena Allgem. Liter. Zeitung, 1844, Nos. 121–127. in the Archaeological Society, has come forth, on his return to Germany, as the champion of the Italian school, to rescue its fallen honor from the victorious hands of Dr. Becker. This matter is perhaps not yet at an end; but it may be safely concluded, that Roman topography has suffered no material injury under the treat. ment of Dr. Becker. The truth is, and we speak not without personal knowledge, the labors of Prof. Preller, though characterized by great ability, and conducted in connection with daily investigations on the spot, have not sprung from purely professional aims, nor been animated by an independent love of science, but have been largely mingled with private and local prejudices, and imbued with the zeal and spirit of party. This whole subject deserves an extended review; but we only remark in this passing notice, that it remains to be seen, whether the thorough philological cultivation and learning of a German scholar, aided by a personal examination of Roman localities, will not, in the settlement of the vexed questions of Roman Topography, prevail over the inferior classical scholarship of Italy, though combined with the great architectural skill and knowledge of Canina, and his long and intimate acquaintance with all the local antiquities of Rome. It is from the second Part of the above mentioned work, only the first subdivision of which has very recently appeared, that the following account of Roman Slavery has been translated. This Part is devoted to the subject of Political Antiquities, and the present subdivision embraces three chapters, the first on the Origin of the Roman State, the second on the Divisions of the Roman Population, and the third on the Civil Constitution under the Kings. The account of Slavery occurs as one of the sections in the second chapter. In its character and method, it illustrates the learning and scholarship of the whole work. On account of its intrinsic merits, as well as the fact of the prevailing interest in our country on the general subject, we have thought it worthy of being rendered accessible to the American reader. We have not been unmindful of the valuable Essay on this subject by Prof. B. B. Edwards, which appeared in the Biblical Repository, Oct. 1835. The great merit of that Essay is too well known, to need any notice from the Translator of this Article; but its plan and contents were so far different, as not to render the present account superfluous or needless. It embraces some topics that lay beyond the present author's design, and on others did not profess to give minute and detailed information. The various forms of manumission, the civil position of the Libertini, and several other topics, are here 1845.] Classification of the Roman People. 567 discussed more fully, exactly and satisfactorily, than in any other account that we have been able to find. We hope that the article itself, as well as the learned notes of the author, will prove useful to teachers and all others, who are interested in obtaining exact information on the subject of Roman Slavery.-Tr.] IN Rome, as in all the States of antiquity, the whole population fell into two classes, the liberi and the servi, the free, and the not free, or the slaves. In the earliest periods, the free were those who formed, in the tribes and the curiae, the populus Romanus, and there were no gradations of liberty; except that the clients (clientes) held a peculiar relation of political dependence, and enjoyed only a partial freedom. But when liberty came to be bestowed upon slaves, and there arose a class of persons, who were free, and yet did not stand upon a level of equality with the originally free, it became necessary to distinguish degrees of freedom. The idea of freedom was defined by the Romans only in a negative manner. The lame definition,1 according to which liberty is the natural power of doing anything that one will, unless hindered therein by violence or by law, was scarcely noticed in potitical and civil law, and the free were regarded only in opposition to slavesa free man was one, qui servitutem non servit, who did not serve as a slave. The free were divided into the ingenui, the freeborn, and the libertini, the freed, or the freedmen. It was sufficient to the claim of free birth,2 to be born of a free 1 Inst. I. 3. (Justinian's Institutes.) Summa igitur divisio de jure personarum haec est, quod omnes homines aut liberi sunt, aut servi. Et libertas quidem est naturalis facultas ejus, quod cuique facere libet, nisi si quid vi aut jure prohibetur. Also, Theophilus I. 3. p. 22. Goth. (Godefroy's Edition) p. 43. Reiz' do. εὐχέρεια φυσικὴ ἑκάστῳ συγχωροῦσα πράττειν, ὁ βούλεται, ει μὴ νόμος ἢ βία xwhvoɛ, etc. Comp. Gaius, 1. 9. Cicero also contents himself with the same definition in Paradoxa 5. 1. Quid est enim libertas? potestas vivendi, ut velis. An quisquam est alius liber, nisi ducere vitam, cui licet ut voluit? 2 It is probable that, in the earliest times, the condition of free birth was guarded with more strictness; that only the patricians were at first considered ingenui, then afterwards also the plebeians; but the son of a freedman would scarcely have been so considered. But it is certain that very early the notion of ingenuus was confined to free birth, in distinction from manumission. Thus Gaius I. 11. (a jurist in the time of Aurelian) Ingenui sunt, qui liberi nati sunt. Isid. Orig. IX. 4, 46. (Isidorus Originum, sive Etymologiarum,) Ingenui dicti, qui in genere habent libertatem, non in facto, sicut liberti. Thus it appears that the ingenuus was born at once to freedom and to citizenship, and came directly with birth into the class of the free. mother; and the further development of this condition led to the mild practical view, that in all cases the decision should be made in favor of the child. Thus the condition was secured if the mother were free at the time of the birth, although the emancipation had taken place during pregnancy; on the other hand, it did not derogate from the freedom of the child, if the mother became a slave during pregnancy, and became a mother as a slave; and finally too, the children of a free woman by a slave, were considered free persons.3 Besides the natural freedom by birth, there was the liberty by manumission, as in the case of liberti, libertini, which will be more particularly explained below. A Roman could be deprived of liberty in more than one way, but the gradations of civil freedom always remained unchangeable. The freedman could never gain the rights of free birth, and again these rights could be lost only with freedom itself. Hence when a freeborn Roman fell into slavery by captivity in war, and afterwards regained his liberty by manumission, and coming back to Rome was again invested jure postliminii (by the right of return) with his former rights, he passed notwithstanding the manumission, not as a libertus, but as ingenuus, according to the principle, natalibus non officere manumissionem (that manumission is no hindrance to one's birth-rights. The class opposed to the free, as already mentioned, was the slaves. In reference to their position, it was the fundamental 3 Inst. I. 4. Ingenuus est is, qui statim, ut natus est, liber est; sive ex duobus ingenuis, sive ex libertinis duobus, sive ex altero libertino et altero ingenuo. Sed etsi quis ex matre nascitur libera, patre servo, ingenuus nihilominus nascitur, quemadmodum, qui ex matre libera et incerto patre natus est, quoniam vulgo conceptus est (vulgo, illegitimately). Sufficit autem liberam fuisse matrem eo tempore, quo nascitur, licet ancilla conceperit. Et e contrario, si libera conceperit, deinde ancilla facta pariat, placuit, eum qui nascitur, liberum nasci, quia non debet calamitas matris ei nocere, qui in ventre est. Comp. Marcian. Digesta, I. 5. 5. and XL. 2. 19. The principle that one born of a free mother, but of a father who was a slave, is free-born, held jure gentium, by the law of nations, Gaius I. 82. On the other hand, several legislative enactments, as the Lex Aelia Sentina, and the Senatus Consultum Claudianum, did not acknowledge it, Gaius 1. 83-86. Comp. Tacitus, Annals, XII. 53. and Suetonius, 'Vespasian,' p. 11. By the above S. C. the free woman, who became pregnant by a slave, without the consent of the slave's master to such intercourse, became the female slave of that master, and her child was a slave; if the master gave his consent to the intercourse, the mother remained free, but the child was at once slave and the property of the master. Hadrian altered this law, in favor of the freedom of the child, in such cases, where the mother remained free. |