season a whole volume instead of a flippant and "popular" article in one of our leading periodicals. Yet there is still one point which I cannot pass over in silence. Aristotle tells us, that the actors in tragedy were of the heroic stamp, whilst the chorus were but men. (Problem. § 19. 48.) But the reviewer, who sets up for a judge of the Greek drama, is utterly incapable of forming any conception of the heroic character. With him, all female heroism is but the "spasmodic violence of a feminine soul" (p. 69). Farewell, then, ye Clælias and ye Boadiceas, ye Joans of Arc, and ye maids of Saragossa! or ye more fictitious, but not less pleasing heroines whom the poets have embalmed in our imaginations-ye Camillas, ye Clorindas, and ye Britomarts! ye are henceforth condemned and proscribed by this new code of Anglo-German æsthetics. Yet, to some, it may be a question, whether a man of so small a soul as the reviewer would be able to comprehend such a character as Antigone's, were he to read Hegel till he was blind. You cannot make the less contain the greater. You cannot put the ocean into a bucket, nor the soul of Antigone into "a soul of a pitcher."

If an article like the reviewer's is the sort of staple which gratifies that extensive circle of readers which it may be presumed the Foreign Quarterly enjoys, though we may say that the public is a reading public, I fear we cannot add that it is a reflecting one. The want of sense in the buffoon who has been hired to entertain them is not even compensated by any amusing qualities: for, if they could have found any entertainment in seeing the dulness and blunders of so obscure an individual as myself wittily exposed, I should not have grudged them their merriment, though it were at my expense. They are perfectly welcome to the pleasure, and I heartily wish, for their sakes, that there had been more of both those qualities on this occasion.

To conclude. The reviewer seems to think that I have taken a great liberty in questioning any thing that so learned a scholar as M. Böckh has written. If I have differed with that gentleman, I have given my reasons. from presuming to say that they are right; that is a question I am very far indeed which will be decided by much more competent judges than myself or the reviewer. But having been asked for my opinion of M. Böckh's theory, I was surely at liberty to state it. For

M. Böckh's learning and talents I entertain the highest respect, and I will here do him the justice to caution the "unlearned reader" from identifying all the reviewer's arguments with his. I doubt whether he will consider that he has acquired any very valuable ally in the reviewer; and fancy that he may be tempted to exclaim, with others who have been benefited by an officious meddler, "Save me from my friends."

THOMAS DYER.

XIV.

THE ASYLUM OF ROMULUS.

THE stories of the ancient kings of Rome have lost their character and authority as genuine historical accounts, but they are still viewed, and justly so, as embodying some historical truth in the shape of popular traditions, poetical narratives, or priestly doctrines, which, if properly examined, may lead us to an accurate knowledge of events, or, at least, institutions, which are too rashly given up as lost in impenetrable darkness. Yet it must be owned, that not all the old Roman legends are of equal value, and that before we can safely draw conclusions from any one, we must subject it to a strict scrutiny, and inquire whether it is not a mere fiction, instead of being based on some historical fact.

One of the most celebrated traditions, and which is related almost without variation by all the writers on Roman history, is that concerning the Asylum of Romulus. Modern writers seem to have regarded it as a tradition not less trustworthy than that of the war with Porsena, or the league with the Latins. Huschke (Verfassung des Serv. Tull. p. 31) goes so far as to trace the origin of the tribe of the Luceres (which name he derives from lucus) to those who took refuge in the Asylum. Niebuhr (Rom. Hist. 1. note 647) had indeed some doubts concerning the supposed great number of those suppliants and new inhabitants of Rome, because he could not conceive how so many could have dwelled in the narrow space between the Capitol and the Arx-the place unanimously assigned to the Asylum. But Becker (Handb. der Röm. Alterth. 11. p. 131) has got over this difficulty by supposing, that there is no reason why those people should have remained within the precincts of the Asylum, but that, after having obtained the protection of the presiding deity, they might have dwelled anywhere in the city. The same Becker and Göttling (Röm. Staatsverfass. p. 128) account for the sanctity of the relation of patron and client by the fact, that at least a part of the clients originated in the refugees to the Asylum, and were thus placed under the particular protection of the gods. It seems therefore worth while to inquire into the possible foundation that there may be for the tradition about the Asylum.

It is well known, that the custom of taking refuge at the altar of some deity was common in Greece from the earliest ages. Now if we believe in the Asylum of Romulus, we must shew that the same custom existed in Italy, unless we suppose that Romulus had sufficient connection with, and knowledge of, Greece, to adopt this foreign institution. But even such a preposterous supposition would prove useless, for Romulus would surely never have been able to attract many suppliants from the neighbouring states, if the Asylum had been something new, which nobody knew of, and to which nobody could trust. Now there is not even a word in the Latin language to designate the Greek ἄσυλον, and there does not appear the slightest trace of the institution of sacred places of refuge in any Italian state, or in Rome itself, if we except this first Asylum of Romulus. And even of this we hear nothing beyond the story connected with the legends concerning the foundation of the city. If it served its purpose to attract citizens so well, we may naturally ask, why did the Romans shut it up, particularly as comprehensive plans for augmenting the population of Rome are ascribed to the early kings? But Dion Cassius (XLVII. 19) tells us, that with the exception of the Asylum of Romulus, there had been no instance of a similar practice up to the time of the triumvirs. This decisive statement seems to be contradicted by Dionysius, who relates (Iv. 26) that Servius Tullius agreed with the Latins to build at Rome a ἱερὸν ἄσυλον. But this testimony, so far from refuting Dion Cassius, justifies our doubts concerning the Asylum of Romulus. For it appears, from Dionysius's explanation of his ἱερὸν ἄσυλον, that he meant the temple of Diana, on the Aventine, at which there were to be yearly sacrifices, both public and private, of all the Latin cities, and where all their differences were to be amicably settled. The Asylum of Servius was, therefore, by no means an asylum in the Greek sense of the word, but a religious institution, intimately connected with his alliance with Latium. This leads to the conclusion, that a similar circumstance must be at the bottom of the tradition of the Romulian Asylum. I have no doubt that it was the jus exsulandi which gave rise to the whole legend. The citizens of different states, on the ground of special treaties, had the right of leaving their own city, when threatened with capital punishment, and of retiring to another, where they forthwith acquired the rights of citizens, in consequence of the jus exsulandi. This right was, in historical times, enjoyed (reciprocally) by the Latins and Romans; and this right it is which was extended to the time of Romulus, that is, to the first period of the city, and which gave rise to the legend about the asylum. Whether it really existed so early, it is of course hopeless to inquire; but, at any rate, it could never bring such a multitude of strangers at once into a city, as might form a distinct class of citizens, or materially influence the old population; the tradition, therefore, of the Romulian Asylum, as commonly told, must be rejected.

But there is one objection which remains to be dealt with. Becker (Handb. 11. p. 19) thinks that the tradition cannot be doubted, because the identical spot of the old asylum was shewn in historical times, surrounded by a wall, to prevent any further use of it. (Comp. Becker, Handb. 1. p. 410.) Now this seeming objection will perhaps lead us a step further in refuting the whole story, and fully tracing the origin of it.

Why this spot was so carefully secreted from all approach or profanation, it is perhaps impossible to ascertain. But if a conjecture be allowed, I think it is not unlikely that this was one of the holy places connected with the old Sabine worship, which were partly suppressed or removed by Tarquin, to make room for Etruscan sanctuaries. (Liv. 1. 55.) We hear of some strange old gods, unknown in later times, and quite unconnected with the prevailing religion. Such deities, whose meaning and attributes were subjects of antiquarian discussion, were Angerona, Ops, and others. It is, I think, not improbable that the mysterious wall, inter duos lucos, included one of those Sabine sanctuaries, which, like those of Terminus and Juventus, would not give way to Tarquin. Perhaps the doubtful deity, whose name was identical with the secret name of Rome, and who presided over the fate of the city, had here its altar in the Sabine citadel. But, whatever may have been the real meaning of the wall round this spot, so much was clear to every observer, that this place ought not to be entered or violated. The appellation ἄσυλον, which might easily have been given to