early periods of their history, but they made themselves odious by their
pride and their oppressions, and the people had deposed and expelled
them. The modern nations of Europe have several times performed the same
exploit, but they have generally felt unprotected and ill at ease
without a personal sovereign over them and have accordingly, in most
cases, after a few years, restored some branch of the expelled dynasty
to the throne The Romans were more persevering and firm. They had
managed their empire now for five hundred years as a republic, and
though they had had internal dissensions, conflicts, and quarrels
without end, had persisted so firmly and unanimously in their
detestation of all regal authority, that no one of the long line of
ambitious and powerful statesmen, generals, or conquerors by which the
history of the empire had been signalized, had ever dared to aspire to
the name of king.

[Sidenote: Caesar's ambitious plans.]

There began, however, soon to appear some indications that Caesar, who
certainly now possessed regal power, would like the regal name.
Ambitious men, in such cases, do not directly assume themselves the
titles and symbols of royalty. Others make the claim for them, while
they faintly disavow it, till they have opportunity to gee what effect
the idea produces on the public mind. The following incidents occurred
which it was thought indicated such a design on the part of Caesar.

[Sidenote: American feeling.]

There were in some of the public buildings certain statues of kings; for
it must be understood that the Roman dislike to kings was only a dislike
to having kingly authority exercised over themselves. They respected and