CROYANCES SUR L'AME ET SUR LA MORT.

Jusqu'aux derniers temps de l'histoire de la Grèce et de Rome, on voit persister chez le vulgaire un ensemble de pensées et d'usages qui dataient assurément d'une époque très-éloignée et par lesquels nous pouvons apprendre quelles opinions l'homme se fit d'abord sur sa propre nature, sur son âme, sur le mystère de la mort.

Si haut qu'on remonte dans l'histoire de la race indoeuropéenne, dontles populations grecques et italiennes sont des branches, on ne voit pas que cette race ait jamais pensé qu'après cette courte vie tout tut fini pour l'homme Les plus anciennes générations, bicn avant qu'il y eût des philosophes, ontcru à une seconde existence après celle-ci. Elles ont envisagé la mort, non comme une dissolution de l'être, mais comme un simple changement de vie.

Mais en quel lieu et de quelle manière se passait cette seconde existence? Croyait-on que l'espritimmortel, une fois échappé dun corps, allait en animer un autre? Non; la croyance à la métempsycose n'a jamais pu s'enraciner dans les esprits des populations gréco-italiennes; et elle n'est pas non plus la plus ancienne opinion des Aryas del'Orieiit, puisque les hymnes des Védas sont en opposition avec elle. Croyait-on que l'esprit montait vers le ciel, vers la région de la lumière? Pas davantage; la pensee que les âmes entraient dans une demeure céleste, est dune époque relativement assez récente en Occident, puisqu'on la voit exprimée pour la première fois par le poëte Phocylide; le séjour céleste ne fut jamais regardequé comme la récompense de quelques grands hommes etdes bienfaiteurs de l'humanite.

On se propose de montrer ici d'après quels principes et par quelles règles la sociélé grecque et la sociélé romaine se sont gouvernées. On réunit dans la même étude les Romains et les Grecs, parce que ces deux peuples, qui étaient deux branches d'une même race, et qui parlaient deux idiomes issus d'une même langue, ont eu aussi les mêmes institutions et les memes principes de gouvernement et ont traversé une série de révolutions semblables.

On s'attachera surtout à faire ressortir les différences radicales et essentielles qui distinguent à tout jamais ces peuples anciens des societes modernes. Notre systeme d'éducation, qui nous fait vivre dès l'enfance au milieu des Grecs et des Romains, nous habitue à les comparer sans cesse à nous, à juger leur histoire d'après la nôtre et à expliquer nos révolutions par les leurs. Ce que nous tenons d'eux et ce qu'ils nous ont legue nous fait croirequ'ils nous ressemblaient; nous avons quelque peine à les considérer comme des peuples étrangers; c est presque toujours nous que nous voyons en eux. De là sont venues beaucoup d'erreurs. On ne manque guere de se tromper sur ces peuples anciens quand on les regarde à travers les opinions et les faits de notre temps.

Or les erreurs en cette matière ne sont pas sans danger- L'idée que l'on s'est faite de la Grèce et de Rome à souvent trouble nos générations. Pour avoir mal observé les institutions de la cité ancienne, on a imaginé de les faire revivre chez nous. On s'est fait illusion sur la liberté chez les anciens, et pour cela seul la liberté chez les modernes a été mise en péril.

When Sulla died in the year 676, the oligarchy restored by him ruled with absolute sway over the Roman state; but, as it had been established by force, it still needed force to maintain its ground against its numerous secret and open foes. It was opposed not by any single party with objects clearly expressed and under leaders distinctly acknowledged, but by a mass of multifarious elements, ranging themselves doubtless under the general name of the popular party, but in reality opposing the Sullan organization of the commonwealth on very various grounds and with very different designs. There were the men of positive law, who neither mingled in nor understood politics, but who detested the arbitrary procedure of Sulla in dealing with the lives and property of the burgesses. Even during the regent's lifetime, when all other opposition was silent, the strict jurists were refractory; the Cornelian laws, for example, which deprived various Italian communities of the Roman franchise, were treated in judicial decisions as null and void, and in like manner the courts held that, where a burgess had been made a prisoner of war and sold into slavery during the revolution, his franchise was not forfeited. There was, further, the Aristocrats remnant of the old liberal minority in the senate, which in friendly former times had sought a compromise with the reform party and the Italians, and was now in a similar spirit inclined to modify the rigidly oligarchic constitution of Sulla by concessions to the Populares.

The resources on either side

Aems were thus to decide which of the two men who had hitherto jointly ruled Rome was now to be its sole ruler. Let us see what were the comparative resources at the disposal of Cæsar and Pompeius for the impending struggle.

Cæsar's absolute power within his our party

Labienus

Cæsar's power rested primarily on the wholly unlimited authority which he enjoyed within his own party. If the ideas of democracy and of monarchy met together in it, this was not the result of a coalition which had been accidentally entered into and might be accidentally dissolved; on the contrary it was involved in the very essence of a democracy without a representative constitution, that democracy and monarchy should find in Cæsar at once their highest and ultimate expression. In political as in military matters throughout the first and the final decision lay with Cæsar. However high the honour in which he held any serviceable instrument, it remained an instrument still; Cæsar stood in his own party without confederates, surrounded only by military-political adjutants, who as a rule had risen, from the army and as soldiers were trained never to ask the reason and purpose of anything, but unconditionally to obey. On this account especially, at the decisive moment when the civil war began, of ail the officers and soldiers of Cæsar one alone refused him obedience; and the circumstance that that one was precisely the foremost of them all, simply confirms this view of the relation of Cæsar to his adherents.

The Sullan constitution still stood unshaken. The assault, which Lepidus and Sertoriua had ventured to make on it, had been repulsed with little loss. The government had neglected, it is true, to finish the half-completed building in the energetic spirit of its author. It is characteristic of the government, that it neither distributed the lands which Sulla had destined for allotment but had not yet parcelled out, nor directly abandoned the claim to them, but tolerated the former owners in provisional possession without regulating their title, and indeed even allowed various still undistributed tracts of Sullan domain-land to be arbitrarily taken possession of by individuals according to the old system of occupation which was de jure and de facto set aside by the Gracchan reforms (iii. 357). Whatever in the Sullan enactments was indifferent or inconvenient for the Optimates, was without scruple ignored or cancelled; such as, the sentences by which whole communities were deprived of the state-franchise, the prohibition against conjoining the new farms, and several of the charters conferred by Sulla on particular communities—naturally, however, without giving back to the communities the sums paid for these exemptions. But though these violations of the ordinances of Sulla by the government itself contributed to shake the foundations of his structure, the Sempronian laws were and remained substantially abolished.