Parallel with the rise and fall of Athenian freedom, Rome
was employed in working out the same problems, with
greater constructive sense, and greater temporary success,
but ending at last in a far more terrible catastrophe. That
which among the ingenious Athenians had been a develop-
ment carried forward by the spell of plausible argument, was
in Rome a conflict between rival forces. Speculative politics
had no attraction for the grim and practical' genius of the
Romans. They did not consider what would be the cleverest
way of getting over a difficulty, but what ",\Tay was indicated by
analogous cases; and they assigned less influence to the im-
pulse and spirit of the moment, than to precedent and. ex-
ample. Their peculiar character prompted them to ascribe
the origin of their laws to early times, and in their desire to
justify the continuity of their institutions, and to get rid of
the reproach of innovation, they imagined the legendary
history of the kings of Rome. The energy of their adherence
to traditions made their progress slow, they advanced only
under compulsion of almost unavoidable necessity, and the
same questions recurred often, before they were settled. The
constitutional history of the Republic turns on the endeavours of the aristocracy, who claimed to be the only true
Romans, to retain in their hands the power they had wrested
from the kings, and of the plebeians to get an equal share in
it. And this controversy, which the eager and restless Athenians went through in one generation, lasted for more than
two centuries, from a time when the plebs were excluded from
the government of the city, and were taxed, and made to
serve without pay, until, in the year 286, they were admitted
to political equality. Then followed one hundred and fifty
years of unexampled prosperity and glory; and then, out of
the original conflict which had been compromised, if not
theoretically settled, a new struggle arose which was without
an· issue.
The mass of poorer families, impoverished by incessant service in war, were reduced to dependence on an aristocracy of about two thousand wealthy men, who divided among themselves the immense domain of the State. When the need became intense the Gracchi tried to relieve it by inducing the richer classes to allot some share .in the public lands to the common people. The old and famous aristocracy of birth and rank had made a stubborn resistance, but ·it knew the art of yielding. The later and more selfish aristocracy was unable to learn it. The character of the people was changed by the sterner motives of dispute. The fight for political power had been carried on with.the moderation which is so honourable a quality of party contests in England. But the struggle for the objects of material existence grew to be as ferocious as civil controversies in France. Repulsed by the rich, after a•.struggle of twenty..two years, the people, three hundred and twenty thousand of whom depended on public rations for food,. were ready to follow any man who promised to obtain for them by revolution what they could not obtain by law.
The Empire preserved the Republican forms until .the
reign of Diocletian; but the will of the Emperors was as un-
controlled as that of the people had been after the victory
of the Tribunes. Their power was arbitrary even when it
was most widely employed, and yet the Roman Empire rendered greater services to the cause of liberty than the Roman
Republic. I do not mean by reason of the temporary accident
that· there w~re emperors "vho made good use of their immense opportunities, such as Nerva, of whom Tacitus says
that he combined monarchy and otherwise
incompatible; or that the Empire was what .its panegyrists
declared it, the perfection of democracy. In truth, it was at
best an ill..disguised and odious despotism. But Frederic the Great was a despot; yet he was a friend to toleration and
free discussion. The Bonapartes were despotic; yet no liberal
ruler was ever more acceptable to the masses of the people
than the First Napoleon, after he had destroyed the Republic,
in 1805, and the Third Napoleon at the height of his power in
1859. In the same way, the Roman Empire possessed merits
which, at a distance, and especially at a great distance of
time, concern men more deeply than the tragic tyranny which
was felt in the neighbourhood of the Palace. The poor had
what they had demanded in vain of the Republic. The rich
fared better than during the Triumvirate. The rights of
Roman citizens were extended to the people of the provinces.
To the imperial epoch belong the better part of Roman
literature and nearly the entire Civil Law; and it was the
Empire that mitigated slavery, instituted religious tolera-
tion, made a beginning of the law of nations, and created a
perfect system of the law of property. The Republic which
C(Esar overthrew had been anything but a free State. It pro-
vided admirable securities for the rights of citizens; it treated
with savage disregard the rights of men; and allowed the free
Roman to inflict atrocious wrongs on his children, on debtors
and dependants, on prisoners and slaves. Those deeper ideas
of right and duty, which are not found on the tables of muni-
cipallaw, but with which the generous minds of Greece were
conversant, were held of little account, and the philosophy
which dealt with such speculations was repeatedly proscribed,
as a teacher of sedition and impiety.
At length, in the year 155, the Athenian philosopher Car- neades appeared at Rome on a political mission. During an interval of official business he delivered two public orations, to give the unlettered conquerors of his country a taste of the disputations that flourished in the Attic schools. On the first day he discoursed of natural justice. On the next, he denied its existence, arguing that all our notions of good and evil are derived from positive enactment. From the time of that memorable display, the genius of the vanquished held its conquerors in thrall. The most eminent of the public men of Rome, such as Scipio an~ Cicero, formed their minds on Grecian models, and her jurists underwent the rigorous discipline of Zeno and Chrysippus.
To them, indeed, may be tracked nearly all the errors that
are undermining political society - communism, utilitarianism, the confusion between tyranny and authority, and be-
tween lawlessness and freedom.
If you will bear in mind that Socrates, the best of the
pagans, knew of no higher criterion for men, of no better
guide of conduct, than the laws of each country; that Plato,
whose sublime doctrine was so near an anticipation of Christianity that celebrated theologians wished his works to be for lest me.n should b~ content lvith them, and indifferent to any higher dogma- to whom was granted that
prophetic vision of the Just Man, accused, condemned· and
scourged, and dying on a Cross - nevertheless employed the
most splendid intellect ever bestowed on man to advocate
the abolition of the family and the exposure of infants; that
Aristotle, the ablest moralist of antiquity, saw no harm in
making raids upon a neighbouring people, for the sake of
reducing them to slavery - still IIlore, if you will consider
that, among the moderns, men of genius equal to these have
held political doctrines not less criminal or absurd - it will
be apparent to you how stubborn a phalanx of error blocks
the paths of truth; that pure reason is as powerless as custom
to solve the problem of free government; that it can only be
the fruit of long, manifold, and painful experience; and that
the tracing of the methods by which divine wisdom has edu-
cated the nations to appreciate and to assume the duties of
freedom, is not the least part of that true philosophy that
studies to Assert eternal Providence,
And justify the ways of God to men.
The mass of poorer families, impoverished by incessant service in war, were reduced to dependence on an aristocracy of about two thousand wealthy men, who divided among themselves the immense domain of the State. When the need became intense the Gracchi tried to relieve it by inducing the richer classes to allot some share .in the public lands to the common people. The old and famous aristocracy of birth and rank had made a stubborn resistance, but ·it knew the art of yielding. The later and more selfish aristocracy was unable to learn it. The character of the people was changed by the sterner motives of dispute. The fight for political power had been carried on with.the moderation which is so honourable a quality of party contests in England. But the struggle for the objects of material existence grew to be as ferocious as civil controversies in France. Repulsed by the rich, after a•.struggle of twenty..two years, the people, three hundred and twenty thousand of whom depended on public rations for food,. were ready to follow any man who promised to obtain for them by revolution what they could not obtain by law.
For a time the Senate, representing the. ancient and
threatened order of things, was. strong enough to overcome
every popular leader that arose, until Julius C£esar, sup-
ported by an army which he had led·· in an unparalleled
career of conquest, and by the famished masses which he won
by his lavish liberality, and skilled beyond all other menin
the art of governing, converted the Republic into amon-
archy· by a series of measures that were neither violent nor
injurious.
At length, in the year 155, the Athenian philosopher Car- neades appeared at Rome on a political mission. During an interval of official business he delivered two public orations, to give the unlettered conquerors of his country a taste of the disputations that flourished in the Attic schools. On the first day he discoursed of natural justice. On the next, he denied its existence, arguing that all our notions of good and evil are derived from positive enactment. From the time of that memorable display, the genius of the vanquished held its conquerors in thrall. The most eminent of the public men of Rome, such as Scipio an~ Cicero, formed their minds on Grecian models, and her jurists underwent the rigorous discipline of Zeno and Chrysippus.
If, drawing the limit in the·second century, when the in-
fluence of Christianity bec.omes perceptible, w~ should form
our judgment of the politics of antiquity by its actual legis-
lation, our estimate would be low. The prevailing notions
of freedom were imperfect, and the endeavours to realise
them were wide of the mark. The ancients understood the
regulation of power better than the regulation of liberty.
They concentrated so many prerogatives in the State as to
leave no footing from which a man could deny its jurisdiction
or assign bounds to its activity. If I may employ an expressive
anachronism, the vice of the classic State was that it was
both Church and State in one. Morality was undistinguished
from religion and politics from morals; and in religion,
morality, and politics there was only one legislator and one
authority. The State, while it did deplorably little for edu-
cation, for practical science, for the indigent and helpless,
or for the spiritual needs of man, nevertheless claimed the
use of all his faculties and the determination of all his duties.
Individuals and families, associations and dependencies were
so much material that the sovereign power consumed for
its own purposes. What the slave was in the hands of his
master, the citizen was in the hands of the community. The
most sacred obligations vanished before the public advantage.
The passengers existed for the sake of the·ship. By their
disregard for private interests, and for the moral welfare and
improvement of the people, both Greece and Rome destroyed
the vital elements on which the prosperity of nations rests,
and perished by the decay of families and the depopulation of the country. They survive not in their institutions, but in their ideas, and.by their ideas, especially on the art of government, they are -
The dead, but sceptred sovereigns who still rule Our spirits from their urns.
and perished by the decay of families and the depopulation of the country. They survive not in their institutions, but in their ideas, and.by their ideas, especially on the art of government, they are -
The dead, but sceptred sovereigns who still rule Our spirits from their urns.
The notion that men lived originally in a state of nature,
by violence and without laws, is due to Critias. Communism
in its grossest form was recommended by Diogenes of Sinope.
According to the Sophists, there is no duty above expediency
and no virtue apart from pleasure. Laws are an invention
of weak men to rob their betters of the reasonable enjoy-
ment of their superiority. It is better to inflict than to suffer
wrong; and as there is no greater good than to do evil with-
out fear of retribution, so there is no worse evil than to suffer
without the consolation of revenge. Justice is the mask of
a craven spirit; injustice is worldly wisdom; and duty, obe-
dience, self-denial are the impostures of hypocrisy. Govern-
ment is absolute, and may ordain what it pleases, and no sub-
ject can complain that it does him wrong, but as long as he
can escape compulsion and punishment, he is always free
to disobey. Happiness consists in obtaining power and in
eluding the necessity of obedience; and he that gains a throne
by perfidy and ·murder, deserves to be truly envied.
Epicurus differed but little from the propounders of the code of revolutionary despotism. All societies, he said, are founded on contract for mutual protection. Good and evil are conventional terms, for the thunderbolts of heaven fall alike on the just and the unjust.. The objection to wrong- doing is not the act, but in its consequences to the wrongdoer. 'Vise men contrive laws, not to bind, but to protect them- selves; and when they prove to be unprofitable they cease
to be valid. The illiberal sentiments of even the most il- lustrious metaphysicians are disclosed in the saying of Aris- totle, that the mark of the worst governments is that they leave men free to live as they please.
Epicurus differed but little from the propounders of the code of revolutionary despotism. All societies, he said, are founded on contract for mutual protection. Good and evil are conventional terms, for the thunderbolts of heaven fall alike on the just and the unjust.. The objection to wrong- doing is not the act, but in its consequences to the wrongdoer. 'Vise men contrive laws, not to bind, but to protect them- selves; and when they prove to be unprofitable they cease
to be valid. The illiberal sentiments of even the most il- lustrious metaphysicians are disclosed in the saying of Aris- totle, that the mark of the worst governments is that they leave men free to live as they please.
But, having sounded the depth of their errors, I should
give you a very inadequate idea of the wisdom of the ancients
if I allowed it to appear that their precepts were no better
than their practice.·· While statesmen and senates and pop-
ular assemblies supplied examples of every description of
blunder, a noble literature arose, in which a priceless treasure
of political knowledge was· stored, and in which the defects
of the existing institutions were exposed with unsparing
sagacity. The point on which the ancients were most nearly
unanimous is the right of the people to govern, and their
inability to govern alone. T o meet this difficulty, to give to
the popular element a full share without a monopoly of
power, they adopted very generally the theory of a mixed
Constitution. They differed from our notion of the same
thing, because·modern Constitutions have been a device for
limiting monarchy; with them they were invented to curb
democracy. The idea arose in the time of Plato - though he repelled it - when the early monarchies and oligarchies had
vanished, and it continued to be cherished long after all
democracies had been absorbed in the Roman Empire. But
whereas a sovereign prince who surrenders part of his author-
ity yields to the argument of superior force, a sovereign
people relinquishing its own prerogative succumbs to the
influence of reason. And it has in all times proved more easy
to create limitations by the use of force than by persuasion.
The experiment has been tried more often than I can tell,
with a combination of resources that were unknown to the
ancients- with Christianity, parliamentary government, and
a free press. Yet there is no example of such a balanced Constitution having lasted a century. If it has succeeded any-
where it has been in our favoured country and in our time;
and we know not yet how long the wisdom of the nation will
preserve the equipoise. The Federal check was as familiar to
the ancients as the Constitutional. For the type of all their
Republics was the government of a city by its own inhabitants meeting in the public place. An administration embracing many cities was known to them only in the form of the
oppression which Sparta exercised over the Messenians,
Athens over her Confederates, and Rome over Italy. The resources which, in modern times, enabled a great people
to govern itself through a single centre did not exist. Equality
could be preserved only by federalism; and it occurs more
often amongst them than in the modern world. If the distribution of power among the several parts of the State is
the most efficient restraint on monarchy, the distribution of
power among several States is the best check on democracy.
By multiplying centres of government and discussion it pro-
motes the diffusion of. political knowledge and the maintenance of healthy and independent opinion. It is the
protectorate of minorities, and· the consecration of self-government. But although it must be enumerated among the
better achievements of practical genius in antiquity, it arose
from necessity, and its properties were imperfectly investi-
gated in theory.
But between the two eras, between the rigid didactics of
the early Pythagoreans and the dissolving theories of Protagoras, a philosopher arose who stood aloof from both extremes, and whose difficult sayings were never really under-
stood or valued until our time. Heraclitus, of Ephesus,
deposited his book in the temple of Diana. The book has
perished, like the temple and the worship, but its fragments
have been collected and interpreted with incredible ard our,
by the scholars# the divines, the philosophers, and politicians who have been engaged the most intensely in the toil and
stress of this century. The most renowned logician of the
last century adopted everyone of his propositions; and the
most brilliant agitator among Continental Socialists com-
posed a work of eight hundred and forty pages to celebrate
his memory.
If the topic of my address was the history of political science, the highest and the largest place would belong to Plato
and Aristotle. The Laws of the one, the Politics of the other,
are, if I may trust my own experience, the books from which
we may learn the most about the principles of politics. The
penetration with which those great masters of thought an-
alysed the institutions of Greece, and exposed their vices,
is not surpassed by anything in later literature; by Burke
or Hamilton, the best political writers of the last century;
by Tocqueville or Roscher, the most eminent of our own.
But Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, studious not of
unguided freedom, but of intelligent government. They saw
the disastrous effects of ill-directed striving for liberty; and
they resolved that it was better not to strive for it, but to be content with a strong administration, prudently adapted
to make men prosperous and happy.
vice, or the relief of suffering, than one that does not 'shrink
from confronting great emergencies by some sacrifice of individual rights, and some concentration of power; and that the
supreme political object ought to be sometimes postponed to
still higher moral objects. My argument involves no collision
with these qualifying reflections. We are dealing, not with
the effects of freedom, but with its causes. We are seeking
out the influences which brought arbitrary government under
control, either by the diffusion of power, or by the appeal to
an authority which transcends all government, and among
those influences the greatest philosophers of Greece have no
claim to be reckoned.
The ancient writers saw very clearly that each principle
of government standing alone is' carried to excess and pro-
vokes a reaction. Monarchy hardens into despotism. Aristoc-
racy contracts into oligarchy. Democracy expands into the
supremacy of numbers. They therefore imagined that to
restrain each element by combining it with the others would
avert the natural process of self-destruction, and endow the
State with perpetual youth. But this harmony of monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy blended together, which was the
ideal of many writers, and which they supposed to be ex-
hibited by Sparta, by Carthage, and by Rome, was a chimera
of philosophers never realised by antiquity.· At last Tacitus,
wiser than the rest, confessed that the mixed Constitution,
however admirable in theory, was difficult to establish and
impossible to maintain. His disheartening avowal is not dis-
owned by later experience..
When the Greeks began to reflect on the problems of
society, they first of all accepted things as they were, and
did their best to explain and defend them. Inquiry, which
with us is stimulated by doubt, began with them in wonder.
The most illustrious of the early philosophers, Pythagoras,
promulgated a theory for the preservation of political power
in the educated class, and ennobled a form of government
which was generally founded on popular ignorance and on
strong class interests. He preached authority and subordina-
tion, and dwelt more on duties than on rights, on religion
than on policy; and his system perished in the revolution by
which oligarchies were swept away. The revolution· after- wards developed its own philosophy, whose excesses I have described.
which oligarchies were swept away. The revolution· after- wards developed its own philosophy, whose excesses I have described.
Heraclitus complained that the masses were deaf to truth,
and knew not that one good man counts for more than thou-
sands; but he held the existing order in no superstitious
reverence. Strife, he says, is the source and the master of all
things. Life is perpetual motion, and repose is death. No
man can plunge twice into the same current, for it is always
flowing and passing, and is never the same. The only thing
fixed and certain in the midst of change is the universal and
sovereign reason, which all men may not perceive, but which
is common to all. Laws are sustained by no human authority,
but by virtue of their derivation from the one law that is
divine. These sayings, which recall the grand outlines of
political truth which we have found in the Sacred Books, and
carry us forward to the latest teaching of our most en-
lightened contemporaries, would bear a good deal of elucida-
tion and comment. Heraclitus is, unfortunately, so obscure
that Socrates could not understand him, and I won't pretend
to have succeeded better.
Now liberty and good government do not exclude each
other; and there are excellent reasons why they should go
together.,Libertyisnotameanstoahigherpoliticalend. It
is itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a
good public administration that it is required, but for se-
curity in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society,
and of private life. Increase of freedom in the State may
sometimes promote mediocrity, and give vitality to prejudice;
it may even retard useful legislation, diminish the capacity
for war, and restrict the boundaries of Empire. It might be
plausibly argued that, if 'many things would be worse in
England or Ireland under an intelligent despotism, some things would be managed better; that the Roman govern- ment was more enlightened under Augustus and Antoninus than under the Senate, in the days of Marius or of Pompey. A .generous spirit prefers that his country should be poor, and weak, and of no account, but free, rather than powerful, prosperous, and enslaved. It is better to be the citizen of a humble commonwealth in the Alps, without a prospect of influence beyond the narrow' frontier, than a subject of the superb autocracy that overshadows half of Asia and of Europe. But it may be urged, on the other side, that liberty,is not the sum or the substitute of all the things men ought to live for; that to be real it must' be circumscribed, and that the limits of circumscription vary; that advancing civilisation invests the State with increased rights and duties, and imposes increased burdens and constraint on the subject; that a highly, instructed and intelligent community may perceive the benefit of compulsory obligations which, at a lower stage, would be thought unbearable; that liberal progress is not vague or' indefinite, but aims at a point where the public is subject to'no restrictions but those of which it feels the ad- vantage; that a free 'country may be less capable of doing much for the advancement of religion, the prevention of
England or Ireland under an intelligent despotism, some things would be managed better; that the Roman govern- ment was more enlightened under Augustus and Antoninus than under the Senate, in the days of Marius or of Pompey. A .generous spirit prefers that his country should be poor, and weak, and of no account, but free, rather than powerful, prosperous, and enslaved. It is better to be the citizen of a humble commonwealth in the Alps, without a prospect of influence beyond the narrow' frontier, than a subject of the superb autocracy that overshadows half of Asia and of Europe. But it may be urged, on the other side, that liberty,is not the sum or the substitute of all the things men ought to live for; that to be real it must' be circumscribed, and that the limits of circumscription vary; that advancing civilisation invests the State with increased rights and duties, and imposes increased burdens and constraint on the subject; that a highly, instructed and intelligent community may perceive the benefit of compulsory obligations which, at a lower stage, would be thought unbearable; that liberal progress is not vague or' indefinite, but aims at a point where the public is subject to'no restrictions but those of which it feels the ad- vantage; that a free 'country may be less capable of doing much for the advancement of religion, the prevention of
It is the Stoics who emancipated mankind from its sub-
jugation to despotic rule, and whose enlightened and elevated
views of life bridged the chasm that separates the ancient from
the Christian state, and led the way to freedom. Seeing how
little security there is that the laws of any land shall be wise
or just, and that the unanimous will of a people and the
assent of nations are liable to err, the Stoics looked beyond
those narrow barriers, and above those inferior sanctions, for
the principles that ought to regulate the lives of· men and
the existence of society. They made it known that there is
a will superior to the collective will of man, and a law that
overrules those of Solon and Lycurgus. Their test of good
government is its conformity to principles that can be traced
to a higher legislator. That which we must obey, that to
which we are bound to reduce all civil authorities, and to
sacrifice every earthly interest, is that immutable law which
is perfect and eternal as God Himself, which proceeds from
His nature, and reigns over heaven and earth and over all
the nations.
The great question is to discover, not what governments prescribe, but what they ought to prescribe; for no prescrip- tion is valid against the conscience· of mankind. Before God, there is neither Greek nor barbarian, neither rich nor poor, and the slave is as good as his master, for by birth all men are free; they are citizens of that universal commonwealth which embraces all the world, brethren of one family, and children of God. The true guide of our conduct is no outward author- ity, but the voice of God, who comes down to dwell in our souls, who knows all our thoughts, to whom are owing all the truth we know, and all the good we do; for vice is voluntary, 'and virtue comes from the grace of the heavenly spirit within. What the teaching of that divine voice is, the philosophers who had imbibed the sublime ethics of the Porch went on to expound: It is not enough to act up to the written law, or to give all men their due; we ought to give them more than their due, to be generous and beneficent, to devote ourselves for the good of others, seeking our reward in self- denial and sacrifice, acting from the motive of sympathy and not of personal advantage. Therefore we must treat others as we wish to be treated by them, and must persist until death in doing good to our enemies, regardless of unworthiness and ingratitude. For we must be at war with evil, but at peace with men, and it is better to suffer than to commit injustice. True freedom, says the most eloquent of the Stoics, consists in obeying God. A State governed by such principles as these would have been free far beyond the measure of Greek or Roman freedom; for they open a door to religious toleration, and close it against slavery. Neither conquest nor purchase, said Zeno, can make one man the property of
jurists of the Empire. The law of nature, they said, is superior
to the written law, and slavery contradicts the law of nature.
Men have no right to do what they please with their own, or
to make profit out of another's loss. Such is the political
wisdom of the ancients, touching the foundations of liberty,
as we find it in its highest development, in Cicero, and
Seneca, and Philo, a Jew of Alexandria. Their writings im-
press upon us the greatness of the work of preparation for
the Gospel which had been accomplished among men on the
eve of the mission of the Apostles. St. Augustine, after quot-
ing Seneca, exclaims: "What more could a Christian say than
this Pagan has said?" The enlightened pagans had reached
nearly the last point attainable without a new dispensation,
when the fulness of time was come. We have.seen the breadth
and the splendour of .the domain of Hellenic thought, and it has brought us to the threshold of a greater kingdom. The
best of the later classics speak almost the language of Christianity, and they border on its spirit.
has put on record the customs of the Essenes of Palestine, a
people who, uniting the wisdom of the Gentiles with the faith of the Jews, led lives which were uncontaminated by the surrounding civilisation, and were the first to reject slavery both
in principle and practice. They formed a religious community rather than a State, and their numbers did not exceed
4,000. But their example testifies to how great a height
religious men· were able to raise their conception· of society
even without the succour of the New Testament, and affords
the strongest condemnation of their contemporaries.
The great question is to discover, not what governments prescribe, but what they ought to prescribe; for no prescrip- tion is valid against the conscience· of mankind. Before God, there is neither Greek nor barbarian, neither rich nor poor, and the slave is as good as his master, for by birth all men are free; they are citizens of that universal commonwealth which embraces all the world, brethren of one family, and children of God. The true guide of our conduct is no outward author- ity, but the voice of God, who comes down to dwell in our souls, who knows all our thoughts, to whom are owing all the truth we know, and all the good we do; for vice is voluntary, 'and virtue comes from the grace of the heavenly spirit within. What the teaching of that divine voice is, the philosophers who had imbibed the sublime ethics of the Porch went on to expound: It is not enough to act up to the written law, or to give all men their due; we ought to give them more than their due, to be generous and beneficent, to devote ourselves for the good of others, seeking our reward in self- denial and sacrifice, acting from the motive of sympathy and not of personal advantage. Therefore we must treat others as we wish to be treated by them, and must persist until death in doing good to our enemies, regardless of unworthiness and ingratitude. For we must be at war with evil, but at peace with men, and it is better to suffer than to commit injustice. True freedom, says the most eloquent of the Stoics, consists in obeying God. A State governed by such principles as these would have been free far beyond the measure of Greek or Roman freedom; for they open a door to religious toleration, and close it against slavery. Neither conquest nor purchase, said Zeno, can make one man the property of
another.
These doctrines were adopted and applied by the great
These doctrines were adopted and applied by the great
But in all that I have been able to cite from classical litera-
ture, three things are wanting, - representative government,
the emancipation of the slaves, and liberty of conscience.
There were, it is true, deliberative assemblies, chosen by the
people; and confederate cities, of which, both in Asia and
Africa, there were so many leagues, sent their delegates to sit
in Federal Councils. But government by an elected Parlia-
ment was even in theory a thing unknown. It is congruous
with the nature of Polytheism to admit some measure of
toleration. And Socrates, when he avowed that he must obey
God rather than the Athenians, and the Stoics, when they
set the wise man above the law, were very near giving utter-
ance to the principle. But it was first proclaimed and es-
tablishedby enactment, not in polytheistic and philosophical
Greece, but in India, by Asoka, the earliest of the Buddhist
kings, two hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ.
Slavery has been, far more than intolerance, the perpetual curse and reproach of ancient civilisation, and although its rightfulness was disputed as early as the days of Aristotle, and was implicitly, if not definitely, denied by several Stoics, the moral philosophy of the Greeks and Romans, as well as their practice, pronounced decidedly in its favour. But there was one extraordinary people who, in this as in other things, anticipated the purer precept that was to come. Philo of Alexandria is one of the writers whose views on society were most advanced. He applauds not only liberty but equality in the enjoyment of wealth. He believes that a limited de- mocracy, purged of its grosser elements, is the· most perfect government, and will extend itself gradually over all the world. By freedom he understood the following of God. Philo, though he required that the condition of the slave should be made compatible with the wants and claims of his higher nature, did not absolutely condemn slavery. But he
Slavery has been, far more than intolerance, the perpetual curse and reproach of ancient civilisation, and although its rightfulness was disputed as early as the days of Aristotle, and was implicitly, if not definitely, denied by several Stoics, the moral philosophy of the Greeks and Romans, as well as their practice, pronounced decidedly in its favour. But there was one extraordinary people who, in this as in other things, anticipated the purer precept that was to come. Philo of Alexandria is one of the writers whose views on society were most advanced. He applauds not only liberty but equality in the enjoyment of wealth. He believes that a limited de- mocracy, purged of its grosser elements, is the· most perfect government, and will extend itself gradually over all the world. By freedom he understood the following of God. Philo, though he required that the condition of the slave should be made compatible with the wants and claims of his higher nature, did not absolutely condemn slavery. But he
This, then, is the conclusion to which our survey brings
us: there is hardly a truth in politics or in the system of
the rights of man that was not grasped by the wisest of the
Gentiles and the Jews, or that they did not declare with a
refinement of thought and a nobleness of expression that later
writers could never surpass. I might go on for hours, reciting
to you passages on the law of nature and the duties of man,
so solemn and religious that though they come from the
profane theatre on the Acropolis, and from the Roman fo-
rum, you would deem that you were listening to the hymns
of Christian churches and· the discourse of ordained divines.
But although the maxims of the great classic teachers, of
Sophocles, and Plato, and Seneca, and the glorious examples
of public virtue were in the mouths of all men, there was no
power in them to avert the doom of that-civilisation for which
the blood of so many patriots and the genius of such incom-
parable writers had been wasted in vain. The liberties of the
ancient nations were crushed beneath a hopeless and inevi-
table despotism, and their vitality was spent, when the new
power came forth from Galilee, giving what was wanting to
the efficacy of human knowledge to redeem societies as well
as men.
No comments:
Post a Comment