No More Learning

The votes continued to be taken by head, as in the curiæ, but the
majority of the votes in each century counted only for one suffrage.
Now, as the first class had ninety-eight centuries, while the others,
taken together, had only ninety-five, it is clear that the votes of the
first class were enough to carry the majority. The eighteen centuries of
knights first gave their votes, and then the eighty centuries of the
first class: if they were not agreed, appeal was made to the vote of the
second class, and so on in succession; but, says Livy, it hardly ever
happened that they were obliged to descend to the last. [45] Though,
according to its original signification, the century should represent a
hundred men, it already contained a considerably greater number. Each
century was divided into the active part, including all the men from
eighteen to forty-six years of age, and the sedentary part, charged
with the guard of the town, composed of men from forty-six to sixty
years old. [46]

With regard to those of the sixth class, omitted altogether by many
authors, they were exempt from all military service, or, at any rate,
they were enrolled only in case of extreme danger. [47] The centuries of
knights, who formed the cavalry, recruited among the richest citizens,
tended to introduce a separate order among the nobility,[48] which shows
the importance of the chief called to their command. In fact, the chief
of the _celeres_ was, after the king, the first magistrate of the city,
as, at a later period, under the Republic, the _magister equitum_ became
the lieutenant of the dictator.

The first census of Servius Tullius gave a force of eighty thousand men
in a condition to bear arms,[49] which is equivalent to two hundred and
ninety thousand persons of the two sexes, to whom may be added, from
conjectures, which, however, are rather vague, fifteen thousand
artisans, merchants, or indigent people, deprived of all rights of
citizenship, and fifteen thousand slaves. [50]

The comitia by centuries were charged with the election of the
magistrates, but the comitia by curiæ, being the primitive form of the
patrician assembly, continued to decree on the most important religious
and military affairs, and remained in possession of all which had not
been formally given to the centuries. Solon effected, about the same
epoch, in Athens, a similar revolution, so that, at the same time, the
two most famous towns of the ancient world no longer took birth as the
basis of the right of suffrage, but fortune.

Servius Tullius promulgated a great number of laws favourable to the
people; he established the principle that the property only of the
debtor, and not his person, should be responsible for his debt. He also
authorised the plebeians to become the patrons of their freedmen, which
allowed the richest of the former to create for themselves a _clientèle_
resembling that of the patricians. [51]


[Sidenote: Religion. ]

IV. Religion, regulated in great part by Numa, was at Rome an instrument
of civilisation, but, above all, of government. By bringing into the
acts of public or private life the intervention of the Divinity,
everything was impressed with a character of sanctity. Thus the
inclosure of the town with its services,[52] the boundaries of estates,
the transactions between citizens, engagements, and even the important
facts of history entered in the sacred books, were placed under the
safeguard of the gods. [53] In the interior of the house, the gods Lares
protected the family; on the field of battle, the emblem placed on the
standard was the protecting god of the legion. [54] The national
sentiment and belief that Rome would become one day the mistress of
Italy was maintained by oracles or prodigies;[55] but if, on the one
hand, religion, with its very imperfections, contributed to soften
manners and to elevate minds,[56] on the other it wonderfully
facilitated the working of the institutions, and preserved the influence
of the higher classes.

Religion also accustomed the people of Latium to the Roman supremacy;
for Servius Tullius, in persuading them to contribute to the building of
the Temple of Diana,[57] made them, says Livy, acknowledge Rome for
their capital, a claim they had so often resisted by force of arms.

The supposed intervention of the Deity gave the power, in a multitude of
cases, of reversing any troublesome decision. Thus, by interpreting the
flight of birds,[58] the manner in which the sacred chickens ate, the
entrails of victims, the direction taken by lightning, they annulled the
elections, or eluded or retarded the deliberations either of the comitia
or of the Senate. No one could enter upon office, even the king could
not mount his throne, if the gods had not manifested their approval by
what were reputed certain signs of their will. There were auspicious and
inauspicious days; in the latter it was not permitted either to judges
to hold their audience, or to the people to assemble. [59] Finally, it
might be said with Camillus, that the town was founded on the faith of
auspices and auguries. [60]

The priests did not form an order apart, but all citizens had the power
to enrol themselves in particular colleges. At the head of the
sacerdotal hierarchy were the pontiffs, five in number,[61] of whom the
king was the chief. [62] They decided all questions which concerned the
liturgy and religious worship, watched over the sacrifices and
ceremonies that they should be performed in accordance with the
traditional rites,[63] acted as inspectors over the other minister of
religion, fixed the calendar,[64] and were responsible for their actions
neither to the Senate nor to the people. [65]

After the pontiffs, the first place belonged to the curions, charged in
each curia with the religious functions, and who had at their head a
grand curion; then came the flamens, the augurs,[66] the vestals charged
with the maintenance of the sacred fire; the twelve Salian priests,[67]
keepers of the sacred bucklers, named _ancilia_; and lastly, the
_feciales_, heralds at arms, to the number of twenty, whose charge it
was to draw up treaties and secure their execution, to declare war, and
to watch over the observance of all international relations. [68]

There were also religious fraternities (_sodalitates_), instituted for
the purpose of rendering a special worship to certain divinities. Such
was the college of the fratres Arvales, whose prayers and processions
called down the favour of Heaven upon the harvest; such also was the
association having for its mission to celebrate the festival of the
Lupercalia, founded in honour of the god Lupercus, the protector of
cattle and destroyer of wolves. The gods Lares, tutelar genii of towns
or families, had also their festival instituted by Tullus Hostilius, and
celebrated at certain epochs, during which the slaves were entirely
exempt from labour. [69]

The kings erected a great number of temples for the purpose of deifying,
some, glory,[70] others, the virtues,[71] others, utility,[72] and
others, gratitude to the gods. [73]

The Romans loved to represent everything by external signs: thus Numa,
to impress better the verity of a state of peace or war, raised a temple
to Janus, which was kept open during war and closed in time of peace;
and, strange to say, this temple was only closed three times in seven
hundred years. [74]


[Sidenote: Results obtained by Royalty. ]

V. The facts which precede are sufficient to convince us that the Roman
Republic[75] had already acquired under the kings a strong
organisation. [76] Its spirit of conquest overflowed beyond its narrow
limits. The small states of Latium which surrounded it possessed,
perhaps, men as enlightened and citizens equally courageous, but there
certainly did not exist among them, to the same degree as at Rome, the
genius of war, the love of country, faith in high destinies, the
conviction of an incontestible superiority, powerful motives of
activity, instilled into them perseveringly by great men during two
hundred and forty-four years.

Roman society was founded upon respect for family, for religion, and for
property; the government, upon election; the policy, upon conquest. At
the head of the State is a powerful aristocracy, greedy of glory, but,
like all aristocracies, impatient of kingly power, and disdainful
towards the multitude. The kings strive to create a people side by side
with the privileged caste, and introduce plebeians into the Senate,
freedmen among the citizens, and the mass of citizens into the ranks of
the soldiery.

Family is strongly constituted; the father reigns in it absolute master,
sole judge[77] over his children, his wife, and his slaves, and that
during all their lives: yet the wife’s position is not degraded as among
the barbarians; she enjoys a community of goods with her husband;
mistress of her house, she has the right of acquiring property, and
shares equally with her brothers the paternal inheritance. [78]

The basis of taxation is the basis of recruiting and of political
rights; there are no soldiers but citizens; there are no citizens
without property. The richer a man is, the more he has of power and
dignities; but he has more charges to support, more duties to fulfil. In
fighting, as well as in voting, the Romans are divided into classes
according to their fortunes, and in the comitia, as on the field of
battle the richest are in the first ranks.

Initiated in the apparent practice of liberty, the people is held in
check by superstition and respect for the high classes. By appealing to
the intervention of the Divinity in every action of life, the most
vulgar things become idealised, and men are taught that above their
material interests there is a Providence which directs their actions.
The sentiment of right and justice enters into their conscience, the
oath is a sacred thing, and virtue, that highest expression of duty,
becomes the general rule of public and private life. [79] Law exercises
its entire empire, and, by the institution of the feciales,
international questions are discussed with a view to what is just,
before seeking a solution by force of arms. The policy of the State
consists in drawing by all means possible the peoples around under the
dependence of Rome; and, when their resistance renders it necessary to
conquer them,[80] they are, in different degrees, immediately associated
with the common fortune, and maintained in obedience by
colonies--advanced posts of future dominion. [81]

The arts, though as yet rude, find their way in with the Etruscan rites,
and come to soften manners, and lend their aid to religion; everywhere
temples arise, circuses are constructed,[82] great works of public
utility are erected, and Rome, by its institutions, paves the way for
its pre-eminence.

Almost all the magistrates are appointed by election; once chosen, they
possess an extensive power, and put in motion resolutely those two
powerful levers of human actions, punishment and reward. To all
citizens, for cowardice before the enemy or for an infraction of
discipline,[83] the rod or the axe of the lictor; to all, for noble
actions, crowns of honour;[84] to the generals, the ovation, the
triumph,[85] the best of the spoils;[86] to the great men, apotheosis.
To honour the dead, and for personal relaxation after their sanguinary
struggles, the citizens crowd to the games of the circus, where the
hierarchy gives his rank to each individual. [87]

Thus Rome, having reached the third century of her existence, finds her
constitution formed by the kings with all the germs of grandeur which
will develop themselves in the sequel. Man has created her institutions:
we shall see now how the institutions are going to form the men.




CHAPTER II

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSULAR REPUBLIC.

(From 244 to 416. )


[Sidenote: Advantage of the Republic. ]

1. The kings are expelled from Rome. They disappear because their
mission is accomplished. There exists, one would say, in moral as well
as physical order, a supreme law which assigns to institutions, as to
certain beings, a fated limit, marked by the term of their utility.
Until this providential term has arrived, no opposition prevails;
conspiracies, revolts, everything fails against the irresistible force
which maintains what people seek to overthrow; but if, on the contrary,
a state of things immovable in appearance ceases to be useful to the
progress of humanity, then neither the empire of traditions, nor
courage, nor the memory of a glorious past, can retard by a day the fall
which has been decided by destiny.

Civilisation appears to have been transported from Greece into Italy to
create there an immense focus from which it might spread itself over the
whole world. From that moment the genius of force and imagination must
necessarily preside over the first times of Rome. This is what happened
under the kings, and, so long as their task was not accomplished, it
triumphed over all obstacles. In vain the senators attempted to obtain
a share in the power by each exercising it for five days;[88] in vain
men’s passions rebelled against the authority of a single chief: all was
useless, and even the murder of the kings only added strength to
royalty. But the moment once arrived when kings cease to be
indispensable, the simplest accident hurls them down. A man outrages a
woman, the throne gives way, and, in falling, it divides itself into
two: the consuls succeed to all the prerogatives of the kings. [89]
Nothing is changed in the Republic, except that instead of one chief,
elective for life, there will be henceforward two chiefs, elected for a
year. This transformation is evidently the work of the aristocracy; the
senators will possess the government, and, by these annual elections,
each hopes to take in his turn his share in the sovereign power. Such is
the narrow calculation of man and his mean motive of action. Let us see
what superior impulse he obeyed without knowing it.

That corner of land, situated on the bank of the Tiber, and predestined
to hold the empire of the world, enclosed within itself, as we see,
fruitful germs which demanded a rapid expansion. This could only be
effected by the absolute independence of the most enlightened class,
seizing for its own profit all the prerogatives of royalty. The
aristocratic government has this advantage over monarchy, that it is
more immutable in its duration, more constant in its designs, more
faithful to traditions, and that it can dare everything, because where a
great number share the responsibility, no one is individually
responsible. Rome, with its narrow limits, had no longer need of the
concentration of authority in a single hand, but it was in need of a new
order of things, which should give to the great free access to the
supreme power, and should second, by the allurement of honours, the
development of the faculties of each. The grand object was to create a
race of men of choice, who, succeeding each other with the same
principles and the same virtues, should perpetuate, from generation to
generation, the system most calculated to assure the greatness of their
country. The fall of the kingly power was thus an event favourable to
the development of Rome.

The patricians monopolised during a long time the civil, military, and
religious employments, and, these employments being for the most part
annual, there was in the Senate hardly a member who had not filled them;
so that this assembly was composed of men formed to the combats of the
Forum as well as to those of the field of battle, schooled in the
difficulties of the administration, and indeed worthy, by an experience
laboriously acquired, to preside over the destinies of the Republic.

They were not classed, as men are in our modern society, in envious and
rival specialities; the warrior was not seen there despising the
civilian, the lawyer or orator standing apart from the man of action, or
the priest isolating himself from all the others. In order to raise
himself to State dignities, and merit the suffrages of his
fellow-citizens, the patrician was constrained, from his youngest age,
to undergo the most varied trials. He was required to possess dexterity
of body, eloquence, aptness for military exercises, the knowledge of
civil and religious laws, the talent of commanding an army or directing
a fleet, of administrating the town or commanding a province; and the
obligation of these different apprenticeships not only gave a full
flight to all capacities, but it united, in the eyes of the people, upon
the magistrate invested with different dignities, the consideration
attached to each of them. During a long time, he who was honoured with
the confidence of his fellow-citizens, besides nobility of birth,
enjoyed the triple prestige given by the function of judge, priest, and
warrior.

An independence almost absolute in the exercise of command contributed
further to the development of the faculties. At the present day, our
constitutional habits have raised distrust towards power into a
principle; at Rome, trust was the principle. In our modern societies,
the depositary of any authority whatever is always under the restraint
of powerful bonds; he obeys a precise law, a minutely detailed rule, a
superior. The Roman, on the contrary, abandoned to his own sole
responsibility, felt himself free from all shackles; he commanded as
master within the sphere of his attributes. The counterpoise of this
independence was the short duration of his office, and the right, given
to every man, of accusing each magistrate at the end of it.

The preponderance of the high class, then, rested upon a legitimate
superiority, and this class, besides, knew how to work to its advantage
the popular passions. They desired liberty only for themselves, but they
knew how to make the image glitter in the eyes of the multitude, and the
name of the people was always associated with the decrees of the Senate.
Proud of having contributed to the overthrow of the power of one
individual, they took care to cherish among the masses the imaginary
fear of the return of kingly power. In their hands the _hate of tyrants_
will become a weapon to be dreaded by all who shall seek to raise
themselves above their fellows, either by threatening their privileges,
or by acquiring too much popularity by their acts of benevolence. Thus,
under the pretext, renewed incessantly, of aspiring to kingly power,
fell the consul Spurius Cassius, in 269, because he had presented the
first agrarian law; Spurius Melius, in 315, because he excited the
jealousy of the patricians by distributing wheat to the people during a
famine;[90] in 369, Manlius, the saviour of Rome, because he had
expended his fortune in relieving insolvent debtors. [91] Thus will fall
victims to the same accusation the reformer Tiberius Sempronius
Gracchus, and lastly, at a later period, the great Cæsar himself.

But if the pretended fear of the return of the ancient _régime_ was a
powerful means of government in the hands of the patricians, the real
fear of seeing their privileges attacked by the plebeians restrained
them within the bounds of moderation and justice.

In fact, if the numerous class, excluded from all office, had not
interfered by their clamours to set limits to the privileges of the
nobility, and thus compelled it to render itself worthy of power by its
virtues, and re-invigorated it, in some sort, by the infusion of new
blood, corruption and arbitrary spirit would, some ages earlier, have
dragged it to its ruin. A caste which is not renewed by foreign elements
is condemned to disappear; and absolute power, whether it belongs to one
man or to a class of individuals, finishes always by being equally
dangerous to him who exercises it. This concurrence of the plebeians
excited in the Republic a fortunate emulation which produced great men,
for, as Machiavelli says:[92] “The fear of losing gives birth in men’s
hearts to the same passions as the desire of acquiring. ” Although the
aristocracy had long defended with obstinacy its privileges, it made
opportunely useful concessions. Skilful in repairing incessantly its
defeats, it took again, under another form, what it had been constrained
to abandon, losing often some of its attributes, but preserving its
prestige always untouched.

Thus, the characteristic fact of the Roman institutions was to form men
apt for all functions. As long as on a narrow theatre the ruling class
had the wisdom to limit its ambition to promoting the veritable
interests of their country, as the seduction of riches and unbounded
power did not come to exalt it beyond measure, the aristocratic system
maintained itself with all its advantages, and overruled the instability
of institutions. It alone, indeed, was capable of supporting long,
without succumbing, a _régime_ in which the direction of the State and
the command of the armies passed annually into different hands, and
depended upon elections the element of which is ever fickle. Besides,
the laws gave rise to antagonisms more calculated to cause anarchy than
to consolidate true liberty. Let us examine, in these last relations,
the constitution of the Republic.


[Sidenote: Institutions of the Republic. ]

II. The two consuls were originally generals, judges, and
administrators; equal in powers, they were often in disagreement, either
in the Forum,[93] or on the field of battle. [94] Their dissensions were
repeated many times until the consulate of Cæsar and Bibulus; and they
were liable to become the more dangerous as the decision of one consul
was annulled by the opposition of his colleague. On the other hand, the
short duration of their magistracy constrained them either to hurry a
battle in order to rob their successor of the glory,[95] or to interrupt
a campaign in order to proceed to Rome to hold the comitia. The defeats
of the Trebia and Cannæ, with that of Servilius Cæpio by the Cimbri,[96]
were fatal examples of the want of unity in the direction of war.

In order to lessen the evil effects of a simultaneous exercise of their
prerogatives, the consuls agreed to take in campaign the command
alternately day by day, and at Rome each to have the fasces during a
month; but this innovation had also vexatious consequences. [97] It was
even thought necessary, nine years after the fall of the kings, to have
recourse to the dictatorship; and this absolute authority, limited to
six months, that is, to the longest duration of a campaign, only
remedied temporarily, and under extraordinary circumstances, the want of
power concentrated in a single individual.

This dualism and instability of the supreme authority were not,
therefore, an element of strength; the unity and fixity of direction
necessary among a people always at war had disappeared; but the evil
would have been more serious if the conformity of interests and views of
individuals belonging to the same caste had not been there to lessen it.
The man was worth more than the institutions which had formed him.

The creation of tribunes of the people, whose part became subsequently
so important, was, in 260, a new cause of discord; the plebeians, who
composed the greater part of the army, claimed to have their military
chiefs for magistrates;[98] the authority of the tribunes was at first
limited: we may convince ourselves of this by the following terms of the
law which established the office:[99]--

“Nobody shall constrain a tribune of the people, like a man of the
commonalty, to do anything against his will; it shall not be permitted
either to strike him, or to cause him to be maltreated by another, or to
slay him or cause him to be slain. ”[100]

We may judge by this the degree of inferiority to which the plebeians
were reduced. The veto of the tribunes could nevertheless put a stop to
the proposal of a law, prevent the decisions of the consuls and Senate,
arrest the levies of troops, prorogue the convocation of the comitia,
and hinder the election of magistrates. [101] From the year 297, their
number was raised to ten, that is, two for each of the five classes
specially subject to the recruitment;[102] but the plebeians profited
little by this measure; the more the number of tribunes was augmented,
the easier it became for the aristocracy to find among them an
instrument for its designs. Gradually their influence increased; in 298,
they laid claim to the right of convoking the Senate, and yet it was
still a long time before they formed part of that body. [103]

As to the comitia, the people had there only a feeble influence. In the
assemblies by centuries, the vote of the first classes, composed of the
richest citizens, as we have seen, prevailed over all the others; in
the comitia by curiæ, the patricians were absolute masters; and when,
towards the end of the third century, the plebeians obtained the comitia
by tribes,[104] this concession did not add sensibly to their
prerogatives. It was confined to the power of assembling in the public
places where, divided according to tribes, they placed their votes in
urns for the election of their tribunes and ediles, previously elected
by the centuries;[105] their decisions concerned themselves only, and
entailed no obligations on the patricians; so that the same town then
offered the spectacle of two cities each having its own magistrates and
laws. [106] At first the patricians would not form part of the assembly
by tribes, but they soon saw the advantage of it, and, towards 305,
entered it with their clients. [107]


[Sidenote: Transformation of the Aristocracy. ]

III. This political organisation, the reflex of a society composed of so
many different elements, could hardly have constituted a durable order
of things, if the ascendency of a privileged class had not controlled
the causes of dissensions. This ascendency itself would soon have
diminished if concessions, forced or voluntary, had not gradually
lowered the barriers between the two orders.

In fact, the arbitrary conduct of the consuls, who were, perhaps,
originally nominated by the Senate alone,[108] excited sharp
recriminations: “the consular authority,” cried the plebeians, “was, in
reality, almost as heavy as that of the kings. Instead of one master
they had two, invested with absolute and unlimited power, without rule
or bridle, who turned against the people all the threats of the laws,
and all their punishments. ”[109] Although after the year 283 the
patricians and plebeians were subjected to the same judges,[110] the
want of fixed laws left the goods and lives of the citizens delivered
to the will either of the consuls or of the tribunes. It became,
therefore, indispensable to establish the legislation on a solid basis,
and in 303 ten magistrates called _decemvirs_ were chosen, invested with
the double power, consular and tribunitian, which gave them the right of
convoking equally the assemblies by centuries and by tribes. They were
charged with the compilation of a code of laws afterwards known as the
_Laws of the Twelve Tables_, which, engraved on brass, became the
foundation of the Roman public law. Yet they persisted in making illegal
the union contracted between persons of the two orders, and left the
debtor at the mercy of the creditor, contrary to the decision of Servius
Tullius.

The decemvirs abused their power, and, on their fall, the claims of the
plebeians increased; the tribuneship, abolished during three years, was
re-established; it was decided that an appeal to the people from the
decision of any magistrate should be permitted, and that the laws made
in the assemblies by tribes, as well as in the assemblies by centuries,
should be obligatory on all. [111] There were thus, then, three sorts of
comitia; the comitia by curiæ, which, conferring the _imperium_ on the
magistrates elected by the centuries, sanctioned in some sort the
election of the consuls;[112] the comitia by centuries, over which the
consuls presided; and the comitia by tribes, over which the tribunes
presided; the first named the consuls, the second the plebeian
magistrates, and both, composed of nearly the same citizens, had equally
the power of approving or rejecting the laws; but in the former, the
richest men and the nobility had all the influence, because they formed
the majority of the centuries and voted first; while in the latter, on
the contrary, the voters were confounded with that of the tribe to which
they belonged. “If,” says an ancient author, “the suffrages are taken by
_gentes_ (_ex generibus hominum_), the comitia are by _curiæ_; if
according to age and census, they are by _centuries_; finally, if the
vote be given according to territorial circumscription (_regionibus_),
they are by _tribes_. ”[113] In spite of these concessions, antagonism in
matters of law reigned always between the powers, the assemblies, and
the different classes of society.

The plebeians laid claim to all the offices of state, and especially to
the consulship, refusing to enrol themselves until their demands had
been satisfied; and they went so far in their claims that they insisted
upon the plebeian origin of the kings. “Shall we, then,” cried the
tribune Canuleius, addressing himself to the people, “have consuls who
resemble the decemvirs, the vilest of mortals, all patricians, rather
than the best of our kings, all new men! ” that is, men without
ancestors. [114]

The Senate resisted, because it had no intention of conferring upon
plebeians the right which formed an attribute of the consuls, for the
convocation of the comitia, of taking the great auspices, a privilege
altogether of a religious character, the exclusive apanage of the
nobility. [115]

In order to obviate this difficulty, the Senate, after suppressing the
legal obstacles in the way of marriages between the two orders, agreed
in 309 to the creation of six military tribunes invested with the
consular power; but, which was an essential point, it was the interrex
who convoked the comitia and took the auspices. [116] During
seventy-seven years the military tribunes were elected alternately with
the consuls, and the consulship was only re-established permanently in
387, when it was opened to the plebeians. This was the result of one of
the laws of Licinius Stolo. This tribune succeeded in obtaining the
adoption of several measures which appeared to open a new era which
would put an end to disputes. Still the patricians held with such
tenacity to the privilege of alone taking the auspices, that in 398, in
the absence of the patrician consul, an interrex was appointed charged
with presiding over the comitia, in order not to leave this care to the
dictator, and the other consul, who were both plebeians. [117]

But in permitting the popular class to arrive at the consulship, care
had been taken to withdraw from that dignity a great part of its
attributes, in order to confer them upon patrician magistrates. Thus
they had successively taken away from the consuls, by the creation of
two questors, in 307, the administration of the military chest;[118] by
the creation of the censors, in 311, the right of drawing up the list of
the census, the assessment of the revenue of the State, and of watching
over public morals; by the creation of the prætors, in 387, the
sovereign jurisdiction in civil affairs, under the pretext that the
nobility alone possessed the knowledge of the law of the Quirites; and
lastly, by the creation of the curule ediles, the presidency of the
games, the superintendence of buildings, the police and the provisioning
of the town, the maintenance of the public roads, and the inspection of
the markets.

The intention of the aristocracy had been to limit the compulsory
concessions; but after the adoption of the Licinian laws, it was no
longer possible to prevent the principle of the admission of plebeians
to all the magistracies. In 386 they had arrived at the important charge
of master of the knights (_magister equitum_) who was in a manner the
lieutenant of the dictator (_magister populi_);[119] in 387 access to
the religious functions had been laid open to them;[120] in 345 they
obtained the questorship; in 398, the dictatorship itself; in 403, the
censorship; and lastly, in 417, the prætorship.

In 391, the people arrogated the right of appointing a part of the
legionary tribunes, previously chosen by the consuls. [121]

In 415, the law of Q. Publilius Philo took from the Senate the power of
refusing the _auctoritas_ to the laws voted by the comitia, and obliged
it to declare in advance if the proposed law were in conformity with
public and religious law. Further, the obligation imposed by this law of
having always one censor taken from among the plebeians, opened the
doors of the Senate to the richest of them, since it was the business of
the censor to fix the rank of the citizens, and pronounce on the
admission or exclusion of the senators. The Publilian law thus tended to
raise the aristocracy of the two orders to the same rank, and to create
the nobility (_nobilitas_), composed of all the families rendered
illustrious by the offices they had filled.


[Sidenote: Elements of Dissolution. ]

IV. At the beginning of the fifth century of Rome, the bringing nearer
together of the two orders had given a greater consistence to society;
but, just as we have seen under the kingly rule, the principles begin to
show themselves which were one day to make the greatness of Rome, so now
we see the first appearance of dangers which will be renewed
unceasingly. Electoral corruption, the law of perduellio, slavery, the
increase of the poor class, the agrarian laws, and the question of
debts, will come, under different circumstances, to threaten the
existence of the Republic. Let us summarily state that these questions,
so grave in the sequel, were raised at an early date.

ELECTORAL CORRUPTION. --Fraud found its way into the elections as soon as
the number of electors increased and rendered it necessary to collect
more suffrages to obtain public charges; as early as 396, indeed, a law
on solicitation, proposed by the tribune of the people, C. Pœtelius,
bears witness to the existence of electoral corruption.

LAW OF HIGH-TREASON. --As early as 305 and 369, the application of the
law of perduellio, or design against the Republic, furnished to
arbitrary power an arm of which, at a later period, under the emperors,
so deplorable a use was made under the name of the law of
high-treason. [122]

SLAVERY. --Slavery presented serious dangers for society, for, on the one
hand, it tended, by the lower price of manual labour, to substitute
itself for the labour of free men; while, on the other, discontented
with their lot, the slaves were always ready to shake off the yoke and
become the auxiliaries of all who were ambitious. In 253, 294, and 336,
partial insurrections announced the condition already to be feared of a
class disinherited of all the advantages, though intimately bound up
with all the wants, of ordinary life. [123] The number of slaves
increased rapidly. They replaced the free men torn by the continual
wars from the cultivation of the land. At a later period, when these
latter returned to their homes, the Senate was obliged to support them
by sending as far as Sicily to seek wheat to deliver to them either
gratis or at a reduced price. [124]

AGRARIAN LAWS. --As to the Agrarian laws and the question of debts, they
soon became an incessant cause of agitation.

The kings, with the conquered lands, had formed a domain of the State
(_ager publicus_), one of its principal resources,[125] and generously
distributed part of it to the poor citizens. [126] Generally, they took
from the conquered peoples two-thirds of their land. [127] Of these
two-thirds, “the cultivated part,” says Appian, “was always adjudged to
the new colonists, either as a gratuitous grant, or by sale, or by lease
paying rent. As to the uncultivated part, which, as a consequence of
war, was almost always the most considerable, it was not the custom to
distribute it, but the enjoyment of it was left to any one willing to
clear and cultivate it, with a reservation to the State of the tenth
part of the harvest and a fifth part of the fruits. A similar tax was
levied upon those who bred cattle, large or small (in order to prevent
the pasture land from increasing in extent to the detriment of the
arable land). This was done in view of the increase of the Italic
population, which was judged at Rome the most laborious, and to have
allies of their own race. But the measure produced a result contrary to
that which was expected from it. The rich appropriated to themselves the
greatest part of the undistributed lands, and reckoning that the long
duration of their occupation would permit nobody to expel them, they
bought when they found a seller, or took by force from their
neighbouring lesser proprietors their modest heritages, and thus formed
vast domains, instead of the mere fields which they had themselves
cultivated before. ”[128]

The kings had always sought to put a curb on these usurpations,[129] and
perhaps it was a similar attempt which cost Servius Tullius his life.
But after the fall of the kingly power, the patricians, having become
more powerful, determined to preserve the lands which they had unjustly
seized. [130]

And it must be acknowledged, as they supported the greatest share of the
burthen of war and taxation, they had a better claim than the others to
the conquered lands; they thought, moreover, that the colonies were
sufficient to support an agricultural population, and they acted rather
as State farmers than as proprietors of the soil. According to the
public law, indeed, the _ager publicus_ was inalienable, and we read in
an ancient author:--“Lawyers deny that the soil which has once begun to
belong to the Roman people, can ever, by usage or possession, become
the property of anybody else in the world. ”[131]

In spite of this principle, it would have been wisdom to give, to the
poor citizens who had fought, a part of the spoils of the vanquished;
for the demands were incessant, and after 268, renewed almost yearly by
the tribunes or by the consuls themselves. In 275, a patrician, Fabius
Cæso, taking the initiative in a partition of lands recently conquered,
exclaimed: “Is it not just that the territories taken from the enemy
should become the property of those who have paid for it with their
sweat and with their blood? ”[132] The Senate was as inflexible for this
proposition as for those which were brought forward by Q. Considius and
T. Genucius in 278, by Cn. Genucius in 280, and by the tribunes of the
people, with the support of the consuls Valerius and Æmilius, in
284. [133]

Yet, after fifty years of struggles since the expulsion of the Tarquins,
the tribune Icilius, in 298, obtained the partition of the lands of
Mount Aventine, by indemnifying those who had usurped a certain portion
of them. [134] The application of the law Icilia to other parts of the
_ager publicus_[135] was vainly solicited in 298 and the following
years; but in 330, a new tax was imposed upon the possessors of the
lands for the pay of the troops. The perseverance of the tribunes was
unwearied, and, during the thirty-six years following, six different
propositions were unsuccessful, even that relating to the territory of
the Bolani, newly taken from the enemy. [136] In 361 only, a senatus
consultus granted to each father of a family and to each free man seven
acres of the territory which had just been conquered from the Veii.
[137]
In 371, after a resistance of five years, the Senate, in order to secure
the concurrence of the people in the war against the Volsci, agreed to
the partition of the territory of the Pomptinum (the Pontine Marshes),
taken from that people by Camillus, and already given up to the
encroachments of the aristocracy. [138] But these partial concessions
were not enough to satisfy the plebeians or to repair past injustices;
in the Licinian law the claims of the people, which had been resisted
during a hundred and thirty-six years, triumphed;[139] it did not
entirely deprive the nobles of the enjoyment of the lands unjustly
usurped, but it limited the possession of them to five hundred _jugera_.
When this repartition was made, the land which remained was to be
distributed among the poor. The proprietors were obliged to maintain on
their lands a certain number of free men, in order to augment the class
from which the legions were recruited; lastly, the number of cattle on
each domain was fixed, in order to restrain the culture of the meadows,
in general the most lucrative, and augment that of the arable lands,
which relieved Italy from the necessity of having recourse to foreign
corn.

This law of Licinius Stolo secured happy results; it restrained the
encroachments of the rich and great, but only proceeded with moderation
in its retrospective effects; it put a stop to the alarming extension of
the private domains at the expense of the public domain, to the
absorption of the good of the many by the few, to the depopulation of
Italy, and consequently to the diminution of the strength of the
armies. [140]

The numerous condemnations for trespasses against the law Licinia prove
that it was carried into execution, and for the space of two hundred
years it contributed, with the establishment of new colonies,[141] to
maintain this class of agriculturists--the principal sinews of the
State. We see indeed that, from this moment, the Senate itself took the
initiative of new distributions of land to the people. [142]

DEBTS. --The question of debts and the diminution of the rate of interest
had long been the subject of strong prejudices and of passionate
debates.

As the citizens made war at their own expense, the less rich, while they
were under arms, could not take care of their fields or farms, but
borrowed money to provide for their wants and for those of their
families. The debt had, in this case, a noble origin, the service of
their country. [143] Public opinion must, therefore, be favourable to the
debtors and hostile to those who, speculating on the pecuniary
difficulties of the defenders of the State, extorted heavy interest for
the money they lent. The patricians also took advantage of their
position and their knowledge of legal forms to exact heavy sums from the
plebeians whose causes they defended. [144]

The kings, listening to the demands of the citizens who were overwhelmed
with debts, often showed their readiness to help them;[145] but, after
their expulsion, the rich classes, more independent, became more
untractable, and men, ruined on account of their military service, were
sold publicly, as slaves,[146] by their creditors. Thus, when war was
imminent, the poor often refused to serve,[147] crying out, “What use
will it be to us to conquer the enemies without, if our creditors put us
in bonds for the debts we have contracted? What advantage shall we have
in strengthening the empire of Rome, if we cannot preserve our personal
liberty? ”[148] Yet the patricians, who contributed more than the others
to the costs of the war, demanded of their debtors, not without reason,
the payment of the money they had advanced; and hence arose perpetual
dissensions. [149]

In 305, the laws of the Twelve Tables decided that the rate of interest
should be reduced to ten per cent. a year; but a law of Licinius Stolo
alone resolved, in an equitable manner, this grave question. It enacted
that the interests previously paid should be deducted from the
principal, and that the principal should be repaid by equal portions
during an interval of three years. This measure was advantageous to all,
for, in the state of insolvency in which the debtors were involved, the
creditors could not obtain the interest of their money, and even risked
the loss of the principal; the new law guaranteed the debts; the debtors
in their turn, having become landed proprietors, found the means of
freeing themselves by means of the lands they had received and the delay
which had been given them. The agreement established in 387 was of
slight duration, and in the midst of disagreements more or less violent,
things were carried so far, in 412, that the entire abolition of debts
and the prohibition to exact any interest were decreed mere
revolutionary and transitory measures.


[Sidenote: Résumé. ]

V. This rapid sketch of the evils already perceptible which tormented
Roman society leads us to this reflection: it is the lot of all
governments, whatever be their form, to contain within themselves germs
of life, which make their strength, and germs of dissolution, which must
some day lead to their ruin; and accordingly, as the Republic was in
progress or in decline, the first or the second became developed and
dominant in turn; that is, so long as the aristocracy preserved its
virtues and its patriotism, the elements of prosperity predominated; but
no sooner did it begin to degenerate, than the causes of disturbance
gained the upper hand, and shook the edifice which had been erected so
laboriously.

If the fall of the kingly power, in giving more vitality and
independence to the aristocracy, rendered the constitution of the State
more solid and durable, the democracy had at first no reason for
congratulation. Two hundred years passed away before the plebeians could
obtain, not equality of political rights, but even a share in the _ager
publicus_ and an act of lenity in favour of debtors, overwhelmed with
liabilities through incessant wars. About the same length of time was
required by the Republic to re-conquer the supremacy over the
neighbouring peoples which she had exercised under the last kings,[150]
so many years a country requires to recover from the shocks and
enfeebling influence of even the most legitimate revolutions.

Yet Roman society had been vigorously enough constituted to resist at
the same time external attacks and internal troubles. Neither the
invasions of Porsenna, nor those of the Gauls, nor the conspiracies of
the neighbouring peoples, were able to compromise its existence. Already
eminent men, such as Valerius Publicola, A. Postumius, Coriolanus,
Spurius Cassius, Cincinnatus, and Camillus, had distinguished themselves
as legislators and warriors, and Rome could put on foot ten legions, or
forty-five thousand men. At home, important advantages had been
obtained, and notable concessions had been made to effect a
reconciliation between the two orders; written laws had been adopted,
and the attributes of the different magistracies had been better
defined, but the constitution of society remained the same. The facility
granted to the plebeians of arriving at all the State employments only
increased the strength of the aristocracy, which recovered its vigour of
youth without modifying itself, diminished the number of its
adversaries, and increased that of its adherents. The rich and important
plebeian families soon began to mingle with the ancient patrician
families, to share their ideas, their interests, and even their
prejudices; and a learned German historian remarks with justice that
after the abolition of the kingly power there was, perhaps, a greater
number of plebeians in the Senate, but that personal merit, without
birth and fortune, experienced greater difficulty than ever in reaching
preferment. [151]

It is not indeed sufficient, for the application of the state of
society, to study thoroughly its laws, but we must also take into
consideration the influence exercised by the manners of the people. The
laws proclaimed equality and liberty, but the manners left the honours
and preponderance to the upper class. The admission to place was no
longer forbidden to the plebeians, but the election almost always kept
them from it. During fifty-nine years, two hundred and sixty-four
military tribunes replaced the consuls, and of this number only eighteen
were plebeians; although these latter might be candidates for the
consulship, the choice fell generally upon patricians. [152] Marriage
between the two orders had been long placed on a footing of equality,
and yet, in 456, the prejudices of caste were far from being destroyed,
as we learn from the history of the patrician Virginia, married to the
plebeian Volumnius, whom the matrons drove away from the temple of
_Pudicitia patricia_. [153]

The laws protected liberty, but they were rarely executed, as is shown
by the continual renewal of the same regulations. Thus it had been
decided in 305 that the plebiscita should have the force of law, yet in
spite of that it was found necessary to re-enact the same regulation by
the laws Hortensia, in 466, and Mænia, in 468. This last sanctioned also
anew the law Publilia of 415. It was the same with the law of Valerius
Publicola (of the year 246), which authorised an appeal to the people
from the judgments of the magistrates. It appears to have been restored
to vigour by Valerius and Horatius in 305, and again by Valerius Corvus
in 454. And, on this occasion, the great Roman historian exclaims, “I
can only explain this frequent renewal of the same law by supposing that
the power of some of the great ones always succeeded in triumphing over
the liberty of the people. ”[154] The right of admission to the Senate
was acknowledged in principle, yet no one could enter it without having
obtained a decree of the censor, or exercised a curule
magistracy--favours almost always reserved to the aristocracy. The law
which required a plebeian among the censors remained almost always in
abeyance, and, to become censor, it was generally necessary to have been
consul.

All offices ought to be annual, and yet the tribunes, as well as the
consuls, obtained their re-election several times at short intervals--as
in the instance of Licinius Stolo, re-elected tribune during nine
consecutive years; of Sulpicius Peticus, five times consul (from 390 to
403); of Popilius Lænas and Marcius Rutilus, both four times, the first
from 395 to 406, the second from 397 to 412. The law of 412 came in vain
to require an interval of ten years before becoming again a candidate
for the same magistracy. Several personages were none the less
re-elected before the time required, such as Valerius Corvus, six times
consul (from 406 to 455), and consecutively during the last three years;
and Papirius Cursor, five times (from 421 to 441).

The lives of the citizens were protected by the laws, but public opinion
remained powerless at the assassination of those who had incurred the
hatred of the Senate; and, in spite of the law of the consul Valerius
Publicola, the violent death of the tribune Genucius, or of the rich
plebeian Spurius Melius, was a subject of applause.

The comitia were free, but the Senate had at its disposal either the
veto of the tribunes or the religious scruples of the people. A consul
could prevent the meeting of these assemblies, or cut short all their
deliberations, either by declaring that he was observing the sky, or
that a clap of thunder or some other celestial manifestation had
occurred;[155] and it depended upon the declaration of the augurs to
annul the elections. Moreover, the people in reality were satisfied with
naming the persons on whom they wished to confer the magisterial
offices, for, to enter upon their functions, the consuls and the
prætors had to submit their powers to the sanction of the curiæ (_lex
curiata de imperio_). [156] It was thus in the power of the nobility to
reverse the elections which displeased them, a fact which Cicero
explains in the following terms, while presenting this measure in a
light favourable to the people: “Your ancestors required the suffrages
twice for all magistracies, for, when a curiate law was proposed in
favour of the patrician magistrates, they voted in reality a second time
for the same persons, so that the people, if they repented of their
choice, had the power of abandoning it. ”[157]

The dictatorship was also a lever left in the hands of the nobility to
overthrow oppositions and influence the comitia. The dictator was never
elected, but appointed by a consul. [158] In the space of only twenty-six
years, from 390 to 416, there were eighteen dictators.

The Senate remained, therefore, all powerful in spite of the victory of
the plebeians, for, independently of the means placed at its disposal,
it was in its power to elude the plebiscita, the execution of which was
entrusted to it. If the influence of a predominant class sobered the use
of political liberty, the laws presented a still greater curb on
individual liberty. Thus, not only all the members of the family were
subjected to the absolute authority of the head, but each citizen was
obliged further to obey a multitude of rigorous obligations. [159] The
censor watched over the purity of marriages, the education of children,
the treatment of slaves and clients, and the cultivation of the
lands. [160] “The Romans did not believe,” says Plutarch, “that each
individual ought to be allowed the liberty to marry, to have children,
to choose his walk in life, to give festivities, or even to follow his
desires and tastes, without undergoing a previous inspection and
judgment. ”[161]

The condition of Rome then bore a great resemblance to that of England
before its electoral reform. For several centuries, the English
Constitution was vaunted as the palladium of liberty, although then, as
at Rome, birth and fortune were the unique source of honours and power.
In both countries the aristocracy, master of the elections by
solicitation, money, or _rotten boroughs_, caused, as the patricians at
Rome, the members of the nobility to be elected to parliament, and no
one was citizen in either of the two countries without the possession of
wealth. Nevertheless, if the people, in England, had no part in the
direction of affairs, they boasted justly, before 1789, a liberty which
shone brightly in the middle of the silentious atmosphere of the
Continental states. The disinterested observer does not examine if the
scene where grave political questions are discussed is more or less
vast, or if the actors are more or less numerous: he is only struck by
the grandeur of the spectacle. Thus, far be from us the intention of
blaming the nobility, any more in Rome than in England, for having
preserved its preponderance by all the means which laws and habits
placed at its disposal. The power was destined to remain with the
patricians as long as they showed themselves worthy of it; and, it
cannot but be acknowledged, without their perseverance in the same
policy, without that elevation of views, without that severe and
inflexible virtue, the distinguishing character of the aristocracy, the
work of Roman civilisation would not have been accomplished.

At the beginning of the fifth century, the Republic, consolidated, is
going to gather the fruit of the many efforts it has sustained. More
united henceforward, in the interior, the Romans will turn all their
energy towards the conquest of Italy, but it will require nearly a
century to realise it. Always stimulated by their institutions, always
restrained by an intelligent aristocracy, they will furnish the
astonishing example of a people preserving, in the name of liberty and
in the midst of agitation, the immobility of a system which will render
them masters of the world.




CHAPTER III.

CONQUEST OF ITALY.

(From 416 to 488. )


[Sidenote: Description of Italy. ]

I. Ancient Italy did not comprise all the territory which has for its
natural limits the Alps and the sea. What is called the continental
part, or the great plain traversed by the Po, which extends between the
Alps, the Apennines, and the Adriatic, was separated from it. This
plain, and part of the mountains on the coasts of the Mediterranean,
formed Liguria, Cisalpine Gaul, and Venetia. The peninsula, or Italy
proper, was bounded, on the north, by the Rubicon, and, probably, by the
lower course of the Arno;[162] on the west, by the Mediterranean; on the
east, by the Adriatic; on the south, by the Ionian Sea. (See the Maps,
No. 1 and No. 2. )

[Illustration: GENERAL MAP OF ANCIENT ITALY. ]

The Apennines traverse Italy in its whole length. They begin where the
Alps end, near Savona, and their chain proceeds, continually rising in
elevation, as far as the centre of the peninsula. Mount Velino is their
culminating point, and from thence the Apennines continue decreasing in
height, until they reach the extremity of the kingdom of Naples. In
the northern region they approach the Adriatic; but, in the centre,
they cut the peninsula into two parts nearly equal; then, at Mount
Caruso (_Vultur_), near the source of the Bradano (_Bradanus_), they
separate into two branches, one of which penetrates into Calabria, the
other into the Terra di Bari as far as Otranto.

The two slopes of the Apennines give birth to various streams which flow
some into the Adriatic and others into the Mediterranean. On the eastern
side the principal are--the Rubicon, the Pisaurus (_Foglia_), the
Metaurus (_Metauro_), the Æsis (_Esino_), the Truentus (_Tronto_), the
Aternus (_Pescara_), the Sangrus (_Sangro_), the Trinius (_Trigno_), the
Frento (_Fortore_), and the Aufidus (_Ofanto_), which follow generally a
direction perpendicular to the chain of mountains. On the western side,
the Arnus (_Arno_), the Ombrus (_Ombrone_), the Tiber, the Amasenus
(_Amaseno_), the Liris (_Garigliano_), the Vulturnus (_Volturno_), and
the Silarus (_Silaro_ or _Sile_), run parallel to the Apennines; but
towards their mouths they take a direction nearly perpendicular to the
coast. The Bradanus (_Bradano_), the Casuentus (_Basiento_), and the
Aciris (_Agri_), flow into the Gulf of Tarentum.

We may admit into ancient Italy the following great divisions and
subdivisions:--

To the north, the Senones, a people of Gallic origin, occupying the
shores of the Adriatic Sea, from the Rubicon to the neighbourhood of
Ancona; Umbria, situated between the Senones and the course of the
Tiber; Etruria, between the Tiber and the Mediterranean Sea.

In the centre the territory of Picenum, between Ancona and Hadria, in
the Abruzzo Ulteriore; Latium, in the part between the Apennines and the
Mediterranean, from the Tiber to the Liris; to the south of Latium, the
Volsci, and the Aurunci, the _débris_ of the ancient Ausones, retired
between the Liris and the Amasenus, and bordering upon another people of
the same race, the Sidicines, established between the Liris and the
Vulturnus; the country of the Sabines, between Picenum and Latium; to
the east of Latium, in the mountains, the Æqui; the Hernici, backed by
the populations of Sabellian stock, namely, the Marsi, the Peligni, the
Vestini, the Marrucini, and the Frentani, distributed in the valleys
through which run the rivers received by the Adriatic from the extremity
of Picenum to the River Fortore.

The territory of Samnium, answering to the great part of the Abruzzi and
the province of Molisa, advanced towards the west as far as the upper
arm of the Vulturnus, on the north to the banks of the Fortore, and to
the south to Mount Vultur. Beyond the Vulturnus extended Campania
(_Terra di Lavoro and part of the principality of Salerno_), from
Sinuessa to the Gulf of Pæstum.

Southern Italy, or Magna Græcia, comprised on the Adriatic: first,
Apulia (the _Capitanata_ and _Terra di Bari_) and Messapia (_Terra di
Otranto_); this last terminated in the Iapygian Promontory, and its
central part was occupied by the Salentini and divers other Messapian
populations, while there existed on the seaboard a great number of Greek
colonies; secondly, Lucania, which answered nearly to the modern
province of Basilicata, and was washed by the waters of the Gulf of
Tarentum; thirdly, Bruttium (now the _Calabrias_), forming the most
advanced point of Italy, and terminating in the Promontory of Hercules.


[Sidenote: Dispositions of the People of Italy in regard to Rome. ]

II. In 416, Rome had finally subdued the Latins, and possessed part of
Campania. Her supremacy extended from the present territory of Viterbo
to the Gulf of Naples, from Antium (_Porto di Anzo_) to Sora.

The frontiers of the Republic were difficult to defend, her limits ill
determined, and her neighbours the most warlike people of the peninsula.

To the north only, the mountains of Viterbo, covered with a thick forest
(_silva Ciminia_), formed a rampart against Etruria. The southern part
of this country had been long half Roman; the Latin colonies of Sutrium
(_Sutri_) and Nepete (_Nepi_) served as posts of observation. But the
Etruscans, animated for ages with hostile feeling towards Rome,
attempted continually to recover the lost territory. The Gaulish
Senones, who, in 364, had taken and burnt Rome, and often renewed their
invasions, had come again to try their fortune. In spite of their
defeats in 404 and 405, they were always ready to join the Umbrians and
Etruscans in attacking the Republic.

The Sabines, though entertaining from time immemorial tolerably amicable
relations with the Romans, offered but a doubtful alliance. Picenum, a
fertile and populous country, was peaceful, and the greater part of the
mountain tribes of Sabellic race, in spite of their bravery and energy,
inspired as yet no fear. Nearer Rome, the Æqui and the Hernici had been
reduced to inaction; but the Senate kept in mind their hostilities and
nourished projects of vengeance.

On the southern coast, among the Greek towns devoted to commerce,
Tarentum passed for the most powerful; but these colonies, already in
decline, were obliged to have recourse to mercenary troops, to resist
the native inhabitants. They disputed with the Samnites and the Romans
the preponderance over the people of Magna Græcia. The Samnites, indeed,
a manly and independent race, aimed at seizing the whole of Southern
Italy; their cities formed a confederacy, redoubtable on account of its
close union in time of war. The mountain tribes gave themselves up to
brigandage, and it is worthy of attention that recent events show that
in our days manners have not much changed in that country. The Samnites
had amassed considerable riches; their arms displayed excessive
extravagance, and, if we believe Cæsar,[163] they served as models for
those of the Romans.

A jealous rivalry had long prevailed between the Romans and the
Samnites. The moment these two peoples found themselves in presence of
each other, it was evident that they would be at war; the struggle was
long and terrible, and, during the fifth century, it was round Samnium
that they disputed the empire of Italy. The position of the Samnites was
very advantageous. Entrenched in their mountains, they could, at their
will, either descend into the valley of the Liris, thence reach the
country of the Aurunci, always ready to revolt, and cut off the
communications of Rome with Campania; or follow the course of the upper
Liris into the country of the Marsi, raise these latter, and hold out
the hand to the Etruscans, turning Rome; or, lastly, penetrate into
Campania by the valley of the Vulturnus, and fall upon the Sidicini,
whose territory they coveted.

In the midst of so many hostile peoples, for a little state to succeed
in raising itself above the others, and in subjugating them, it must
have possessed peculiar elements of superiority. The peoples who
surrounded Rome, warlike and proud of their independence, had neither
the same unity, nor the same incentives to action, nor the same powerful
aristocratic organisation, nor the same blind confidence in their
destinies. They displayed more selfishness than ambition. When they
fought, it was much more to increase their riches by pillage than to
augment the number of their subjects. Rome triumphed, because alone, in
prospect of a future, she made war not to destroy, but to conserve, and,
after the material conquest, always set herself to accomplish the moral
conquest of the vanquished.

During four hundred years her institutions had formed a race animated
with the love of country and with the sentiment of duty; but, in their
turn, the men, incessantly re-tempered in intestine struggles, had
successively introduced manners and traditions stronger even than the
institutions themselves. During three centuries, in fact, Rome
presented, in spite of the annual renewal of powers, such a perseverance
in the same policy, such a practice of the same virtues, that it might
have been supposed that the government had but a single head, a single
thought, and one might have believed that all its generals were great
warriors, all its senators experienced statesmen, and all its citizens
valiant soldiers.

The geographical position of Rome contributed no less to the rapid
increase of its power. Situated in the middle of the only great fertile
plain of Latium, on the banks of the only important river of Central
Italy, which united it with the sea, it could be at the same time
agricultural and maritime, conditions then indispensable for the capital
of a new empire. The rich countries which bordered the coasts of the
Mediterranean were sure to fall easily under her dominion; and as for
the countries which surrounded her, it was possible to become mistress
of them by occupying gradually the openings from all the valleys. The
town of the seven hills, favoured by her natural situation as well as by
her political constitution, carried thus in herself the germs of her
future greatness.


[Sidenote: Treatment of the Vanquished Peoples. ]

III. From the commencement of the fifth century Rome prepares with
energy to subject and assimilate to herself the peoples who dwelt from
the Rubicon to the Strait of Messina. Nothing will prevent her from
surmounting all obstacles, neither the coalition of her neighbours
conspiring against her, nor the new incursions of the Gauls, nor the
invasion of Pyrrhus. She will know how to raise herself from her partial
defeats, and establish the unity of Italy, not by subduing at once all
these peoples to the same laws and the same rule, but by causing them
to enter, by little and little and in different degrees, into the great
Roman family. “Of one city she makes her ally; on another she confers
the honour of living under the Quiritary law, to this one with the right
of suffrage, to that with the permission to retain its own government.
Municipia of different degrees, maritime colonies, Latin colonies, Roman
colonies, prefectures, allied towns, free towns, all isolated by the
difference of their condition, all united by their equal dependence on
the Senate, they will form, as it were, a vast network which will
entangle the Italian peoples, until the day when, without new struggles,
they will awake subjects of Rome. ”[164]

Let us examine the conditions of these various categories:

The right of city, in its plenitude (_jus civitatis optimo jure_),
comprised the political privileges peculiar to the Romans, and assured
for civil life certain advantages, of which the concession might be made
separately and by degrees. First came the _commercium_, that is, the
right of possessing and transmitting according to the Roman law; next
the _connubium_, or the right of contracting marriage with the
advantages established by Roman legislation. [165] The _commercium_ and
_connubium_ united formed the Quiritary law (_jus quiritium_).

There were three sorts of municipia:[166] first, the municipia of which
the inhabitants, inscribed in the tribes, exercised all the rights and
were subjected to all the obligations of the Roman citizens; secondly,
the municipia _sine suffragio_, the inhabitants of which enjoyed in
totality or in part the Quiritary law, and might obtain the complete
right of Roman citizens on certain conditions;[167] it is what
constituted the _jus Latii_; these first two categories preserved their
autonomy and their magistrates; third, the towns which had lost all
independence in exchange for the civil laws of Rome, but without
enjoyment, for the inhabitants, of the most important political rights;
it was the law of the _Cærites_, because Cære was the first town which
had been thus treated. [168]

Below the municipia, which had their own magistrates, came, in this
social hierarchy, the prefectures,[169] so called because a prefect was
sent there every year to administer justice.

The _dediticii_ were still worse treated. Delivered by victory to the
discretion of the Senate, they had been obliged to surrender their arms
and give hostages, to throw down their walls or receive a garrison
within them, to pay a tax, and to furnish a determinate contingent. With
the exclusion of these last, the towns which had not obtained for their
inhabitants the complete rights of Roman citizens belonged to the class
of allies (_fœderati socii_). Their condition differed according to
the nature of their engagements. Simple treaties of friendship,[170] or
of commerce,[171] or of offensive alliance, or offensive and
defensive,[172] concluded on the footing of equality, were called
_fœdera æqua_. On the contrary, when one of the contracting parties
(and it was never the Romans) submitted to onerous obligations from
which the other was exempted, these treaties were called _fœdera non
æqua_. They consisted almost always in the cession of a part of the
territory of the vanquished, and in the obligation to undertake no war
of their own. A certain independence, it is true, was left to them; they
received the right of exchange and free establishment in the capital,
but they were bound to the interests of Rome by an alliance offensive
and defensive. The only clause establishing the preponderance of Rome
was conceived in these terms: _Majestatem populi Romani comiter
conservanto_;[173] that is, “They shall loyally acknowledge the
supremacy of the Roman people. ” It is a remarkable circumstance that,
dating from the reign of Augustus, the freedmen were divided in
categories similar to those which existed for the inhabitants of
Italy. [174]

As to the colonies, they were established for the purpose of preserving
the possessions acquired, of securing the new frontiers, and of guarding
the important passes; and even for the sake of getting rid of the
turbulent class. [175] They were of two sorts: the Roman colonies and the
Latin colonies. The former differed little from the municipia of the
first degree, the others from the municipia of the second degree. The
first were formed of Roman citizens, taken with their families from the
classes subjected to military service, and even, in their origin, solely
among the patricians. The _coloni_ preserved the privileges attached to
the title of citizen,[176] and were bound by the same obligations, and
the interior administration of the colony was an image of that of
Rome. [177]

The Latin colonies differed from the others in having been founded by
the confederacy of the Latins on different points of Latium. Emanating
from a league of independent cities, they were not, like the Roman
colonies, tied by close bonds to the metropolis. [178] But the
confederacy once dissolved, these colonies were placed in the rank of
allied towns (_socii Latini_). The act (_formula_) which instituted them
was a sort of _treaty_ guaranteeing their franchise. [179]

Peopled at first by Latins, it was not long before these colonies
received Roman citizens who were induced by their poverty to exchange
their title and rights for the advantages assured to the colonists.
These did not figure on the lists of the censors. The _formula_ fixed
simply the tribute to pay and the number of soldiers to furnish. What
the colony lost in privileges it gained in independence. [180]

The isolation of the Latin colonies, placed in the middle of the enemy’s
territory, obliged them to remain faithful to Rome, and to keep watch on
the neighbouring peoples. Their military importance was at least equal
to that of the Roman colonies; they merited as well as these latter the
name of _propugnacula imperii_ and of _specula_,[181] that is, bulwarks
and watch-towers of the conquest. In a political point of view they
rendered services of a similar kind. If the Roman colonies announced to
the conquered people the majesty of the Roman name, their Latin sisters
gave an ever-increasing extension to the _nomen Latinum_,[182] that is,
to the language, manners, and whole civilisation of that race of which
Rome was but the first representative. The Latin colonies were
ordinarily founded to economise the colonies of Roman citizens, which
were charged principally with the defence of the coasts and the
maintenance of commercial relations with foreign people.

In making the privileges of the Roman citizen an advantage which every
one was happy and proud to acquire, the Senate held out a bait to all
ambitions; and this general desire, not to destroy the privilege, but to
gain a place among the privileged, is a characteristic trait of the
manners of antiquity. In the city not less than in the State, the
insurgents or discontented did not seek, as in our modern societies, to
overthrow, but to attain to. So every one, according to his position,
aspired to a legitimate object: the plebeians to enter into the
aristocracy, not to destroy it; the Italic peoples, to have a part in
the sovereignty of Rome, not to contest it; the Roman provinces to be
declared allies and friends of Rome, and not to recover their
independence.

The peoples could judge, according to their conduct, what lot was
reserved for them. The paltry interests of city were replaced by an
effectual protection, and by new rights often more precious, in the eyes
of the vanquished, than independence itself. This explains the facility
with which the Roman domination was established. In fact, that only is
destroyed entirely which may be replaced advantageously.

A rapid glance at the wars which effected the conquest of Italy will
show how the Senate made application of the principles stated above; how
it was skilful in profiting by the divisions of its adversaries, in
collecting its whole strength to overwhelm one of them; after the
victory in making it an ally; in using the aims and resources of that
ally to subjugate another people; in crushing the confederacies which
united the vanquished against it; in attaching them to Rome by new
bonds; in establishing military posts on all the points of strategic
importance; and, lastly, in spreading everywhere the Latin race by
distributing to Roman citizens a part of the lands taken from the enemy.

But, before entering upon the recital of events, we must cast a glance
upon the years which immediately preceded the pacification of Latium.


[Sidenote: Submission of Latium after the first Samnite War. ]

IV. During a hundred and sixty-seven years, Rome had been satisfied with
struggling against her neighbours to re-conquer a supremacy lost since
the fall of her kings. She held herself almost always on the defensive;
but, with the fifth century, she took the offensive, and inaugurated the
system of conquests continued to the moment when she herself succumbed.

In 411, she had, in concert with the Latins, combated the Samnites for
the first time, and commenced against that redoubtable people a
struggle which lasted seventy-two years, and which brought twenty-four
triumphs to the Roman generals. [183] Proud of having contributed to the
two great victories of Mount Gaurus and Suessula, the Latins, with an
exaggerated belief in their own strength and a pretension to equality
with Rome, went so far as to require that one of the two consuls, and
half of the senators, should be chosen from their nation. War was
immediately declared. The Senate was willing enough to have allies and
subjects, but it could not suffer equals; it accepted without scruple
the services of those who had just been enemies, and the Romans, united
with the Samnites, the Hernici, and the Sabellian peoples, were seen in
the fields of the Veseris and Trifanum, fighting against the Latins and
Volsci. Latium once reduced, it remained to determine the lot of the
vanquished. Livy reports a speech of Camillus which explains clearly the
policy recommended by that great citizen. “Will you,” he exclaims,
addressing the members of the assembly, “use the utmost rigour of the
rights of victory? You are masters to destroy all Latium, and to make a
vast desert of it, after having often drawn from it powerful succours.
Will you, on the contrary, after the example of your fathers, augment
the resources of Rome? Admit the vanquished among the number of your
citizens; it is a fruitful means of increasing at the same time your
power and your glory. ”[184] This last counsel prevailed.

The first step was to break the bonds which made of the Latin people a
sort of confederacy. All political communalty, all war on their own
account, all rights of _commercium_ and _connubium_, between the
different cities, were taken from them. [185]

The towns nearest Rome received the rights of city and suffrage. [186]
Others received the title of allies and the privilege of preserving
their own institutions, but they lost a part of their territory.