It must be remarked, too, that as a consequence of this unattractiveness, the accounts given in standard works of the general features of this religion are rather chilling and repellent. More than fifty years ago, in the first book of his _Roman History_, Mommsen so treated of it--not indeed without some reservation,--and in this matter, as in so many others, his view remained for many years the dominant one. He looked at this religion, as was natural to him, from the point of view of law; in religion as such he had no particular interest. If I am not mistaken, it was for him, except in so far as it is connected with Roman law, the least interesting part of all his far-reaching Roman studies. More recent writers of credit and ability have followed his lead, and stress has been laid on the legal side of religion at Rome; it has been described over and over again as merely a system of contracts between gods and worshippers, secured by hard and literal formalism, and without ethical value or any native principle of growth. Quite recently, for example, so great an authority as Professor Cumont has written of it thus:-- "Il n'a peut etre jamais existe aucune religion aussi froide, aussi prosaique que celle des Romains. Subordonnee a la politique, elle cherche avant tout, par la stricte execution de pratiques appropriees, a assurer a l'Etat la protection des dieux ou a detourner les effets de leur malveillance. Elle a conclu avec les puissances celestes un contrat synallagmatique d'ou decoulent des obligations reciproques: sacrifices d'une part, faveurs de l'autre.... Sa liturgie rappelle par la minutie de ses prescriptions l'ancien droit civil. Cette religion se defie des abandons de l'ame et des elans de la devotion." And he finishes his description by quoting a few words of the late M. Jean Reville: "The legalism of the Pharisees, in spite of the dryness of their ritualistic minutiae, could make the heart vibrate more than the formalism of the Romans."[2]