CHAPTER VI.

THE REAL CAUSE OF THE RAPID DECLENSION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLICK.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus observes,[303] that Romulus formed his new government in many respects after the model of that of Sparta, which accounts for that great resemblance, we evidently meet with between the Roman and Spartan constitutions. I may add too, that we cannot help observing as great a resemblance for some ages at least between the manners of both those people. For we find the same simplicity in their houses, diet and apparel; the same contempt for wealth, and quite to the last period of liberty, the same warlike genius. Publick spirit and the love of their country was carried in both states to the highest pitch of enthusiasm; it was deaf to the voice of nature itself; and that amiable virtue wore a kind of savage aspect at Rome and Sparta. But the alteration of their manners which alike preceded the loss both of the Spartan and Roman liberty, will admit of no kind of comparison either as to degree or progress. Luxury and corruption stole in by very slow degrees, and were never carried to any remarkable height amongst the Spartans. But, as Sallust beautifully expresses it,[304] the Roman manners were precipitated at once to the depth of corruption after the manner of a resistless torrent. I observe that the destruction of Carthage is fixed upon by that elegant historian, as the æra from which the rise of this rapid degeneracy is to be dated. He assigns too the removal of the dread occasioned by that dangerous rival, as the cause of this sudden and astonishing change. Because according to his reasoning, they could then give a full loose to the impetuous fury of their passions, without restraint or fear. But the cause here assigned is by no means equal to the effect. For though it might contribute in some measure to accelerate the progress of luxury, and consequently the corruption of their manners; yet the real cause of their sudden degeneracy was widely different.

The Romans founded their system of policy, at the very origin of their state, upon that best and wisest principle, “the fear of the gods, a firm belief of a divine superintending providence, and a future state of rewards and punishments:” their children were trained up in this belief from tender infancy, which took root and grew up with them by the influence of an excellent education, where they had the benefit of example as well as precept.[305] Hence we read of no heathen nation in the world, where both the publick and private duties of religion were so strictly adhered to, and so scrupulously observed as amongst the Romans. They imputed their good or bad success to their observance of these duties, and they received publick prosperities or publick calamities, as blessings conferred, or punishments inflicted by their gods. Their historians hardly ever give us an account of any defeat received by that people,[306] which they do not ascribe to the omission, or contempt of some religious ceremony by their generals. For though the ceremonies there mentioned, justly appear to us instances of the most absurd, and most extravagant superstition, yet as they were esteemed essential acts of religion by the Romans, they must consequently carry all the force of religious principle. We neither exceeded, says Cicero,[307] speaking of his countrymen, the Spaniards in number, nor did we excel the Gauls in strength of body, nor the Carthaginians in craft, nor the Greeks in arts or sciences. But we have indisputably surpassed all the nations in the universe in piety and attachment to religion,[308] and in the only point, which can be called true wisdom, a thorough conviction, that all things here below are directed, and governed by divine providence. To this principle alone Cicero wisely attributes the grandeur and good fortune of his country. For what man is there, says he, who is convinced of the existence of the gods, but must be convinced at the same time, that our mighty empire owes its origin,[309] its increase, and its preservation, to the protecting care of their divine providence. A plain proof that these continued to be the real sentiments of the wiser Romans, even in the corrupt times of Cicero. From this principle proceeded that respect for, and submission to their laws, and that temperance, moderation, and contempt for wealth, which are the best defence against the encroachments of injustice and oppression. Hence too arose that inextinguishable love for their country, which, next to the gods, they looked upon as the chief object of veneration. This they carried to such a height of enthusiasm,[310] as to make every human tie of social love, natural affection, and self-preservation give way to this duty to their dearer country. Because they not only loved their country as their common mother, but revered it as a place which was dear to their gods; which they had destined to give laws to the rest of the universe,[311] and consequently favoured with their peculiar care and protection. Hence proceeded that obstinate and undaunted courage, that insuperable contempt of danger, and death itself in defence of their country, which complete the idea of the Roman character as it is drawn by historians in the virtuous ages of the republick. As long as the manners of the Romans were regulated by this first great principle of religion, they were free and invincible. But the atheistical doctrine of Epicurus,[312] which insinuated itself at Rome, under the respectable name of philosophy, after their acquaintance with the Greeks, undermined and destroyed this ruling principle. I allow that luxury, by corrupting manners, had weakened this principle, and prepared the Romans for the reception of atheism, which is the never-failing attendant of luxury. But as long as this principle remained, it controlled manners, and checked the progress of luxury in proportion to its influence. But when the introduction of atheism had destroyed this principle, the great bar to corruption was removed, and the passions at once let loose to run their full career without check, or control. The introduction therefore of the atheistical tenets attributed to Epicurus,[313] was the real cause of that rapid depravity of the Roman manners, which has never been satisfactorily accounted for, either by Sallust, or any other historians.

The learned, I know, are not a little divided in their opinions about Epicurus. But a disquisition into what were, or were not the real tenets of that philosopher, would be wholly foreign to my purpose. By the doctrine of the Epicureans, I mean that system which Lucretius has dressed up in his poem with all the beauties of poetry, and all the elegance of diction. This, like the rest of the atheistick systems, which are attributed to most of the Grecian philosophers, is pregnant with the wildest absurdities that ever entered into the human imagination. Epicurus, if Lucretius has given us his genuine tenets, ascribes the formation of the universe to the fortuitous concourse of senseless atoms of matter.[314] His master, Democritus, from whom he borrowed his system, asserts the same. But Epicurus has exceeded him in absurdity. For Democritus, if we may credit Plutarch, endowed his atoms with a certain living-intelligence, which Epicurus scorns to make use of. He boldly deduces life, intelligence, and free-will itself, from the direct, oblique, and other various motions of his inanimate atoms. He admits a sort of insignificant beings, whom he terms gods; but as he would not allow them to have any hand in the formation of his universe, so neither will he suffer them to have the least share in the conduct of it. He has showed them plainly, that he could do without them, and, as he has made them so egregiously insignificant as to be able to do neither good nor harm, he has packed them off at a distance, to live an indolent, lazy life, and to divert themselves just as they think proper. Thus he has got rid of the troublesome doctrine of a divine superintending Providence. Sometimes he forgets himself, and seems to deny their very existence. For he tells us in one place, that the whole universe contains nothing but matter and empty space, or what arises from the casual concurrence of these two principles:[315] consequently that no third nature, different from these two, can possibly be proved to exist either by the cognizance of our senses, or by the utmost efforts of our reasoning faculty. He teaches, that the soul is composed of the finest, and most subtile atoms, consequently discerptible and mortal. That the identity of man consists in the union of these finer corpuscles with the grosser ones, which compose the body. That, at their disunion by death, the soul evaporates, and is dissipated in the upper regions, from whence it first distilled, and the same man exists no more.[316] Nay he is so amazingly absurd as to assert, that if the soul,[317] after its separation, should still retain its consciousness, and, after a length of time, by some lucky jumble of his atoms, should happen to animate another body, this new compound would be quite a different man: consequently, that this new man would be no more interested in the actions of the former, than the former would be responsible for the behaviour of the latter, or for that of any future man, who might happen hereafter to be produced by another casual assemblage of the atoms of the same soul, united to those of another body. This doctrine is plainly stolen from the Pythagorean system of the transmigration of souls; but mutilated, and miserably perverted to the purposes of atheism. The absurdities in this wild philosophy are so self-evident, that to attempt a refutation of them, would be an affront to common sense. Yet, from this source, these philosophers draw their pretended consolations against the fear of death. That at death the identity of the man absolutely ceases, and we totally lose our existence.[318] Yet, from these excellent comforters, our modern scepticks have revived their senseless tenet of annihilation to serve the cause of libertinism. The grand _desideratum_, in libertinism, is, to be able to give an unbounded loose to the sensual passions, to their very utmost extent, without any impertinent hints from a certain disagreeable monitor, called conscience, and the dread of an after-reckoning. Now as both these terrors are removed by this system of annihilation, it is no wonder that libertines, who abound in a corrupt licentious age, should fly eagerly to so comfortable a doctrine, which at once silences those enemies to their pleasures. This is the creed introduced by the sect of Epicurus amongst the Romans, which easily accounts for that sudden, and universal revolution in their manners. For manners can never be so effectually, and so speedily depraved, as by a total extinction of all religious principle; and all religious principle must be necessarily subverted wherever this doctrine of annihilation is received.[319] I allow that Lucretius gives us some excellent maxims from Epicurus, and inveighs in many places against the vices of his countrymen. But the cheat is too gross and palpable, and only proves, that he has gilt over the pill of atheism to make it go down more smoothly.[320] For how can a superstructure stand when the foundation is taken away; and of what service is the best system of morality when the sanction of future rewards and punishments, the great motive which should enforce the practice, is removed by the denial of a Providence, and the doctrine of annihilation? Cicero informs us, that all the fine things, which Epicurus asserts of the existence of his gods, and their excellent nature, are mere grimace, and only thrown out to screen him from censure.[321] For he could not be ignorant, that the laws of his country punished every man with the utmost severity, who struck at that fundamental principle of all religion, the existence of a Deity. Cicero therefore, who had thoroughly examined his tenets, affirms him, by his own principles, to have been a downright atheist.[322] For in reality, a man who should assert the existence of such idle gods, as are neither capable of doing good or hurt, must, if he expects to be believed, be a greater fool than the man, “who says in his heart there is no God at all.” Yet this strange system, though fraught with such absurdities and contradictions as could scarce be palmed upon the genius of a Hottentot, has been implicitly swallowed by too many of those gentlemen, who affect to call themselves the _esprits forts_ of the present age. These are the atheistical tenets of Epicurus, preserved by Lucretius in his beautiful poem, which, like poison, conveyed in sweets, please and murder at the same time.

The Greeks were early infected with this execrable doctrine, and shew the effect it had upon their manners by their violation of publick faith, and contempt for the most sacred ties of religion. Trust, says Polybius, but a single talent to a Greek, who has been used to finger the publick money, and though you have the security of ten counterparts, drawn up by as many publick notaries, backed by as many seals, and the testimony of twice as many witnesses, yet, with all these precautions, you cannot possibly prevent him from proving a rogue.[323] Whilst the Romans, who, by their various offices, are intrusted with large sums of publick money, pay so conscientious a regard to the religion of their office-oath, that they were never known to violate their faith, though restrained only by that single tie. How greatly they deviated from this rectitude of manners, after these infidel tenets had taken root amongst them, we may learn from Cicero, in his orations and epistles. Sallust too will inform us, how extremely common the crime of perjury was grown, in that severe reproach, which Lucius Philippus, a patrician, makes to Lepidus, the consul, before the whole senate. That he neither stood in awe of men or gods, whom he had so frequently injured, and defied by his villanies and perjuries.[324]

Polybius gives it as his real opinion, that nothing shows the superior excellence of the civil government of the Romans, to that of other people, so much as those religious sentiments with respect to their gods, which they constantly inculcated and supported.[325] He affirms too his real sentiments to be, that the chief support and preservation of the Roman republick arose from that awful fear of the gods, which was so much ridiculed, and exploded by the Grecians. I have taken the liberty to render τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις, the Grecians, who are evidently pointed at in this passage.[326] For so just and accurate a writer as Polybius could not be ignorant, that the Grecians were the only people in the world at that time, who had been debauched into atheism by the pernicious tenets of Epicurus. Polybius firmly believed the existence of a Deity, and the interposition of a divine superintending Providence, though he was an enemy to superstition. Yet when he observed the good effects produced amongst the Romans by their religion,[327] though carried even to the highest possible degree of superstition, and the remarkable influence it had upon their manners in private life, as well as upon their publick counsels, he concludes it to be[328] the result of a wise, and consummate policy in the ancient legislators. He therefore very justly censures those as wrong-headed, and wretchedly bungling politicians, who at that time endeavoured to eradicate the fear of an after-reckoning, and the terrors of an hell, out of the minds of a people. Yet how few years ago did we see this miserably mistaken policy prevail in our own country, during the whole administration of some late power-engrossing ministers. Compelled at all events to secure a majority in parliament to support themselves against the efforts of opposition, they found the greatest obstacle to their schemes arise from those principles of religion, which yet remained amongst the people. For though a great number of the electors were not at all averse to the bribe, yet their consciences were too tender to digest perjury. To remove this troublesome test at elections, which is one of the bulwarks of our constitution, would be impracticable. To weaken or destroy those principles, upon which the oath was founded, and from which it derived its force and obligation, would equally answer the purpose, and destroy all publick virtue at the same time. The bloody and deep felt effects of that hypocrisy, which prevailed in the time of Cromwell, had driven great numbers of the sufferers into the contrary extreme. When therefore so great a part of the nation was already prejudiced against whatever carried the appearance of a stricter piety, it is no wonder that shallow superficial reasoners, who have not logick enough to distinguish between the use and abuse of a thing, should readily embrace those atheistical tenets, which were imported, and took root in the voluptuous, and thoughtless reign of Charles the second. But that solid learning, which revived after the restoration, easily baffled the efforts of open and avowed atheism, which from that time has taken shelter under the less obnoxious name of deism. For the principles of modern deism, when stript of that disguise which has been artfully thrown over them, to deceive those who hate the fatigue of thinking, and are ever ready to admit any conclusion in argument, which is agreeable to their passions, without examining the premises, are in reality the same with those of Epicurus, as transmitted to us by Lucretius. The influence therefore, which they had upon the manners of the Greeks and Romans, will readily account for those effects which we experience from them in our own country, where they so fatally prevail. To patronise and propagate their principles, was the best expedient which the narrow selfish policy of those ministers could suggest. For their greatest extent of genius never reached higher, than a fertility in temporary shifts and expedients, to stave off the evil day of national account, which they so much dreaded. They were sensible that the wealth and luxury, which are the general effects of an extensive trade in a state of profound peace, had already greatly hurt the morals of the people, and smoothed the way for their grand system of corruption. Far from checking this licentious spirit of luxury and dissipation, they left it to its full and natural effects upon the manners, whilst, in order to corrupt the principles of the people, they retained, at the publick expense, a venal set of the most shameless miscreants that ever abused the liberty of the press, or insulted the religion of their country. To the administration of such ministers, which may justly be termed the grand æra of corruption, we owe that fatal system of bribery, which has so greatly affected the morals of the electors in almost every borough in the kingdom. To that too we may justly attribute the present contempt, and disregard of the sacred obligation of an oath, which is the strongest bond of society, and the best security and support of civil government.

I have now, I hope, satisfactorily accounted for that rapid, and unexampled degeneracy of the Romans, which brought on the total subversion of that mighty republick. The cause of this sudden, and violent change of the Roman manners, has been just hinted at by the sagacious Montesquieu, but, to my great surprise, has not been duly attended to by any one historian I have yet met with.[329] I have showed too, how the same cause has been working the same effects in our own nation, as it invariably will in every country where those fatally destructive principles are admitted. As the real end of all history is instruction, I have held up a just portrait of the Roman manners, in the times immediately preceding the loss of their liberty, to the inspection of my countrymen, that they may guard in time against those calamities which will be the inevitable consequence of the like degeneracy. The unpromising aspect of our affairs, at the time of the sudden and unexpected alliance between the houses of Bourbon and Austria, gave the first rise to these reflections. But as the interests and situation of this kingdom, with respect to France, are so greatly analogous to those of Carthage with respect to Rome, I shall proceed to compare the different manners, policy, and military conduct of those two rival nations. By thus comparing the different policy of these warlike people, whose views and interests were as diametrically opposite, and as irreconcilable as those of Great Britain and France, we may learn the superior advantages which each enjoyed, and the different disadvantages arising from their different policy, which each people laboured under, during their long and inveterate contests. The result, which I most sincerely wish from this inquiry, is, that we may avoid those egregious blunders on the side of the Romans, which reduced them to the very brink of ruin, and those more capital defects on the part of the Carthaginians, which terminated in the utter destruction of their very being as a people.

[303] Dionys. Halicarn. lib. 2. 65.

[304] Mores majorum non paulatim ut antea, sed torrentis modo precipitati. Sallust. Fragment. p. 139.

[305] Nulla umquam res publica sanctior, nec bonis exemplis dititor fuit. Liv. in Præfat.

[306] Dionys. Halicarn. Lib. 2. p. 61, 62.

[307] —Tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Pœnos, nec artibus Græcos.

[308] Sed pietate ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus. Cic. de. Harus. resp. p. 189.

[309] Quis est qui——cum deos esse intellexerit, non intelligat eorum numine hoc tantum imperium esse natum, et auctum et retentum. Ibid. p. 188.

[310] Cari sunt parentes, cari liberi, propinqui et familiares: sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complexa est. Cic. de Offic.

[311] Pro qua patria, mori, et cui nos totos dedere, et in qua nostra omnia ponere, et quasi consecrare debemus. Cic. de Leg.

[312] That the fundamental principles of the stoicks tended to atheism I readily grant: but as the real philosophers of that sect inculcated a thorough contempt for what are called the good things of this life, and were extremely austere in their morals; their doctrines seem to have had a very different influence upon the manners of the people wherever they were received, from those of the Epicureans.—Brutus and Cato the inflexible champions of liberty, and almost the only virtuous characters in that corrupt period, were rigid stoicks.—Julius Cæsar who subverted the constitution of his country, was a thorough Epicurean, both in principle and practice. His principles we plainly see in his sophistical speech in Sallust, where he urges the total extinction of our being at death, as an argument for sparing the lives of Cataline’s accomplices. For he audaciously affirms to the senate:—“that death as a punishment was so far from being an evil; that it released us from all our sorrows, when labouring under distress and misery: that it put a final period to all the evils of this life, beyond which there was no longer room either for grief or joy.” Thus as the learned Dr. Warburton justly remarks, “he took occasion, with a licentiousness until then unknown to that august assembly, to explain and enforce the avowed principles of Epicurus (of whose sect he was) concerning _the mortality of the soul_.” Divine legation part 2d. pages, 111, 112, last edition. That his manners were notoriously infamous we may learn from the history of his life in Suetonius, where he is termed _the husband of every woman, and the wife of every man_. Omnium mulierum virum, et omnium virorum mulierem. Sueton. in vit. Jul. Cæsar, c. 52. ad finem.

[313] I here mean the tenets of the _Epicurean atheists_ as they are termed by the very learned Mr. Baxter in his treatise of the immortality of the soul; where he has confuted them at large in the first volume of that admirable work.

Inquiry into the nature of the human soul. Vol. 1. p. 355.

[314] It has been remarked; that the disciples of the ancient Greek philosophers have blended so many of their own opinions with the doctrine of their masters, that it is often difficult to distinguish the genuine tenets of the latter, from the spurious ones which have been interpolated by their followers.... Thus Epicurus taught that the summum bonum or supreme good consisted in pleasure. His defenders insist: that he placed it in that refined pleasure which is inseparable from the practice of virtue. His enemies affirm; that he meant the grosser pleasure which arises wholly from the sensual passions.... His friends reply; that this notion was first broached by the dissolute part of his disciples, who most injuriously fathered it upon Epicurus, and then alleged his authority as a plea for their debaucheries; ... they add, that the true Epicureans, who adhered rigidly to the genuine tenets of their master, always treated these spurious disciples as sophists and impostors. But even allowing this to be a true state of the case; yet that the materiality and dissolution of the human soul at death was a genuine tenet of Epicurus, is a truth which the most sanguine of his admirers are not able to deny. As this pernicious tenet therefore was equally held, and publickly taught by both these kinds of Epicureans, a very small knowledge of human nature will enable us to decide, which of the two opposite notions of pleasure was most likely to prevail, and gain the greatest number of proselytes amongst a luxurious and corrupt people.

The dissolute manners of the Romans in the last period of their republick, prove evidently, in my opinion, that the sensual doctrines of the later Epicureans were almost universally received. And if the evidence of Horace in his humourous description of the manners of those philosophers is to be depended upon, they seem to have engrossed the _name_ of the _sect_ wholly to themselves.

Me pinguem et Nitidum, bene curata cute, vises. Cum ridere voles, _Epicuri de Grege porcum_.

Hor. Epist. 4. lib. 1.

[315]

Omnis, ut est igitur per se natura duabus Consistit rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane. Ergo præter inane et corpora tertia per se. Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relinqui Nec quæ sub sensus cadat ullo tempore nostros Nec ratione animi quam quisquam possit apisci.

[316]

Et nebula ac fumus quoniam discedit in auras; Crede animam quoque diffundi, multoque perire Ocius, et citius dissolvi corpora prima, Cum semel omnibus e membris ablata recessit.

[317]

Et si jam nostro sentit de corpore, postquam Distracta est animi natura, animæque potestas: Nil tamen hoc ad nos; qui cætu conjugioque Corporis atque animæ consistimus uniter apti.

[318]

Nil igitur mors est, ad nos neque pertinet hilum, Quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur: —Ubi non erimus: cum corporis atque animai Discidium fuerit, quibus e sumus uniter apti, Scilicet haud nobis quicquam, qui non erimus tum, Accidere omnino poterit, sensumque movere.

[319] Epicurus vero ex animis hominum extraxit radicitus religionem, quum Diis immortalibus et opem et gratiam sustulit. Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 76 and 77.

[320] At etiam liber est Epicuri de sanctitate. Ludimur ab homine non tam faceto, quam ad scribendi licentiam libero. Quæ enim potest esse sanctitas, si Dii humana non curant? Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 78.

[321] The principles of the new academy, that doubting sect, which Cicero had espoused, led so directly to scepticism, that he keeps us in a state of perpetual doubt and uncertainty as to his opinions. Mr. Baxter in his Inquiry into the nature of the Human Soul, vol. 2. p. 70. complaining of Cicero’s inconsistencies and self-contradictions, observes, that—“as philosophers he teaches men to be scepticks, or to maintain _that truth is not to be perceived_.” And afterwards adds—“But it is long since it hath been observed of this _great man_, that his _academical writings are at variance_ with his other works; and that he may be confuted out of himself, and in his own words.”

Dr. Warburton expatiates largely upon the great difficulties there are in getting to Cicero’s _real sentiments_. I shall mention only two of them and in his own words. “A fourth difficulty arises from Tully’s purpose in writing his works of philosophy; which was, not to deliver his own opinion on any point of ethicks or metaphysicks; but to explain to his countrymen in the most intelligible manner, whatsoever the Greeks had taught concerning them. In the execution of which design, no sect could so well serve his turn as the _new academy_, whose principle it was, _not to interfere with their own opinions_, &c. But the principal difficulty proceeds from the _several_ and _various_ characters he _sustained_ in his life and writings; which habituated him to feign and dissemble his opinions. Here (though he acted neither a weak nor an unfair part) he becomes perfectly inscrutable. He may be considered as an orator, a statesman, and a philosopher; characters all equally _personated_, and no one more the _real man_ than the other; but each of them taken up and laid down, for the occasion. This appears from the numerous inconsistencies we find in him throughout the course of his sustaining them, &c.” And afterwards, p. 171, the Dr. adds—“We meet with numbers of the like contradictions delivered in his own person, and under his philosophical character,” of which he gives us several instances. In the note upon the word personated, p. 169. the Dr. observes, “that as a philosopher, his end and design in writing was not to deliver his own opinion; but to explain the Grecian philosophy; on which account he blames those as too curious, who were for having his own sentiments. In pursuance of his design, he brings in Stoicks, Epicureans, Platonists, Academicks, new and old, in order to instruct the Romans in their various opinions, and several ways of reasoning. But whether it be himself or others that are brought upon the stage, it is the _academick_ not Cicero; it is the Stoick, the Epicurean, not Balbus, nor Velleius, who deliver their opinions.” See Warburton’s Divine Legation, part 2. book 3. last edition, where the character of Cicero, as drawn by that very learned and able writer, p. 165, &c. is the best clew I know of to guide us through his philosophical works. See also, Critical Inquiry into the opinions and practice of the ancient philosophers, passim.

[322] Verius est igitur nimirum illud quod familiaris omnium nostrum Posidonius disseruit in libro quinto de natura deorum, nullos esse deos Epicuro videri: quæque is de Diis immortalibus dixerit, invidiæ detestandæ gratia dixisse, p. 78.

[323] Οἱ τὰ κοινὰ χειρίζοντες παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἐὰν τάλαντον μόνον πιστευθῶσιν ἀντιγραφεῖς ἔχοντες δέκα, καὶ σφραγῖδας τοσαύτας, καὶ μάρτυρας διπλασίους, οὐ δύνανται τηρεῖν τὴν πίστιν. παρὰ δὲ Ῥωμαίοις, κατά τε τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ πρεσβείας πολύ τι πλῆθος χρημάτων χειρίζοντες δι’ αὐτῆς τῆς κατὰ τὸν ὅρκον πίστεως, τηροῦσι τὸ καθῆκον.

Polyb. lib. 6. p. 693.

I have called ἀντιγραφεῖς, notary publick, because that office answers the idea much better, in my opinion, than _contrarotulator_, from which may possibly be derived our comptroller, which, I think, is by no means what is here meant.

[324] Te neque hominum neque deorum pudet, quos perfidia et perjurio violasti. Sall. Fragm. Orat. L. Phil. Cont. Lep. p. 146.

[325] Μεγίστην δέ μοι δοκεῖ διαφορὰν ἔχειν τὸ Ῥωμαίων πολίτευμα πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἐν τῇ περὶ θεῶν διαλήψει. καί μοι δοκεῖ τὸ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὀνειδιζόμενον, τοῦτο συνέχειν τὰ Ῥωμαίων πράγματα· λέγω δὲ τὴν] δεισιδαιμονίαν. Polyb. lib. 6. p. 692.

[326] There is indeed little occasion for an apology for this translation. The judicious critick will easily see, that in this passage there is a plain contrast drawn between the manners of the Grecians and the Romans in the time of Polybius. The cause of that difference this able writer justly ascribes to that δεισιδαιμονία, or awful fear of the gods, so strongly inculcated amongst the Romans, and so much despised and ridiculed amongst the Grecians, who were at that time greatly tinctured with the atheism of Epicurus. The instance he selects in proof, drawn from the very different effect of an oath upon the manners of those two people, must convince us beyond a doubt, that by the words τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὀνειδιζόμενον, he plainly characterizes his own countrymen. As by “οἱ νῦν εἰκῇ καὶ ἀλόγως ἐκβάλλειν αὐτὰ”, they who now (that is, in his time) inconsiderately and absurdly reject those great sanctions of religion, he evidently points at such of the leading men amongst the Romans, as in his time had embraced the pernicious tenets of Epicurus. For though he had stigmatized the Carthaginians immediately before their avarice and lust of gain, yet no man knew better than Polybius, that the Carthaginians rather exceeded the Romans in superstition. That they were sincere too in their belief, is evident from that most horrible method, by which they expressed their δεισιδαιμονία, which was their frequent sacrifices of great numbers of their own children (those of the very first families not excepted) to their god Moloch, who, by the Greeks and Romans, was termed Chronos and Saturn.

I thought this remark might not be unuseful, because as none of the commentators have taken any notice of it, so neither Casaubon, nor any translator I have yet met with, seems to have given us the true spirit and meaning of this remarkable passage.

[327] Ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἐκτετραγῴδηται καὶ παρεισῆκται τοῦτο τὸ μέρος παρ’ αὐτοῖς εἴς τε τοὺς κατ’ ἰδίαν βίους, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως, ὥστε μὴ καταλιπεῖν ὑπερβολήν. Ibid.

[328] Διόπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ δοκοῦσί μοι τὰς περὶ θεῶν ἐννοίας, καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν ἐν ᾅδου διαλήψεις οὐκ εἰκῇ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν εἰς τὰ πλήθη παρεισαγαγεῖν, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ νῦν εἰκῇ καὶ ἀλόγως ἐκβάλλειν αὐτὰ. Lib. 6. p. 693.

[329] But as soon as Epicurus and his followers began to weaken the foundation and principles of religion, by calling them in question, all manner of immorality came rolling in like a mighty torrent, and threw down the banks of law and sobriety. Lawrence, M. A.