be brought against even the very best forms of society, have endeavored to prove that it would have been better for man had he always maintained his right to the full exercise of his natural freedom. Absurd as such principles are, we find many palliating circumstances, when we review all the sufferings which man has undergone in the social state. But Providence has decreed that only by woes, difficulties and trials, in the school of experience, man can acquire knowledge how to attain happiness.

As history gives us no definite information regarding the origin of human society, we must, while investigating this subject, follow in part the most probable theories of the learned.

There may have been a time when men lived promiscuously, as the brute creation; but whether this was, or was not so, we know that family regulations were established at an early period. The father was the supreme head of his family, the arbiter and judge of all the disputes and quarrels which might arise within it. He was the protector and defender of this little society, for which his will was law. There was no limit to his authority over those who composed his family, save that engendered by his own natural love and tenderness. Hence the mildness or the severity with which a family was governed depended solely upon the disposition of each individual head.

One treated his wife and children with harshness, and ruled as a tyrant over them; while another did nothing without consulting the former, and even the latter, when they had arrived at years of maturity. Thus the patriarchal mode of government, which has been so much applauded by many, bore in itself the germ no less of despotism than democracy, and was subject to the same variations from good to evil as every other kind of government.

In the course of time families became divided into various branches, and as these smaller societies became more numerous, each, with its own chief, whose different interests and characters oftentimes kindled feelings of enmity between their respective families, it was found convenient and advisable to entrust the government of a whole neighborhood to a single individual, or to a limited number of individuals, in order to check, by his or their authority, the ambition of the others, and to maintain the peace of the community. It would have been well had this power been entrusted only to the wise and the good, but such was not always the case. Power then, as even at the present day, oftentimes fell into the hands of wicked and designing men, who either by cunning or working upon the fears of others, obtained the preference over their fellows.

It is but reasonable to suppose that it was the intention of those who elected these chief magistrates, that the power committed to their hands should always be exercised with moderation, and be bounded by certain limits. The result, however, oftentimes proved the very reverse, and particularly so, when that power became hereditary in certain families, who

soon forgot that their possession of it was derived from the voluntary gift of their ancentors' equals.

In those communities where the chief magistrates continued to be elected, love of freedom was nourished, and the various forms of republican government invented. There is therefore no foundation in truth for the assertion that republics are the inventions of more recent times.

"Liberty," as Madame de Stael so justly observes, "is older than despotism;" but it cannot be denied that man was early made to writhe under this most terrible scourge.

Many fathers, from various motives, gave to their first-born sons the greater part of their property, and empowered them to exercise authority over their sisters and younger brothers, equal to that they themselves exercised over all their children. Hence the claims of primogeniture; hence hereditary chief magistrates, without any previous consent of those. who were subjected to their authority; hence the unlimited power of kings; and hence the preposterous assertion that monarchies and the succession of princes are founded on divine right, and that it is unlawful for the people to abrogate the former, or to alter the order of the latter.

Among those tribes who cultivated the earth, villages, towns and cities soon arose, whose communities were doubtless governed by their own chief magistrates. But in process of time a great number of them became united, from various causes, such as mutual consent, inheritance, or conquest-under one individual, or under an assembly of chief magistrates. In one or the other of these ways all the great kingdoms and republics, which are to pass in review before us, have grown into importance and greatness. Yet, however sorrowful it is, it cannot be denied, that the growth of vast empires has generally required the moisture of human blood. But wars, terrible as they are, have not been the most detestable means by which ambition has founded greatness. Hypocrisy, falsehood, and every artifice degrading to human nature, have been used by men and by nations to satisfy their inordinate love of power.

The various forms of government are:-Monarchy, where one individual rules, but subject to limitations defined by laws, and whose power is divided with a Senate, a Diet or Parliament-Despotism, which knows no law save the arbitrary will of one individual, is considered by some as a corrup tion of Monarchy-Aristocracy, in which ancient families exercise by birthright, the supreme power, either in a whole body, or by a select number from among them-Timocracy, where the laws define that possessors of property are alone eligible to office-Oligarchy, where the chief power, either by law, by descent, or by accident, is confined to a very small number of men-Democracy is, in accordance with the old signification of the word, that form of government in which every citizen partakes of the supreme power, and is called Ochlocracy when, in consequence of injurious laws or violent commotions, the power which

legally belonged to all the citizens, has been transferred to the populace alone.

All these forms of government have produced both good and evil results. Democracy, though most favorable to freedom, and most worthy of man, has, nevertheless, in some instances, proved no less detrimental to the welfare of the people, than the worst of despotisms. In other instances despotism has, at times, greatly promoted the interests of the people. The truth is, that nations have been reared to power and prosperity, and have been prostrated in ruin, under all these forms of government. Are we therefore to consider them all as equally good? Certainly not! Exceptions cannot be taken as rules, and history teaches us-as you will see which form of government to prefer, and, at the same time, that the distribution of power is the best, both as avoiding excesses, and combining the vigor of monarchy with the mature wisdom of a Senate, and with the free and animating debates of a Democracy.

But there is one form of government which I have not as yet mentioneh, that deserves our particular attention, and is called Theocracy-signifying the government of a state by the immediate direction of the Deity. Although often promoting the well-being of the people, and holding in check the violent passions of men, this form of government is decidedly the most objectionable, because it is founded in deceit, and, under the cloak of divine authority, conceals the ambitious designs of a cunning priesthood. Spectres are not seen at noon-day, nor this form of government in the bright sunshine of modern civilization. It can only flourish where ignorance and superstition prevail. Yet, in some instances, it has had its origin with good and wise men, who were desirous that a whole people should submit to order and law, but whose knowledge of human nature taught them, that if they did not pretend to act by divine authority, they would not succeed. Their motives being good, they overlooked the principle that man is not permitted to use objectionable means, not even to further the very best of intentions.

But almost every page of history gives us clear evidences of the great truth, that God, as the supreme Ruler, disposes of every event, determines the fate of nations and their rulers, and that He transfers the power from one man to another, and from one nation to another, for His own wise ends. History also clearly proves that He has used certain men and certain nations for certain great purposes; still, it cannot be said that He has taken less care of the meanest Persian, than He did of Cyrus himself; nor less care of the most insignificant Indian tribe, than of the Roman people, because He has bestowed upon the one as well as on the other, those qualities and that fortune which enabled them to accomplish the objects for which each of them were brought into existence.

LETTER IV.

THE DIVISION OF ANCIENT HISTORY INTO PERIODS, AND THEIR DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS.

ANCIENT HISTORY may very conveniently be divided into three distinct periods, as follows:

The first, extends from the creation of Adam down to Cyrus, the celebrated founder of the Medo-Persian kingdom; or from the creation of the human race to the year 560 B. C.

The second from Cyrus to Cæsar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, or from 560 years B. C. to 30 years B. C.

The third period, from Augustus' victory, over Antonius, at Actium, to the dethronement of Romulus Augustulus, by Odoacer, and the end of the Western Roman Empire, or from the year 30 B. C. to the year 476 A. C.

The history of man during the first period, is to a great extent, so fabulous, as to deserve little credit; still, the rays which now and then lighten up the darkness that envelops the truth, renders it possible, by close investigation, and mature reflection, to acquaint ourselves with every event important to us.

At war with nature and the beasts of prey, and soon too with his own brother, man, both from his necessities and from his passions, begins, at an early age, to develop his good and his evil propensities. In youthful strength he proves himself the lord of the earth, and either from curiosity, or in search of food and wealth, overruns a great part of its surface. Renouncing his natural freedom, he enters into society; but his dreams of a better state are often delusive. Instead of enjoying the right-as he had hoped-of framing the laws by which he is to be governed, he oftentimes finds himself compelled to submit to the will of a despot. Inquiring for the origin of the universe, and unable to solve his own doubts or answer his own questions, he becomes the slave of superstition and the victim of deceit―kings trample him in the dust, and priests blindfold his awakening

reason.

His first steps toward civilization may have been slow, but during the latter part of this period we find that he must have made rapid strides, as testified to by the magnificent cities, by the courtly pomp of princes, by the immense and well-filled warehouses of the Phenician merchants, of which the history of that time speaks; and, above all, by the productions of immortal poets, which still exist.

But in the warm and luxuriant Orient, man soon becomes too effeminate

to preserve his freedom, and to pursue the course of civilization which he had so nobly commenced. He lacks tenacity of purpose, and yielding to the allurements of sensual pleasures, he stops in his glorious career. Already majestic Asia-the home of everlasting slavery-groans under the chariot wheels of conquering tyrants, and fertile Egypt is become the devoted land of superstition and despotism.

Following the impulses of his feelings, and the wild extravagance of an unbridled imagination, rather than the sober judgment of reason, man is in general become idolatrous. The Israelites alone worship-under the name of Jehovah-the sole Great Cause of everything that exists. Entertaining the rational belief in his Oneness and providential care, nevertheless their views of him are so narrow and contracted that they think him principally occupied with things concerning themselves. But let us not wonder at this, for the selfishness of man always makes him ready to appropriate everything to himself, and he is only to be enlightened by experience and reflection.

In glorious Greece and sunny Italy man is laying the foundation of those structures, which, by their beauty, variety, simplicity and greatness, and by their very defects, are to attract the attention and admiration of a coming generations.

The second period-fertile in writers of almost every kind, and among them a great number of trustworthy historians-is much better known to us than the first; but many events necessarily must have happened of which no mention is made, while others are so very slightly alluded to as to leave us in much doubt concerning them. These, however, are difficulties with which we have to contend, not only throughout this period, but also through all subsequent time. Some works of history, which, in many respects, merit our approval, are yet deformed by the ignorance, carelessness, partiality, and sometimes falsehoods of their authors. But zeal in the search of truth will, in this, as well as all subsequent periods, meet with a just reward.

What a great number of memorable events and great men adorn this age of the world! How productive it is of everything that attracts attention, excites admiration, and calls forth applause. Great empires rise and fall successively; while eminent men, almost uninterruptedly, fill the world with the renown of their glorious deeds and admirable productions. In no other period of time, perhaps, has the human mind developed itself in such grandeur.

Man has attained the age of majority, and exults in the consciousness of his power; he displays with pride all the wonderful capacities with which he is endowed, and makes such mighty strides towards perfection, that, in many instances, he has outstripped rivals of much later date.

It is the era of Plato and Aristotle; of Eschylus and Sophocles; of Demosthenes and Cicero; of Phidias and Praxiteles, and of Pindar and