endeavoring to make their criminal procedure regular and stable; so it can be confidently assumed that no such license as a choice of president by the two factions, or, greater license still, by one of them, was allowed to exist.

The law of Crassus was very severe in the penalties it prescribed, and very strict against the defendant in its procedure, so that it is surprising that only two convictions occurred in the five cases of which we have knowledge. The short life of the law is not easy to explain, except through the rapidly growing influence of Caesar. His candidates were so regularly chosen to office (and apparently they did not find it necessary to resort to illegal methods) that the law was not applied. None was ready to challenge the election of a nominee of Caesar.

That the Romans were very much alive, that, when occasion called for it, they not only did joke, but keenly appreciated a joke, are, in general, facts far removed from the student's ken1. But, why should he be blamed for his lamentable ignorance on this subject? What commentator on Caesar ever called his attention to the statement of that great judge of literary values, Cicero, that 'in my opinion Caesar as a wit far surpasses all other men' (De Oratore 2.216)? What editor in treating the character of Cicero has considered it worth while to mention the fact that the great orator dearly loved his joke? The student of the fiery Orations against Catiline could hardly be censured for feeling that Cicero never laughed, unless he had been told that on one occasion Cicero not only laughed, but even 'split his sides with laughter' (the Latin is even stronger, Ad Quintum Fratrem 2.82 ego risu conrui), and that he began a letter to his brother (Ad Quintum Fratrem 2.11.1) by telling how greatly he was pleased because his brother was hilaro animo et prompto ad iocandum. From such quotations as these, to say nothing of many others that could be cited, one would naturally infer that Cicero would have made some mention of the God of laughter, Risus, had he known of the existence of such a god. However, so far as we know, but one writer, Apuleius, refers to Risus as a god2. Apuleius (Metamorphoses 3.11) speaks of a town named Hypata, at the foot of Mt. Oeta, as splendidissima et unica Thessaliae3

It is further to be remarked that the authorities he is likely to consult (Smith, Keightley, and even Preller and Wissowa) are silent regarding the god discussed in the present paper.

[Reference may be made here to an interesting paper on Roman jesting, by Professor Irene Nye, entitled Humor Repeats Itself, The Classical Journal, 9.154-164. с. к.

"Gellius, Noctes Atticae 1.24.3, quotes the statement of Varro that at the death of Plautus Comoedia luget, Risus, Ludus, Iocusque et Numeri innumeri conlacrimarunt. If one of these is to be regarded as a deity, all are. All are simply personifications, not deifications, and are like the personification of Iocus in Plautus, Bacchides 116, and Horace, Carmina 1.2.34.

It is not so surprising that this town in Thessaly should have a god of laughter. Risus, when it is remembered that the Greeks had a similar god, Γέλως. In Sparta, we are told, there was a temple for his worship and a statue in his honor, erected by Lycurgus. Who ever thinks of that stern lawgiver as laughing?

civitas in which there was a god Risus. Elsewhere (2.31) he states that the worship of Risus dates a primis cunabulis huius urbis. From these two passages we learn what this god does for the faithful:

iste deus auctorem et actorem suum propitius ubique comitabitur amanter nec umquam patietur ut ex animo doleas, sed frontem serena venustate laetabit adsidue. To insure winning the blessings this god can bestow, you must approach him in the proper manner: omnem de tuo pectore praesentem tristitudinem mitte et angorem animi depelle. One could not honor the god better than by thinking up some good joke, aliquid de proprio lepore laetificum, for by this means magis pleniusque tanto numini litamus. When you worship him, you must bibere solita Risui.

If you have neglected his worship, or have incurred his ill will in any way, set in operation the proper remedial machinery to regain the good will of the god: sanctissimum deum Risum hilaro atque gaudiali ritu propitiamus. If you would enjoy the beneficent ministrations of this god, his hierophant would say: Cras rideat qui numquam risit quique risit cras rideat! EMORY B. LEASE.

COLLEGE OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK.

REVIEWS

Deliverance: The Freeing of the Spirit in the Ancient World. By Henry Osborn Taylor. New York: The Macmillan Co. (1915). Pp. 294. $1.25. To criticize a book by Dr. Taylor would be a rather profitless task. He has already written two works of two volumes each, Ancient Ideals: A Study of Intellectual and Spiritual Growth from Early Times to the Establishment of Christianity, and The Mediaeval mind. Both works have taken high rank as logically excogitated and lucidly expressed expositions of the philosophy and history of thought begot by religious emotion. A third book, entitled The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages, and, finally, Deliverance, the work under review, would seem to be by-products from the mass of material gathered for the two larger works.

Deliverance, in the words of Dr. Taylor, is the "adjustment, nay, rather the assurance, and indeed salvation" for which the ancient world sought. In twelve chapters the author takes up one after another the religions of the Orient, the philosophies of Greece and Rome, the arrival, the struggle, and the triumph of Christianity through Jesus, Paul, and Augustine, coming, one must admit, very close to making Augustine the protagonist of his drama.

It would have been strange if the study and exposition in a more formal way of the fears and hopes of the ancients had not led an earnest and thoughtful man like Dr. Taylor to set down in a more intimate and untrammeled fashion

the ways in which our spiritual ancestors of all times and countries adjusted themselves to the fears and hopes of their natures, thus reaching a freedom of action in which they accomplished their lives; or, it may be, did but find peace.

The author reviews briefly Chaldaea and Egypt. He discovers in Mesopotamia neither "a religion, a philosophy, or an ethical scheme that could lead the human spirit to freedom or peace", but in Egypt he finds in the symbolical and pictorial ménage of the dead Pharaohs an expression of a belief in life after death which helped to free mortals from fear of the unknown. It is true that the current belief seems to imply that the same caste condition was kept after death, but it had two comforting elements: any afterlife was better than nothingness, and the better the Pharaoh the better the after-life for his ministers or his slaves.

The two chapters on China and India seem to the reviewer to have been written with great sympathy and care, but the basic idea of the one, Duty, and that of the other, the Annihilation of Individuality, will gain scant understanding in the Occidental mind. The vita activa of Confucius seems little more than a meticulously minute conformity to immemorial ceremonial, and the vita contemplativa reaction embodied by Lao Tzu only arrived, by a slightly different conception of the Tao, or Path, at virtue and character of a wholly passive, even quietistic sort. The Indian adjustment adds temperament to thought, for in one mood the Indians abhorred change, in another stability. The Absolute All-One of the Brahman and the Nought of the Buddhist are at opposite poles of thought and yet when attained are hardly distinguishable. The transmigration of souls, which we always attach to the Indian system of belief, is nothing more than their metaphysical solution of the way the indestructible element in man, which outlives his mortal clay but which needs pain or effacement or discipline throughout great periods of time, arrives at the point of ineffable rest and contentment, but, sadly enough, arrives with its power of sensation gone. But the idea of escape from the sorrows of the world is clearly seen in this Indian system of religious metaphysics, and there is insistence that a man can and must work out his own salvation.

With Zarathushtra and the Hebrew prophets we leave the passivists and come to the "fighting faiths”. Zarathushtra, or Zoraster, to win peace "required a god who could satisfy his intellect and moral consciousness". This god was Mazda, to whom he turned first in reflection and prayer, and to whom in belief of a divine call he consecrated his energies. But Zarathushtra's adjustment "was not peace, but freedom to fight for the faith in which he trusted". There is a lofty conception in his dualistic system of good and evil, and the spirituality and assurance of faith mark an advance in spiritual adjustment.

The chapter on the prophets of Israel is a catalogue of hopes and promises based on two distinct ideas concerning the redemption and restoration of Israel. The Roman legions laid the ghost of Jewish temporal

dominion; Christ was the fruit of Jewish religious fervor and spiritual regeneration. The Jews delivered the world but not themselves from bondage.

In Greek poetry Dr. Taylor finds the new adjustment to be that of the "heroic intelligence"; in Greek philosophy he finds it to be a

contentment springing from investigation and thought upon the world's origin and laws, rising with Plato and Aristotle to the sublimest satisfaction of consummate intellectual appetition, and narrowing later to a direct desire for peace of soul.

The chapter entitled Intermediaries is one of the best in the book. In it the author leads the reader through the self-reliant adjustment of Stoicism, through the highly ideal and the carpe diem manifestations of Epicureanism, the orgiastic rites of Cybele, the solar and terrestrial mysteries and the astral fatalism of Egypt, Syria, and Persia, through the philosophicreligious adjustment of Neoplatonism, and finally through the dialectic heterodoxies of Gnosticism, Arianism, and Manichaeism; all of them represent endeavors of mankind "to adjust himself with the divine and gain its support".

The whole book works up to the deliverance which comes through Christ. His adjustment, assurance, and salvation consummate themselves "in the life of God and in the salvation of men, through the divine love and the imparting of life through love's sanctifying truth". The chapters on Paul and Augustine elaborate the Christian adjustment, that deliverance which is the promise of Eternal Life. That is the summum bonum, "the perfect end, the peace of God".

The last chapter, "The Arrows are beyond Thee", is a resumé of the whole book. It emphasizes the innate need of man for peace and happiness, his endeavors towards, and his attainments of, those ends. In all cases faith and works have been of great avail.

The entire book is quiet and reverent in tone, and seems to imply that the Christian adjustment has touched the meta ultima. The undertone of discontent that the reviewer seems to hear may perhaps disquiet the eternal pacifist, but should only be a Tyrtaean melody to the militant.

Greek and Roman Portraits. By Dr. Anton Hekler. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons (1912). Pp. xliii+ 335. Originally $7.50. Special Price, $2.50.

Interest in the literary or mechanical productions of an individual is always increased, whether by way of approval or disapproval, through acquaintance with the personality of the author. A book of merit published anonymously arouses intense curiosity as to the identity of the writer, as conversely the works of a famous author are expectantly awaited for the revelations they may give of a noted individuality. Man expresses himself in his works; knowledge of the man connotes a better understanding of the works, as familiarity with the works provides a basis for the interpretation of the man. The world has been searched again and again for every scrap of information on the life of Shakespeare, and each portrait with a claim to approximate genuineness is greatly valued. The importance of injecting the personality of the author into the works of the Greeks and the Romans has long been recognized, even though Phidias may have been punished for putting his portrait on the shield of the Parthenos; and on the literary side as early as the fourth century Aristotle did not scorn to write books on the lives of poets and philosophers, which undoubtedly served as models for the great output of such literature by the Alexandrian schoolmen.

It is a truism to state that the features of an individual furnish the key to his character, yet modern interest in the subject of Greek and Roman portraits is a comparatively recent development, as is indicated by the bibliography on antique portraits published by Dr. Hekler on page xliii. Since 1891, however, the beautiful plates issued by Brunn, Arndt and Bruckmann have been appearing periodically, and with the 970 numbers thus far published offer a wealth of material for acquaintance and familiarity with the features of Greeks and Romans, men and women, known and unknown, of all ranks and classes. On the basis of this expensive, monumental work, with a generous use of other sources, Dr. Hekler has made a selection of 311 plates, showing in all 518 illustrations. The reproductions are good, the size is convenient, and the cost is low, so that classical teachers should acquire this book and use the illustrations freely in class-room work.

The Introduction discusses the history of the development of the art of portraiture from its inception with the representations of types among the early Greeks, through the gradual emergence of the portrayal of individualistic traits, usually of an ennobled and beautified character, at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth century, to the triumph of the accurate representation of nature after the time of Alexander the Great, under the influence of the works of Lysippos. Then follows in section VI (page xxv) a statement of the differences between the Greek and the Roman conception of the art. The important factors in the Roman interpretation of portraiture were the "ethical vigour and the sober earnestness of the expression", while the Greeks rather emphasized the spiritual and intellectual elements, but "the Roman portrait is directly related to the Greek, there is no breach of continuity, but a perfectly organic development". Among the Romans two main periods are indicated, with the division falling in the Flavian-Trajan era, which was distinguished from the earlier period by the increased size of the busts and by greater "vitality" and "directness" of expression.

The substance of this introductory outline of the development of portraiture is satisfactory, but the

style in which it is written is complicated and cumbersome. The book is a translation, of which the original is Die Bildniskunst der Griechen und Römer, 311 Tafeln mit 518 Abbildungen und 19 Textillustrationen, herausgegeben von Anton Hekler (Stuttgart, Verlag von Julius Hoffman, 1912). In spite of the name of G. P. Putnam's Sons on the title page the English edition also was printed in Stuttgart, which explains, though it does not excuse, the frequent errors in English forms and spelling. Nowhere is it stated that the book is a translation, nor is mention anywhere made of the translator: so it must be assumed that the author himself is responsible for the English version, which obviously could not have been written by anyone native to the English tongue. On every page may be found specimens of this foreign English, of which a few examples are here quoted: xiii, "a peaceful architectonic feeling informs the whole structure of the head" ("welch beruhigendes architektonisches Gefühl im Aufbau des ganzen Gesichtes!"); xxix, "the thick, fleshy cheeks, and the well-kept hair arranged in a roll over the forehead, are treated with a laconic, conscientious dryness and tightness" ("die fleischigen, dicken Wangen and die sauberen, ordentlich gekämmten Haare mit dem breiten Haarknoten über der Stirne sind mit knapper, trockener Sorgfältigkeit behandelt"); xxx, "the academic subtlety and conscientious dryness of the execution agree admirably with the physical characteristics" ("zu dieser psychischen Charakteristik passt die akademische Feinheit und gewissenhafte Trockenheit der künstlerischen Ausführung vorzüglich"); xxxi, "the curt, conscientious dryness of the modelling enhances the poignant impressiveness of the work" ("die knappe, gewissenhafte Trockenheit des Formenvortrags verstärkt noch den tiefgehenden Eindruck"). These illustrations could be matched from almost every page, but it is useless to cite additional examples, as it is superfluous to mention any of the innumerable instances of incorrect and incomprehensible English in the use of single words and phrases.

Attention, however, must be called to another serious defect of the work, that is, the lack of a general index. At the end of the book is given a list of the plates, with a very brief statement in each case, comprising chiefly the publications where the statues cited have appeared; following this list and concluding the book is an index of places where the sculptures are at present located. There is thus no means furnished for finding readily a specific portrait that may be desired. But in spite of these criticisms the fact `remains that the heads are here reproduced in a cheap accessible form and that the plates are good, and these are the most essential qualities demanded of a work on Greek and Roman portraits.

VOL. X

EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF ROMAN CON-
STITUTIONAL HISTORY

It is a common saying that the ancient Hebrews were preeminent in religion and ethics, the Greeks in literature and art, and the Romans in law and government. The Romans themselves understood well the distinctive characteristics of their nation. When, for example, Cicero (Tusculan Disputations 1.2 and 4.1, De Republica, 1.70) compares his countrymen with the Greeks, he claims as a matter of course that the Romans are superior in the arts of war and government. Vergil expresses a similar opinion in the famous locus rhetoricus (Aeneid 6. 847-853):

'Others, I can well believe, will mould with softer grace lifelike forms of bronze, and shape the living face in marble; plead cases with more skill; describe the paths of heaven, and tell the rising of the stars. But thou, Roman, bend thy mind to rule the nations with thy sway-this art will be thy own-to impose the law of peace, to spare the vanquished, and subdue the proud'.

The characterization expressed and implied in the words of these representative men is just. In general the Romans were inferior to the Greeks in literature and art. They were men of action rather than philosophers. They were a nation, not of artists and authors, but of warriors, lawyers, and statesmen. They have been equalled by others in war and conquest; but in the art of government, in statesmanship, they have remained without a rival till modern times.

They founded the greatest Empire known to the ancient Western world. For several centuries they governed the most enlightened and the most progressive nations of antiquity. In various regions of the East, as of the West, the Roman imperial period, according to Theodor Mommsen, marks a climax of good government never attained before or since. In fact, Mommsen goes so far as to say that, if an angel of the Lord were to decide whether the domain ruled by Severus Antoninus was governed with the greater intelligence and the greater humanity then or now, it is very doubtful if the decision would prove in favor of the present (Provinces of the Roman Empire, English translation by W. P. Dickson, 1.5). When we consider the extent of the Roman dominions and the number and character of the subject nations, as well as the comparative excellence and duration of the Roman government, we conclude that the Romans are the imperial people of the past ages, and that their most original and valuable

No. 5

contributions to European civilization are to be found in the sphere of law and government.

Under these circumstances the political institutions of Rome would in any case be of high importance, but they have gained greatly in interest and value to the student, because they were developed in so conservative a way and bear the national stamp. In the words of Cicero, the Roman constitution 'did not spring from the genius of one individual, but from that of many; and it was not established in the lifetime of one man, but in the course of several ages and centuries' (De Republica 2.2). It is a product and a true image of the national mind and character. It records some of the most important events of Roman history, and it reflects the varying opinions of the nation and its rulers. As opinions changed, it granted more and more the claims of individual liberty until finally almost all freemen became Roman citizens; it satisfied more and more fully the demands for national equality until it became the most cosmopolitan of all imperial constitutions. It influenced profoundly the activities, the development, and the condition of the Roman people. The history of the constitution forms the framework of the general history of Rome. It is the pillar around which the vine and ivy of the political, economic, religious, and literary records are entwined.

If a student is to understand the activities of the public men, the parties, the social and economic conditions of Rome, he will find a general knowledge of the constitutional history to be indispensable. To do justice to Cicero, for example, we have to know something about the constitutional principles and practice of his time. Was the execution of the Catilinarian conspirators unconstitutional? Were the laws of Caesar during his consulship in 59 B.C. contrary to the constitution? To what extent did Pompeius contribute to the downfall of the Republic by restoring the tribunician power and by holding his military commands? Such questions can be answered only in the light of Roman constitutional history.

Let us turn from individuals to parties and events. Who could trace the causes of the American Revolution, without knowing the traditional rights of Englishmen? Who can comprehend the growing influence of the commons of England, while he remains ignorant of their power to grant or refuse appropriations? A fair knowledge of the rights and disabilities of Roman citizens-a fundamental part of the constitution-is equally necessary in studying the struggles between the patricians and the plebeians, and the tribunician power of intercession is the key to plebeian success.

In the same way, the formation of the senatorial class at Rome, of the equestrian class, and the degeneracy of the middle and lower orders into a rabble cannot be understood without some knowledge of the management of the public domain, of the system of taxation, and ultimately of the provisions and the working of the constitution.

Roman constitutional history is intimately connected with the literary history, and helps to explain the characteristics of the literature at different periods. I will mention simply the greater freedom and originality of the Republican writers, and the more artificial character, the servility, and the passion of some of the authors under the early Empire.

In some cases the constitutional history shows the special conditions under which a branch of literature, for instance Roman eloquence, was developed. A few words on the advantages and disadvantages of a Roman as compared with an American orator will illustrate this statement. The criminal lawyer at the present day is greatly aided by the presumptive innocence of the defendant, by the general rules of evidence, and by great license in the rejection of jurymen. If unsuccessful in the court of first instance, he can usually appeal to higher courts, and, as a last resort, he can petition a generous executive. The Roman lawyer, Cicero, for example, was not greatly aided or hampered by rules; he did not spend much time on the selection of a jury; and he did not have much of an opportunity to secure a reversal of the sentence or a pardon. It was a question of now or never. He was put upon his mettle, and relied, not on technicalities, but on his eloquence.

An American statesman, like Fisher Ames, may by a magnificent speech persuade our national House of Representatives to pass an important but unpopular bill. Then he must secure its passage in the Senate also, and finally he has to obtain the signature of the President. In the meantime, the bill will be further discussed, and the spell of his oratory will be broken. According to the Roman constitution, Cicero could then and there persuade the Senate, or sway the multitude, and shape the destiny of a great nation. If to these advantages we add the historic associations of seven centuries and the emotional character of a Southern people, we can largely account for the comparative absence of technical pleas and close argument, and for the unbridled invective, the extravagant praise, and the vehemence of Roman orators.

A thorough knowledge of the constitutional history is absolutely necessary for those who wish to master the writings of the Roman historians, as, for example, Caesar's Civil War, Sallust's Catiline, the works of Livy, Tacitus, and others, which form no inconsiderable part of the entire literature. It is an important aid to those who study the productions of Roman lawyers and

statesmen, such as Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and others. Numerous legal and political terms and allusions are found even in the poets; for instance, in Vergil, Horace, and Juvenal. Where such technical information does not appear to be strictly necessary, it will often give us a glimpse of the suggestiveness of simple expressions, and increase our enjoyment and appreciation of the literature.

In the works of Cicero the number of scattered but important legal and political phrases and passages is so great that they form our chief source for the constitutional history of the Republic. Every Latin student will soon meet with such words as consul, praetor, censor, patricii, senatus, and a host of others. Even from the purely literary point of view it is not sufficient merely to transfer these words and say consul, censor, praetor, senate, and patricians. The historic associations are lost, and a word without associations, like a flower stripped of its corolla and calyx, is almost devoid of color, beauty, and interest. To cite one example, Roman constitutional history will show the student that our ideas of our Federal Senate are quite different from the ideas associated in the Roman mind with senatus and patres. We may think of the classic days of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, or of Seward and Sumner. But the annals of our Federal Senate are short, it has never been a fully representative body, and its independent powers are comparatively few and unimportant. On the other hand, the beginnings of the Roman Senate are lost to view in the midst of prehistoric tradition. During the best period it fully represented the political wisdom and the statesmanship of Rome. It had ample independent powers and wielded great influence for the space of almost five centuries and for many generations it governed the State. In sagacity, consistency, tenacity of purpose, in courage and energy it 'was the noblest organ of the nation, and the foremost political institution of all antiquity' (see Mommsen, History of Rome, 1.411).

Such in brief is the educational value of a knowledge of the constitutional history to the student of Roman history and literature. Much might be added in regard to the opportunities for original research which the constitutional history offers, regarding the mental discipline which it affords, the political interest which it may arouse, the clear, broad, and impartial political ideas which it is fitted to impart; or I might dwell on the lessons which the greatest Republic of antiquity can teach us, the citizens of the greatest modern Republic, and on the vast influence which Roman political institutions have exerted down to the present day; but space would not permit.

In view of all the facts I do not consider it advisable to have Latin students read repeatedly for several years such terms as dictator, consul, praetor, censor, aedilis, tribunus plebis, quaestor, and comitia, without knowing what they mean. A short course on Roman constitutional law, that is, on public antiquities, ought to be given in every High School, preferably in connec