Sir Robert Peel to Lord Mahon. MY DEAR LORD MAHON, Drayton Manor, December 22, 1847. I thank you for sending me Mr. Macaulay's letter respecting human sacrifices at Rome. If you are interested in the vindication of Dr. Gieseler (of whom I never heard), you might perhaps find something to say in his defence, though it is rather presumptuous in me to suggest it, first against such an authority as Mr. Macaulay; and secondly, because I have neither the passage of the worthy Doctor which Mr. Macaulay impugns, nor the work of Lactantius which the Doctor professes to quote. I am aware of no classical authority for the assertion that human sacrifices were offered in classic times at the festival of Jupiter Latialis. Writers, however, prior to or contemporary with Lactantius assert the fact in direct terms. Prudentius says (lib. i. Contra Symmachum): "Funditur humanus Latiari in munere sanguis Minutius, who, I believe, lived before Lactantius and Prudentius, and who was probably the authority on whom each of them relied, says:— "Quid ipse Jupiter vester? cum Capitolinus, tunc gerit fulmina, et cum Latiaris, cruore perfunditur;" and, in a subsequent passage, removing any doubt as to the sort of blood, he says, expressly: 66 Hodieque ab ipsis (Romanis) Latiaris Jupiter homicidio colitur, et quod Saturni filio dignum est, mali et noxii hominis sanguine saginatur." I have no copy of Lactantius, but in the notes of Victor Giselinus, on the passage quoted from Prudentius, there is a quotation of the passage from Lactantius, and it varies from the quotation in Mr. Macaulay's letter in a point not unimportant. As quoted by Giselinus, the passage runs thus: "Galli Hesum et Teutatem humano cruore placabant. Nec Latini quidem hujus immanitatis expertes fuerunt. Siquidem Latialis Jupiter sanguine colitur humano, quid ab his boni precantur qui sic sacrificant?" If the above be a correct quotation, there is perhaps enough of direct assertion on the part of Lactantius to justify the German Doctor in supposing that he meant to assert that the Romans were guilty of human sacrifices. But the quotation, probably, is not a correct one, at least as to punctuation. The words of the original text are, I take for granted, as quoted by Mr. Macaulay: "Nec Latini quidem hujus immanitatis expertes fuerunt, siquidem Jupiter Latialis etiam nunc sanguine colitur humano." Is it quite clear that siquidem must mean if indeed? May it not mean inasmuch as? I will give you two passages in which I apprehend it bears the latter construction. "Siquidem e castris egredi non liceret" is in a passage in Cæsar (De Bello Gallico) of which I think the context will show that since or inasmuch as is the meaning, and not if indeed. Ovid, speaking of the illustrious descent and marriage of Peleus, has these lines: "Nam conjuge Peleus Clarus erat Divâ; nec avi magis ille superbit Even, however, should my very disinterested plea for the German Doctor avail anything, I do not mean to imply that I agree to the conclusion at which I suppose he has arrived-namely, that there were human sacrifices throughout the classic times of Rome. I cannot reconcile such a conclusion with the silence of the highest classical authorities. Such writers as Prudentius, Minutius, and Lactantius were prejudiced against Pagan usages, and readily gave credit to unfavourable reports of them. Surely if it had been the annual usage in Rome, in classic times, to offer human victims to Jupiter, Cicero could never have uttered these words: "Quidquam Gallis sanctum ac religiosum videri potest? Qui etiam si quando aliquo metu adducti, Deos placandos arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras funestant ut ne religionem quidem colere possint, nisi eam ipsam scelere violarint. Quis enim ignorat eos usque ad hunc diem retinere illam immanem ac barbaram consuetudinem hominum immolandorum ?" Now I will release you, being quite ready to offer up Lactantius, Prudentius, and Dr. Gieseler himself as sacrifices to Cicero. I deserve no credit for my parade of learning. One book suggests reference to another, and commentators supply quotations to those who have patience to read them. Believe me, &c., &c., ROBERT PEEL. On December 26th, 1847, I replied at some length to Sir Robert Peel, sending him a literal translation of Dr. Gieseler's note. [Enclosure A.] Of the first authority cited in that note I went on to say: Porphyry was known to me by name as one of the later Pagan philosophers-the pupil of Longinus and the master of Iamblichus. But I was wholly ignorant of his works, and contented to remain so. However, my diligence being, as it should be, quickened by Mr. Macaulay's and yours, I have been to a dusty collection, not my own, to look at the original passage, and ascertain the critical character which Porphyry bears; and I now beg you to accept the result of my research. [Enclosure B.] The testimony he gives seems the strongest of all; and it comes, you will observe, from one who, ever since the time he became an author, showed himself a bitter enemy of the Christian Faith, so that in him the testimony is an admission instead of an accusation. I think that you have fully established your position as to the meaning of Siquidem. But I confess that I should not quite concur in the cruel immolations which you without pity propose-❝ to offer up Lactantius, Prudentius, and Dr. Gieseler himself as sacrifices to Cicero!" It seems to me that the authority of all these writers may be well reconciled by assuming that a human victim may have been among the Peregrina Sacra-the externæ cærimonio—which we know crept in to a large extent after the time of Hadrian. They had begun even under Tiberius, though probably not extending to such enormities, as we learn from Tacitus (Annal. lib. ii. c. 85) and Suetonius (Vita Tib. c. 38). In some reigns, as under Heliogabalus, the foreign appear to have even predominated over the old national rites. I must own, however, that on my supposition the shrine of Jupiter Latialis is probably the very last where one might expect to meet with these Peregrina Sacra. There is another objection to my own theory which occurs to me, and which (though I retain the theory) I will frankly state. Last winter, when reading through the series of the "Christian Apologies" (Tertullian, Minutius Felix, &c.), I observed that all of them, from the earliest to the latest, felt it necessary to notice and to rebut the accusation that the Christians in their nightly conclaves used to immolate a child. Absurd as we know this accusation to be, we can easily explain its existence from the heathen misapprehension of the terms in which they heard of the Holy Eucharist. But would this accusation have been so fiercely and re |