nobles of both sexes, who had lived in affluence, should come as beggars to the sanctuaries of Bethlehem."*

But it is not the intention of the author to write a history of the invasion of Rome by Alaric he has selected that event, simply as a starting-point in his introduction to a review of the state of society in the middle ages. That invasion forms the first grand epoch in the fall of Rome, which thenceforth became the prey of barbarian violence, till, at length, no traces of its greatness remained, and the eternal city itself became a field of ruins. And as it was the fall of Rome which prepared the way for the social phenomena of the medieval period, it was natural, before entering upon an enumeration of those times, to glance at the event which appears so conspicuously among the causes which effected them.

It will be proper, before we proceed further, briefly to notice the previous state of Roman civilisation, as this will in some measure explain the remarkable fact of so great an empire having been overrun by barbarians, and will also illustrate the character of that form of society which was succeeded by the social changes of the middle ages.

* Hieron., Pref. in Ezekiel.

15

SECTION II.

ROMAN CIVILISATION.

THE history of Rome is that of a municipality pushing its vigorous arms in all directions, extending its influence on every side, without suffering its own central power to be affectedwithout admitting any other city or country to share in its dominion; other cities were but her daughters, or her slaves, and her extensive provinces were but like so many vast suburbs encircling her walls. The chief magistrates in the Roman city were the chief magistrates in the Roman world. This phenomenon of a single municipal government administering the affairs of a wide surrounding territory, and of distant provinces and colonies, is the very type of ancient political civilisation: there is nothing like it in Europe, in modern times. London is a great municipality, but the power of its magistracy is confined within its own walls. If we connect with it the neighbouring city of Westminster, it derives considerable political importance from its being the locality where the national government is accustomed to meet; but, in this respect, its character is very different from Rome. It draws together the lines of influence which flow from the provinces, it receives and concentrates them: but the city of Rome was the centre of a system of absolute power, spreading its ramifications over the world. The former unites and gives intensity

to what it receives from without-the latter propelled far and wide an influence which originated from within. Rome was the fountain of political power-London is but the focus.

"A municipality like Rome," says Guizot, "had been able to conquer the world, but it was not so easy a task to govern and organize it. Thus when the work seemed consummated, when all the west, and a great part of the east, had fallen under the Roman sway, we find this prodigious accumulation of cities, of small states, instituted for isolation and independence, disunited, detached from each other, and slipping the noose, as it were, in all directions. This was one of the causes which led to the necessity of an empire."*

Under Augustus, Rome lost its republican character, and became an imperial city—a military despotism succeeded to free institutions. Mercenary troops and standing armies took the place of those invincible legions which had been composed of Roman citizens; and the new military power thus created was placed in the hands of the Roman emperor. The senate remained, together with other institutions which had existed in the days of the republic; but they had lost the spirit which had once animated them, and were now overshadowed and rendered almost powerless by the influence of imperial authority. Under Diocletian a system of partition was introduced, when the two Augusti and the two Cæsars became the rulers • Guizot's Lect. on Civilisation, lect. 2.

of the four great provinces into which the Roman empire was divided: this new system affected both the form and the spirit of the government; for, by removing these rulers from the city to their respective provinces, it released them from whatever little restraint the senate might have put upon their proceedings. They became absolute sovereigns, oppressing the provinces by their exactions, and spreading desolation around them, by their wars with each other. Constantine overcame all his rivals in power, and engrossed to himself the whole government of the empire; but by removing his residence and court from Rome to Constantinople, he prepared for that separation of the eastern from the western provinces, which produced in fact two separate and independent empires. Other changes were introduced by Constantine: the despotism of the court succeeded to the despotism of the army: state officers were multiplied without number; and, as Heeren observes, "if the good of a commonwealth consisted in forms, rank and title, the Roman empire must at this time have been truly happy!"*

How completely had Rome now lost the greatness which she once possessed! patriotism had faded from the empire; the spirit of liberty had expired. If republican forms remained, the life which had once animated them was gone, and they were made the covering for despotic practices, and oriental courtiership.

* Manual of Ancient History. Oxf. p. 456.

Laws no longer depended on the decrees of the senate, but on the rescripts of emperors, and government sank into a fearful despotism,-the punishment, under Divine Providence, of states unfaithful to liberty. It has been often observed, that despotism was the only kind of rule which could hold the Roman empire together during the last age of its history: but what a striking proof does that fact present of the thoroughly corrupt state of Roman civilisation!

Society in Rome was divided into three great classes, nobles, plebeians, and slaves. The accounts which are given by historians of the wealth, splendour, and luxury of the first of these classes, almost exceed belief. A writer of the period, describing the state of Rome under Honorius, relates, that several of the senators received from their estates an annual income of four thousand pounds of gold, which would be equivalent to more than one hundred and sixty thousand pounds sterling, without reckoning provision of corn and wine, which, if sold, would have realized one-third of that sum. The estates of these patricians spread over distant provinces, and, as early as the time of Seneca, "rivers which had divided hostile nations, flowed through the lands of private citizens. With such resources at their command, there were no bounds to their extravagance.

66

دو

Many of their mansions might excuse the exaggeration of the poet, that Rome contained a multitude of palaces, and that each palace was equal to a city; since it included within