tion, therefore, of its having been the general policy of Rome to fuperfede a pofitive law, in allowing the utmott toleration in religious matters, not only to individuals in their private chapels, but to public bodies in open temples, implies an eradication of fuperftitious notions, of which the Romans at that time were incapable; ignorance being ever the parent of devotion. Such an affumption confequently requires the united teftimony of the moft diligent and able hiftorians, and if contradicted by any, it muft fall to the ground. • Why fewer inftances occur in the latter parts of the Roman Hiftory, is easily accounted for. After the civil commotions which commenced with the Gracchi, occupied the minds of men with the events of the greatest magnitude and danger, historians were too much employed in reciting the various fruggles for power, and the revolutions that followed each other in quick fucceffion, to descend to such particulars as related to the mere internal police of a city, where all order was fubverted. The nearer we approach to the diffolution of the republic, the less probability occurs of examples of an obftinate or firm adherence to established forms. At a time when the majority of the fenate confifted either of fceptics or Epicureans, we must not expect to find thofe repeated inftances of religious reftraint which feem to have made part of the conftitution under their bigoted ancestors. Finally, under the emperors, most of them wicked in the extreme, many of thein bred in camps and in ignorance, when all power, civil and religious, was devolved on one perfon; no magiftrate, the moft fcrupulous in point of religion, would prefume to take fuch an important step as that of demolishing a temple, or of punishing the followers of a new religion, without previously confulting him who was feated on the imperial throne, and was invefted, befide other prerogatives, with a fupremacy in religion. After which, the lenity or cruelty of the prince would be the only measure of toleration, and not the confcience of the inferior magiftrate, or the declaration of the laws. The emperors, for the most part, only confidered what would fecure their power. They would be lefs rigid than republican magistrates, in punishing fmall breaches of the law. Nevertheless, whenever their extreme fufpicion and watchful jealoufy were awakened, it was immaterial whether the caufe was civil or religious: all oppofition to their power was equally held dangerous, and trampled down.” This only proves, what we know from the remaining laws of the twelve tables, that foreign religions were forbidden; and that, under bigotted magiftrates and in ignorant ages, the laws were enforced. So far we agree with our author, that the fpirit of the government was intolerant; but his object was to have shown that rulers were intolerant; for, if pofitive laws are eluded by the connivance of the magiftrate, he cer B 2 tainly tainly falls fhort of his proof. The holy wars of antiquity were undoubtedly, as the author alledges, wars really for the attainment of power or territory, disguised only under the name of religion. The poftfcript relates to the Penates, a fubject we think of importance in this enquiry; for, if it appears that the magiftrates did not interfere with the refpect paid to the household gods; if thefe, particularly in the more fervile periods of the lower empire, became objects of national worship, toleration, or indifference (we fear these words have have been and still are too often fynonymous), marked the conduct of the Roman magiftrate, whatever the fpirit of the religion may have been. The frequent allufion to the Penates in the plays, in the orations of the orators, &c. plainly proves that the worfhip of thefe deities was not confidered as a crime, nor is there an inftance of cenfure or punifhment inflicted for adoration paid privately to any deity. Many inftances occur in the lower empire, where the Penates were raised to the honour of national deities, and indeed the few deities of ancient, compared with the crowded mythology of modern Rome, fhows that from this, or other fources, many deities were adopted. The great question then is, what were the Penates? We have formerly glanced at this fubject, and now, as well as at that time, have endeavoured to examine it with some care. Inftead, however, of stating our author's account, or our own fentiments, we fhall copy the opinion of one of the ableft eritics of the prefent age; we mean profeffor Heyne of Gottingen. After fome difcuffion on this fubject, and quotations from numerous authors, he adds his own opinion. What I collect from thefe authors, as the more fimple and probable view of the fubject is, that the religion of Rome underwent many changes. Atfirft the deities were only Cælum and Terra; afterwards two others were added; and these four deities, diftinguished by familiar names, were, by different interpretations, referred to the various gods of Greece; fo that in thefe you would perceive Ceres and Proferpine, Hades and Mercury; by other interpretations they would be Bacchus and Jupiter; and both Vulcan and Cybele would be looked for under the fame figures, nor is it improbable that the ceremonies of thefe deities would be added after fome ages, which was the cafe with other religions, particularly thofe of a more mysterious nature. To thefe every one would annex what his fancies or his dreams fuggefted, as happens in our own times, particularly respecting nature and its plaftic power. Because the forms of two young men, feemingly brothers, united according to the ancient cuftom, met the eye, they were confounded with the Diofcuri. It has occafioned ftill more difficulties, that the priests are called Cabari.' —Certain it is, that the Penates were of many different forms, and were fuppofed to poffefs different attributes; that thefe were worshipped without the interference of the civil magiftrate, added to at pleasure, and confidered as the most important objects of adoration. Can the age that admitted this promifcuous worship be therefore ftyled intolerant? Can it be ftyled intolerant when compared even with our own times? and can thefe times be cenfured which admits of religion of every fpecies to be exercifed publicly, and prohibits only those from engaging in political affairs, whofe political fentiments are fuppofed adverfe to the prefent conftitution. After detailing the intolerance of the pagan world, the author proceeds to a part of his fubject which we cannot look at with fatisfaction, and a part in which we do not differ from him, we mean the perfecutions of Christianity and of Chrif tians. What can we fay on this fubject, but that the profeffors of Chriftianity had not imbibed the fpirit with the letter of the gospel, and had forgotten its moft glorious tenets, peace, charity, and good-will towards men? The earlier Chriftians had learned, it is faid, intolerance from the Jews, and thefe were repaid amply with every kind of perfecution. Christ and the earlier Chriftians were crucified, maffacred, and punished, undoubtedly from the malicious fuggeftions of the Jews; and it is obvious that the life of Jefus would have been preserved, if the unrelenting rancour of his accufers had not forced Pi. late, after every evafion and fubterfuge that he could fafely practise, to islue the fatal fentence. The hiftory of modern perfecutions is purfued with no particular advantages of reprefentation. It is a tale ten times told, and admits not, perhaps, of novelty; but our author's abilities might have enabled him to have graced the narrative or the reflections with fomething more interefting. Intolerance is indeed fo difpleafing to him, that the indifference or the contempt of fome of the Arabian conquerors for Christianity gives them, in his opinion, a merit which they by no means poffefs; and he opposes Dr. White's parallel, formed on an extended view of their general conduct, from that of a few of thefe conquerors. On the whole, however, thefe Letters are interefting and pleafing numerous facts are collected from the best sources, detailed advantageously and fairly. On the political points we may differ from our author: on thofe of humanity and benevolence, we can have but one opinion. THE (6) A complete Treatife of the Origin, Theory, and Cure of the Lues Venerea, and Obftructions in the Urethra, illuftrated by a great Variety of Cafes. Being a Course of Twenty-three Lectures, read in Dean-fireet, Soho, in the Years 1790 and 1791. By J. Foot, Surgeon. 4to.. 11. 10s. boards. Becket. 1792. HE numerous treatifes, already published on this subject, have not terrified our very enterprifing author from adding his thoughts to the number of doctrines already in our hands; nor can we ever object to the publication of real or pretended novelties, for from the collifion of opinions truth fometimes unexpectedly ftarts, and even errors may fuggeft new views, or important improvements to others, of which the author was not himself aware. The origin of the difeafe is the first object of Mr. Foot's enquiry; and, though we find the language vaguely pompous, the metaphors fometimes inapplicable and incorrect, and some of the ideas not strictly accurate, we fhall not detain our readers with any very particular obfervations on the fubject. The origin of the difeafe, which our author confiders at some length, will detain us a little longer. We have glanced at it in our review of Dr. Swediaur's treatise, in the Lxvth volume of this Journal, and our attention is recalled to it by the translation of Sanchez' Diflertation on the subject, which has lately appeared, and which has not yet occurred in our ufual progrefs. Thefe confiderations may, perhaps, be confidered as a fufficient excufe for engaging us fomewhat longer than ufual in an enquiry of fome curiofity, and, in a medical view, not without utility. Mr. Foot commences this investigation with tranfcribing the papers of Mr. Becket, in the 30th and 31ft volumes of the Philofophical Tranfactions. The arguments of this author have been replied to very fatisfactorily by Dr. Astruc.. We fhall content ourselves with two obfervations. 1. The local complaints, mentioned by Mr. Becket, were very certainly not venereal, for the earliest accounts of the real difeafe do not mention the ulceration of the urethra till more than 50 years after its first appearance, and there is no evidence that thefe local complaints ever degenerated into the general one. 2. The general difcafe of that era was the leprofy, a filthy, difgufting, infectious diforder, capable of producing a local as well as a general complaint; but certainly different from the venereal difeafe, for the phyficians of that æra, who must be fuppofed well acquainted with leprofy, speak of fiphilis as wholly a new diforder, one whofe nature they were totally ignorant of, and which the ufual remedies had no effect on. We have had occafion to see an instance of the true ancient leprofy in its worst form, anfwering perfectly the defcription of the old authors: the nofe was affected, the eye-lids invert out al, the eye-brows falling off; puftules and eruptions in the face. The whole appearance was fhocking; but the difeafe was very different from the venereal. The reply of Dr. Aftruc is added by our author. He next proceeds to adduce medical and hiftorical teftimonies on this fubject, and concludes, that the venereal was a new difeafe, brought home by Colum bus in his fecond voyage from Hifpaniola, and, by his crew, communicated to the different nations in Europe, appearing moft confpicuous in the camp of Charles VIII. then in Italy, in 1495 or 1496. This is now the point at ifflue, for there is not an argument, we fay it with confidence, as we have traced each particular of the mafs of evidence adduced by different authors-there is not a fingle argument of the leaft importance, which will fupport for a moment its exiftence previous to 1493, the period which we affixed, with fome caution, in our review of Dr. Swediaur's work, for its origin. If we examine Mr. Foot's conclufion we fhall fee a little confufion, which is, even from the firft, fufpicious. Some of the authorities mention the æra to be 1495 and 1496. This çonfufion is of more confequence, as Columbus did not return. from his fecond voyage till 1496: if then his own teftimonies, or at leaft any decifive teftimony, fixes the period in 1495, America must be acquitted of having fent us this dreadful fcourge. Several of the cotemporary medical authors, who wrote in 1496, call it a new difeafe then raging: one or two' of thefe date it from the year before. Hock de Brakenaw, only eight years afterwards; a profeffor of medicine at Bologna, fixes its æra in 1494. Cataneus, who wrote in 1505, at Genoa, and De Vigo, phyfician to the pope, who wrote about 1512, both fix its appearance at the fame time. Thefe are profeffional men, capable of judging, who lived almost on the ipot, and fo near the era of the appearance of the disease, that it is impoffible not to admit their teftimony in its fullest extent. Those who fix the era of its appearance in 1495 and 1496, do not contradict the others; they do not fay that it did not appear before; but mention thefe dates vaguely, with litle apparent precifion. Among the hiftorical teftimonies we need only adduce Coccius, who dates its ara in 1495, in a work published at Venice in 1502, and Jean de Bourdigne, a French hiftorian, who tells us, that it began to rage in France in 1495. These are facts and quotations adduced by our author: we have not gone beyond him, becaufe thefe prove it almoft impoffible that the difeafe could have been introduced from America. The pofitive arguments are fhort and decifive. Columbus returned from his firft voyage in March 13, 1493, at a time when the date began to change only at Lady. day, in reality in March 1494, the year in which the difeafe com B 4 menced |