Ixxxviii Hooke—Keiiguson—levesque—micaui.
that he followed the views of’Beaufbrt, and wrote a history of
those times only in which he believed it to deserve credit.
He does not enter into any of the deeper questions. Still less
so does Ferguson, whose history of the Roman republic is a
COtnplete failure : he is an honest and ingenious writer, but un-
learned ; he was no scholar, and had not the remotest idea of
the Roman consitution. His history does not really begin
until the time of the Gracchi, when the accounts become more
detailed. He wrote pragmatically and with a moral tendency.
To those who want to acquire a knowledge of Roman history,
the book is worth nothing. He who is not a scholar, may read
it in order to prepare himself for a better understanding of
the times of Cicero ; but he will certainly do better to read
Middleton’s life of Cicero. The history of Rome written by
Levesque is perfectly wretched: he quite agrees with Beaufort,
that the whole of the early history consists of fables. From
the period extending from the origin of Rome down to the
first Punic war, he picks out only some isolated events, which
he treats as historical; and this he does at random without
giving any reasons, either to himself or to his readers. The
book itself, as well as the spirit in which it is written, is bad.
Micali’s work, “Italia avanti il doɪninio de’Romani,” is like-
wise a bad book. He was an unlearned man and biassed by
a strange and passionate hatred of the ancient Romans; he
makes up visionary histories of the Italian nations with the
greatest levity. His hatred of the Romans is often quite un-
bearable. He wrote at the time of the French dominion in
Italy, and rejoiced to have an opportunity of saying a variety
of things against the supremacy of one nation over others ;
but he allowed himself to be led thereby into unreasonable
zeal and unfairness towards the Romans.
LECTURE XL
The general tendency of philology in Germany necessarily
led to a critical and searching treatment of the history of
Rome. After many and very fluctuating periods, German
philology has acquired, within the last forty years, a decided
and definite character: just as certain arts or sciences arrive
at a Hourishing state, without its being at all possible for
GEKMAN PHILOLOGY.
Ixxxix
us to trace them back to one particular starting point.
Pliilology has been developed simultaneously by several
minds which worked independently of one another. It was
the character of the age, and the result of the whole deve-
lopment of our literature. Men like Lessing, who had
eminent philological talents without possessing all the re-
quisites of a philologer, and Winkelmann, may be said to be
the real fathers of modern philology: the great movement of
the time originated with them. In like manner, the efforts of
Heyne and Ernesti, though they were imperfect, the revival
of historical jurisprudence, the grammatical studies of Keiz,
Wolf, Hermann, and the translations by Voss and others, con-
tributed towards a critical study of Kornan history. It is
wonderful to see how very deficient the first attempts at better
things often are, before a clear view of the object is gained.
So it was with jurisprudence. During a long period before
Savigny wrote, the attempts were of such a character, that if
the great men of former ages, such as Cujacius, Duarenus,
and Donellus, could have heard their successors, they would
have been greatly disappointed and dissatisfied. The modern
much more profound inquiries, also, could not always hit
at once upon the truth, before the ways were fully cleared
up. The mind was awakened, the language had been cul-
tivated by Lessing and Goethe, time with its vast changes
and revolutions diffused a general life, and a spirit of
activity manifested itself everywhere. All this necessarily
led to a fresh consideration of Koman history, especially as
political institutions began to resemble those of the ancient
Komans. It was especially this latter point that directed
my attention to the living organism of the Koman state,
and led me to the investigation of the causes of the vehe-
ment struggles recorded in Koman history. The consequence
is, that that history is now no longer treated sceptically
but critically; results have been gained to supply the place
of fiction, and it has been shown what must be believed,
and what must be rejected as fiction or forgery. We have
moreover, gained the conviction as to what must be believed
in the early history of Home in general, without venturing
upon the fruitless attempts to explain everything in detail
with chronological accuracy. These investigations in that
immense labyrinth, connected as they arc with ancient